Posted on 06/14/2014 5:38:41 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
If Hillary Clinton´s much ballyhooed — and ultimately disastrous — national book tour is any indication, Democrats face some hard choices in the months ahead about whom they can run for president.
You can´t blame Clinton for scheduling her "Hillary Week" at a time when there was so much real news going on. But she certainly deserves blame for the fact that the only coverage she managed to get from her book tour was all bad.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
“Could the Democrats possibly coming to there realization that there is no ‘there’ there with her? If so, how is that reconciled juxtaposed against nearly 6 years of the Buffoon in Chief?”
The Dems are going to go with Castro from San Antonio with Cuomo as the VP choice. Clinton is not physically or emotionally capable of running a campaign for the next 2 1/2 years. And I don’t believe the media has it in them to continue the lie.
We really need to establish more rational qualifications for voting. These flatlined, nonsentient people should no more be allowed to vote than the subterranean residents at a cemetery, despite the long-time Chicago precedent.
Yeh......I agree with you.....that Hillary Clinton lady really does fill the pants suit to maximum. The Clinton woman must really dig chowing down on pasta, bread and them sweets!!! A few more months like this past week, and Ms. Clinton will outdue Chris Christie!!! Although, Mr. Christie has dropped eighty-five pounds. Hillary Clinton, alas is going the other way!!! IMHO....no POTUS for little Miss Piggy, Clinton!!!
The snippets of her oral book have been painful, but fun, to hear on the radio, though.
I think you’re right in a sense. Today’s big Democrat push is to legalize as many of the 20-50 million illegals in this country and convert them to legal Democrat voters.
They have absolutely no intrinsic connection with a fat, hagged out, worn out 60s bomb throwing radical-turned-false-icon like Hillary. She’s pathetically damaged and woefully ill-equipped to cogently and peacefully respond to a refereed dialogue with someone like Ted Cruz in a debate, for instance. Her only recourse now is the remnant of a vindictive roar that now really doesn’t carry any bite, and I think that media are beginning to suspect and challenge this.
The Democrats won’t put her up for candidacy in the end. They’ll pay deference and some obligatory honor to her, but you will see her fur get more bite marks the closer and closer we get to crunch time. She won’t be ‘it.’
A strong faction of the Dem Party messed up Ms Inevitable’s last trip to her coronation. They most likely are doing the same behind the scenes for 2016. There is a faction that does not like the Clintons. They are quite probably searching for another challenger.
In looking at election history, Democrats leading up to the 1976 election were divided, with no obvious front runner, once Ted Kennedy announced he wouldn’t run in ‘76.
There were many less than prominent Democrat candidates in the primaries, including Fred Harris, Mo Udall, Frank Church, a young Jerry Brown, and a former governor little known nationally, Jimmy Carter.
Uncommitted actually won the Iowa caucuses in 1976, but Jimmy Carter was 2nd, so he was the person who emerged as a front runner, and the rest is history. (unfortunately)
My point is, there are other Democrats who would jump into the race if Hillary falters or doesn’t run.
They could recycle Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Kerry, for example.
We could see Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Castro from San Antonio, Gov. O’Malley of Maryland in the primaries.
Another point to make is that people such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, were all little known nationally, until they decided to run for president, and became known in the primaries.
Already done. Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary seems to have a vindictive mean streak which other politicians don’t seem to have.
Remember back in ‘92, she said she could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, in such a tone of contempt for being questioned about her legal career while Bill was governor?
remember her screeching that we are Americans and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration?
Remember her angrily saying at the congressional hearing on Benghazi, “what difference does it make”???
The other day, she argued with the interviewer about when and how she evolved on favoring homosexual marriage.
None of these types of incidents help her public image, or make the media want to provide her favorable coverage.
Maybe they mean to trot out Cory Booker.
The damn thing is 656 pages. I just looked at a copy at Walmart...it is huge. I looked at a few pages before putting it back on the shelf (backwards, of course) and all it talked about was policy from the past...dry as hell.
She is pathetic.
I’ve heard that there are a good number of Democrats who don’t like the Clintons.
And they see Clinton running for president as interrupting the presidential ambitions of other candidates.
You figure if Hillary runs and wins in 2016, then she also will run for re-election in 2020. That means the next time the Democrat nomination is open would be 2024, ten years from now. There are other Democrat operatives who don’t want to see the Clintons suck all the oxygen out of the room, preventing them from running for the next 10 years.
Exactly. She relies like before on intimidation. Back then, though, the intimidation was backed up by power.
She is effectively powerless save the credence and respect media now gives her (or at least used-to, anyway). She is now constantly challenged and questioned about this and that, and her only recourse is a bark that has no bite.
If she can’t learn to really speak Spanish and convince the millions of new formerly-illegal voters she can bake flour tortillas on a sunbaked flat rock, she has no place in future politics. She can promise them the world (actually, OUR world), but the fact is that Obama is already doing that - and accomplishing it.
She’s old.....old news. That’s the new ‘meme’.
Cory Booker is a rising star in the Democrat party.
He and Castro from San Antonio are on the short list of VP candidates, and could well decide to run in the primaries also.
Both Booker and Castro are the right ethnicities, shall we say.
It’s quite possible that the Kerry/Edwards ticket of 2004 will be the last time that Democrats have two white men on their presidential ticket. In this era of identity politics and celebrating diversity and all that, Democrats will see candidates who “look like America”, to use that phrase, so that we have to have black, women, Latino candidates for pres. and VP from now on. If a white man is the pres. candidate, then he will face intense pressure to pick someone from the women, black, Latino group as his running mate.
Hillary and Chelsea have similar job qualifications and expertise - - both are related to a powerful political man and carry his name.... Maybe dems will run Roger next...
NBC and the Democrat Party... two starry-eyed 'peas in a pod' losers.
Maybe Al Gore or John Kerry might make a run again. Kerry will be without a job after Obama’s gone.
“Hillary Week” or Hillary wreck?
NBC and the Democrat Party... two starry-eyed 'peas in a pod' losers.
The Democrats have won the last two Presidential elections by running a candidate that people felt sorry for. The Democrats did that on purpose. They will keep running that same play until it doesn’t work anymore.
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.