Posted on 03/13/2015 5:34:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The controversy over Hillary Clinton's emails and her unconvincing press conference at the United Nations have gotten many Democrats and others thinking the unthinkable: Clinton may not be the Democrats' 2016 nominee for president. And it has many asking the question -- scary for Democrats -- of who else could be.
It's not a strong field. Vice President Joe Biden is 72 and has low poll ratings. Elizabeth Warren inspires the Democratic left, but says she's not running -- perhaps for fear of exposure of her dubious claim, when seeking prestigious law school jobs, of Cherokee ancestry.
Others are even less likely. Bernie Sanders, age 73, is a self-described socialist. The interesting Jim Webb is out of sync with an increasingly leftist party. Martin O'Malley couldn't get his lieutenant governor elected to succeed him in a 62 percent Obama state.
California Gov. Jerry Brown is 76 and turns 78 in 2016. Andrew Cuomo lives with a woman not his wife -- not a problem in New York, but not helpful for a national candidate.
Democrats have a weak field in part because of their poor showing in recent statewide elections. And there's another problem. The geographically clustered Obama coalition -- blacks, Hispanics (in some states), gentry liberals -- tends to elect officeholders with little incentive to compile records that would make them competitive in target states and capable of winning crossover votes.
That's not just a problem facing contemporary Democrats. It has historic roots. The Democratic Party has always been a collection of out-people, who are seen by themselves and others as not typically American. In the 19th century, that meant white Southerners and Catholic immigrants. Today, it means the Obama core groups.
When these stick together, they can form powerful national majorities. When they come into conflict, the party can be a disorderly rabble.
From the Civil War to World War II, it was generally assumed that neither Southerners nor Catholics were viable presidential candidates. No Democratic nominee from 1864 to 1944 resided in a state that had slavery in 1860. The only Catholic nominee, the talented Al Smith, lost much of the Democratic base. The only Democrats elected president then were Protestant governors of New York and New Jersey.
That changed after World War II. Strong presidential candidates appeared from different parts of the Democratic coalition. Each rose above stereotype. John Kennedy was an Irish Catholic with the demeanor of an English lord. Lyndon B. Johnson was a Texan who passed civil rights bills. Hubert Humphrey was an Upper Midwest progressive with a cheerful temperament.
Jimmy Carter hung a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. in the Georgia Capitol. Bill Clinton combined Arkansas roots with East Coast education and connections.
Both Carter and Clinton were nominated when Democrats feared that more openly liberal candidates were unelectable. But over the last 20 years, when Democrats have won the popular vote in five of six presidential elections, Democratic primary voters have come to insist on liberal purity.
Democratic nominees, not just for president but for statewide office, are required not just to tolerate but to celebrate abortion. They must be willing if not eager to raise tax rates. They must back racial quotas and preferences. They must mutter the catechism that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind.
Such candidates have not fared well beyond Democrats' demographic clusters, especially since voters have seen the handiwork of the Obama administration. Republicans now hold majorities of governorships, Senate and House seats and control of state legislatures. Target states in presidential races have produced few if any Democratic officeholders competitive in presidential races.
That will undoubtedly change sooner or later. The Democratic Party, dating to the 1832 national convention engineered by Martin Van Buren to nominate Andrew Jackson for a second term, is the oldest political party in the world. It has had fallow periods -- some rather long -- in the past, and has come back to win again.
But that doesn't seem likely to help the Democrats in 2016 if Hillary Clinton should drop out or if her most recently revealed shenanigans -- the boodle from foreign potentates, the $200,000 university speeches, the home-brew email system -- should render her unelectable.
Democrats have been most successful when their national leaders pursued policies appealing to different parts of the party's diverse coalitions. But President Obama's coalition and policies are almost entirely of the political left. That's left his party with few, if any, candidates (except perhaps Clinton?) who can duplicate his electoral success.
Obama himself is going to destroy Hitlery politically.
You looked old and tired and confused in the recent news conference in which you tried to defend your actions in your email scandal.
If you can't handle this email mess, how in the world are you going to make the hard decisions you will have to make if you are somehow elected president of the United States? I don't believe that you can ever again govern effectively at your age and with dwindling decision-making skills. Sorry.
Again, Hillary. It is time for you to face reality: You no longer seem to have long-term 24 hour energy and the quick decision-making skills to be president of the United States. Sorry.
You have had a great run and a great life. But it is time for you to move on. It will be best for the country in the long run if you bow out gracefully and move on.
The money line, right there. Amen X10. Liberals aren't mentally wired to view issues through an American point of view. Like their communist brethren from the Soviet era, their lifeblood for all things is their beloved party. The party to them shall be First, Foremost and Forevermore. Nothing takes a higher precedence to them.
Also, Hillary, it’s quite clear your cognitive abilities and level of energy are nowhere near what they were just six years ago. You attributed “tiredness” to your spectacularly wild stories of having dodged bullets on the Sarajevo IAP tarmac, and being “dead broke” upon leaving the White House. How do you suppose you will fend off “tiredness” through the rigors of a long, bedraggling, 18-month Presidential campaign.
Oh, hell.. what am I saying..
Never mind, Hillary... go ahead and run. Your impending meltdown from the bright, harsh light of continual scrutiny will be the stuff of legend. I just hope I have the chance to DVR that awesome event.
There is pure evil written on that face
In general I respect Barone, but in this case he is wrong.
There is a surging tide of pent-up Economic Populism out there on the horizon. The Fake Indian is the IDEAL candidate to harness that and ride it to victory.
She married a man who reached the pinnacle of political success, two term governor, two term POTUS. Not enough for them, she buys the Senate seat in NY, then strikes a deal with the winner of the D nomination and secures more power and money this time playing sec of state. They both make millions of dollars every year giving 60 minute speeches, remember the speech receivers, pay for travel and lodging! And now they have a billion dollar philanthropy organization to buy just about everybody off in the entire world. Why do they have to have the Presidency again?
Please for God's sake go away, you too Bush's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.