The editors of Bloomberg, getting a little ahead of themselves, speculate on who the Democratic candidate for president will be if it isn’t Hillary Clinton?
At the moment, four Democrats are playing presidential footsie. Vice President Joe Biden has visited Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina this year and indicated that if he were to run, it would be as the “sticking with what works†candidate. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is positioning himself as a bit more liberal than Clinton without all the baggage, a fresh face from (slightly) outside of Washington.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is an independent who calls himself a Democratic socialist, crusades against the influence of money in politics, and appeals to the party’s ideological Ben & Jerry’s-eating activists. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb is a populist who is as critical of Wall Street as he is of foreign military intervention, and his attacks on affirmative action and defense of gun rights speak to white voters who have been deserting the party — or feeling deserted by it.
Others could yet emerge. Senator Elizabeth Warren might change her mind, and the Al Gore chatter has already begun.
The field should be diverse.
Democrats may need to decide between a weakened candidate and a weak candidate.
Simply put, Hillary has a solid political machine and gobs of money to execute the type of presidential run that would overwhelm any of her republican rivals. It has been said that the money already in place, in the Clinton coffers, is equal to or greater than the myriad of republican candidates’ funding put together.
The irony in all this is the consistent rhetoric from dems who always reference the moneybag culture of the republican party — using the Koch Brothers as the #1 evil manipulators of campaigns. However, when unbiased research is done it’s actually the dems who rake in far more cash from less underlined but highly funded sources — rich Silicon Valley/Hollywood donors, Labor Unions, Wall Street/Multinational Corporations, an array of wealthy liberally-controlled foundations, Soros and his many political fronted operations like Move-on, etc.
In fact wasn’t it John McCain who wanted to set financial boundaries to the 2008 election, via the Campaign Finance Reform perimeters? And, wasn’t it Obama who opted out of that because of the massive amounts of money available to him? Hmmmmm….
Hillary is currently set to mount the same kind of billion-plus dollar run, which will include sophisticated obfuscation of her email travails, as she courageously defines herself as a “woman” supporting income equality and equal pay for women. All the while, muted will be the enormous speaking fees banked by her and the less than equal salary that has been noted she pays her own female staff. Oh well….hypocrisy rules these days.
Democrats may need to decide between a weakened candidate and a weak candidate.
I presume you mean Hillary for the former and for the latter. I disagree with that assessment on two fronts.
First, Hillary _IS_ a weak candidate. Despite massive advantages in 2008 she got put away by a back-bencher state Senator whose main accomplishment had been to give one decent speech in 2004 on a topic about which he had no “skin in the game”, politically. Why think she would be any better this time around? It’s not like she isn’t a known quantity, with a host of known issues. That host of issues has only grown since 2008, while her strengths have, if anything, diminished.
Second, a nomination process and the general campaign to follow can build up a candidate. Examples include our last three Presidents, none of whom were truly national figures at this point in their Presidential election campaigns. Clinton had been angling for it since he was a boy, and W was born into the life, but as far as voters were concerned, they were nothing. And Obama had a flimsier reputation and resume than either of those two, and indeed of any of those mentioned above as possible Hillary challengers.
And let’s look at some of the figures that had national reputations going into general campagins: Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole. They all look weak in retrospect, and a couple looked weak at the time (Dole, Kerry), but they were also considered the “best” and most logical choices for their parties at the time.
No, campaigns can build a candidate, and if the candidate can’t be built up, only then can you judge them to be weak. Hillary had her chance and failed. She’s Romney, but without the personal accomplishments, and with a history of sleaze and getting by solely because her husband was President.
… as she courageously defines herself as a “woman .
LMAO, nice one, jan!