Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

March 25 (Bloomberg) — Last week, when Hillary Clinton released a video announcing her support for gay marriage, Twitter went wild.

It was totally expected — her husband and daughter took the same position months earlier — and didn’t have as much political import as Ohio Republican senator Rob Portman’s announcement this month that he now favors same-sex marriage.

The rules are different for Hillary Clinton. No non-incumbent in the history of contemporary U.S. presidential politics ever looked so formidable three years before an election.

Ask almost any Democrat and the automatic assumption is that Clinton will be the party’s 2016 nominee; a top West Virginia Democrat predicts she would carry that state, which President Barack Obama lost 62 percent to 35 percent in 2012. Ask most Republicans who has the best shot to be the 45th president, and they’ll acknowledge it is Clinton.

In conversations last week with more than a half dozen Clinton associates — people who know her very well politically or personally — there was a consensus: She’s more likely to run than not. The presidential bug hasn’t left her and she passionately wants to see a woman president. Still, her candidacy isn’t a foregone conclusion; those who say they know, don’t; and there are several pressing questions outstanding.

First is her health. She just went through a fairly serious illness in December that sidelined her for a month. She developed a blood clot, an ailment she had suffered at least once before. Doctors who stress they have no knowledge of her particular condition say a pattern of clots is worrisome.

She’ll turn 69 a week before the 2016 election — younger than Ronald Reagan in 1980 or John McCain in 2008, and questions about her age reflect sexism. But questions about whether she can still bring her extraordinary vibrancy to any political task don’t.

Then there’s the health of the country in a few years. If the economy continues to improve and the world is relatively stable, her credentials to succeed and expand on Obama’s record, to build a more prosperous middle class and enhance America’s global standing, will be potent.

If the world economy deteriorates and U.S. unemployment hits double digits again or if there’s a conflict in the Middle East or on the Korean Peninsula, all bets are off.

Over the past 60 years, only once, in 1988, has an incumbent party been given more than eight consecutive years in the White House.

Finally, what did she learn from the 2008 primary run? It was a disaster. She sought to inherit the nomination rather than capture it. She ran as a tough, hawkish, establishment candidate when most Democrats wanted an anti-war, anti-establishment nominee. Her campaign dissolved into chaos as she stubbornly refused to change. Ultimately, she dumped her campaign manager and the chief strategist of the flawed effort, but it was too late.

  • The 2016 election is for Hillary to lose. Concerns over her health and her age sound hollow when we consider Reagan’s health and age when he was elected. Clinton-Warren 2016

    • TheSkalawag929

      I agree with half of your 2016 ticket choice. I would like to keep Ms. Warren in the Senate. Not because she wouldn’t make a fine Vice President but more because I think she would be a better champion for the people in the Senate advocating for pocketbook issues important to them.

  • WhutHeSaid

    2016 is shaping up to be another historical election. If Clinton can remain viable until then under the ever-increasing right-wing attacks that are bound to occur (remember the 1990’s), and Bill can refrain from any public embarrassment — Clinton has a real chance to shatter that glass ceiling. With Warren as a Vice Presidential pick, it would be a Democratic dream team. And unless the GOP finally rejects the ridiculous Tea Party antics and somehow manages to stop hating on everyone except old, white males — the pair could be unstoppable.

    • TheSkalawag929

      What do you think of a Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro ticket?

      • WhutHeSaid

        I’m not sure if Castro is really ready for prime time yet, but it is an interesting possibility. I guess either ticket (Clinton/Warren or Clinton/Castro) would be a historic Presidential ticket. If the GOP is still contemplating it’s collective navel when 2016 rolls around either one may well be unbeatable.

        • TheSkalawag929

          I agree that Castro may not be ready for prime time as President but if elected as Vice President that would put him in a prime position to get ready for 2024 at the latest and 2020 if Hillary only goes for one term. I could see Democrats controlling the White House for all of the foreseeable future. It would be a good antidote to republicans controlling one or both houses of Congress.

          • WhutHeSaid

            I have to say that after the last few years of GOP hate directed at both women and Latinos, either ticket would be a satisfying little bow to tie around the well-deserved public repudiation of Republican foibles. I would support either ticket with the information that I now have. Only time will tell if Hillary even plans to run, though to me this is a ‘no brainer’.

          • TheSkalawag929

            100% with you on that.

        • jnsgraphic

          Hillary will be a easy win with either Warren or Castro on the ticket, even more so with Castro if Rubio s in the mix… even the Latinos dont trust Rubio!

      • gahoof

        How about a Hillary Clinton / Elizabeth Warren ticket?

        • TheSkalawag929

          I would support it.
          But I would like to keep Ms. Warren in the Senate where she is more desperately needed and I think she would be more effective there than as Vice President.
          She would be actively working on legislation and kicking much Wall Street and banker booty.

        • JDavidS

          That would be fantastic…even if only to see fat Rush have a stroke!

      • OMG…I was just going to mention this myself….AWESOME..

        • TheSkalawag929

          Great minds think alike. Now let’s work to make it reality.

          Democrats from 2014 And Beyond!!!!

      • lana ward

        Hillary wasn’t good enough for you running against that piece of black. What makes her any better now??

        • jnsgraphic

          Lana, why s it always about race? Are you that threatened by an educated person of color with power. What a sad day if you ‘racists’ got your way… the rich would have gotten richer and the poor that much poorer, backstreet abortions, immigrants looked down upon, gays persecuted, social security living adjustments eliminated, inadequate health care and Wall St free to gamble and corrupt the marketplace again. Its time for you and the rest that think like you to suffocate yourselves with your white hoods already. When President Obama Won, So Did AMERICA’S FUTURE. GOD BLESS OUR PRESIDENT & GOD BLESS AMERICA! HILLARY 2016!!!

          • lana ward

            Why is Hillary good enough now when she wasn’t in 1008???

          • jnsgraphic

            Why was Romney good enough in 2013 when he lost to McCain in 2008? Or Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, but beat Humphrey in 1968? Considering the time, she is the best choice and will be an easy win if the ‘Greedy Old Pharts’ don’t change their tune, start listening to the American people vs their corporate backers, and put ‘ALL’ PEOPLE FIRST ~NOT JUST THE RICH.

          • 1008? Damn, you really are backward!

          • You Are One Lying Ignorant Maggot!! Waaaa Waaaaa Waaa Waaaaa Go Eat Some More Cat Do Do Like You Been Doing!! Waaaa Waaaa Waaa

          • in 1008 we were not even born, maybe that is the reason why she wasn’t good enough……………LOL

          • lana ward

            She isn’t good enough. She’s a communist just like that thing that’s in there right now

          • TheSkalawag929

            “…like that thing that’s in there right now.”

            Why do you hate the President so much that you can’t even acknowledge that he is a human being.
            Hatefulness deserves no respect.

          • lana ward

            Traitors deserve no respect. All in Obamas’ regeme are traitors!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            Is it because those that don’t believe exactly as you do must be considered traitors?
            Or some other stupid wrong-wing ideological zealotry?

          • lana ward

            How do you ever expect to be informed when all you believe is what the MSM says?? You won’t.

          • TheSkalawag929

            You are a sad little small minded person.

          • lana ward

            You listen to the MSM, you’re the sad little small minded person. They only report what they want you to hear

          • TheSkalawag929

            I use many sources of information to shape my opinion. Mainly I try to find place of origin to form my opinion. Such as a direct quote of the speaker or the actual text of a law or article.
            Unlike you who uses the Glenn Becks, the Bill O’Rielys and other right-wing talking heads to tell you what to think,

          • lana ward

            They are right with what they are saying, I know more about Obama than you do!! Did you know Obama wants banks to give loans to people who have bad credit?? We are still in the mess 5 years after banks gave loans to those who couldn’t pay it back!!! WTF does he think he’s doing???

          • TheSkalawag929

            You only think you know more than someone else about any subject.
            Actually the Obama administration wants banks to give housing loans and refinance loans to people who have had their credit rating weakened by the recession.
            Personally I don’t agree with the move either. I think that there are better ways to help people afford homes. Such as investing in infrastructure while interest rate are at an all time low.

        • WhutHeSaid

          Satan may be smiling on you now over all of your hate, but that won’t stop you from feeling the business end of his pitchfork when the time comes. I hope you will be ready!

          • lana would nost likely love to get stuck by something, anything. That;s why she’s a cat lady.

        • Sadly for you, but happily for us…you will never know! You won’t even know what hit you and you will still be making excuses for your loss in 2016!

      • I Think Clinton And Warren Sound Better!! But I’m Okay With Anybody But A GOP/Tea Party KKK American Taliban Members!!!

      • Dana Es

        I thought of the same combination. Ideally, Hillary for two terms, followed by Julian for two terms. Am I hoping too high?!

        • TheSkalawag929

          Of course not. We can make happen if we try.

  • latebloomingrandma

    I guess I’m getting more cynical as I get older. I think the Republicans kept harping on the Benghazi tragedy so they would have something to use to beat up Hillary , should she run. They’ve pretty much beat up her and her husband for everything else in their past. The “old” material may not work the next time around.

    • All she has to do is counter by asking them who was in the White House and in control of Congress on 9/11, and all the terrorist attacks that followed. The focus on Benghazi highlights how desperate the GOP is to find something to counter their record in the Bush era.

      • Independent1

        I would hope that if the GOP brings up Benghazi again, someone in the Democratic party brings out the list of attacks Bush years that you noted. Here they are:

        Bush Years there were 12 attacks with more than 3,300 deaths including more than 3,000 Americans:

        2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 Americans killed.
        2002 – US Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.
        2003 – International Compound,Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .
        2003 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan,2 killed.
        2004 – US Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.
        2004 – US Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.
        2006 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including US diplomat.
        2006 – US Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and13 wounded.
        2007 – Grenade launched into the US Embassyin Athens.
        2008 – US Embassy, Serbia, attacked bythousands, no one killed.
        2008 – US Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.
        2008 – US Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

        And if that doesn’t work, they can list the 12 attacks that occurred during Bush Sr’s 4 years when 60 people were killed. And the 7 attacks that occurred during the Reagan years when 31 people were killed, not including the 241 marines that died while sleeping in their barracks in Lebanon.
        The 4 years under Obama were without question the safest for our overeas personnel in the past 40 plus years.

        • latebloomingrandma

          Pretty comprehensive list. Other than 9/11, does anyone remember McCain and Graham out there grilling everyone and holding up nominations until they get to the bottom of all these deaths?

        • TheSkalawag929

          Independent1 that’s no fair. You’re clouding the issues with facts.

    • TheSkalawag929

      No doubt they will try to use it. They tried in the Senate hearings and you saw her response when they did. She will backhand them into tomorrow and she will do it with style and grace.

    • Of course, no one in the GOP realizes it, but no one outside the GOP gives a rat’s a55 about Benghazi — and that GOP may be down to 15% of the electorate by 2016 at the rate they are currently disintegrating.

  • Rick2101

    I am somewhat a cynic, when it comes to politics, I do not think America will elect another non-white male in 2016. I do believe Hillary would be an excellent president, if elected. Wining the Democratic nomination during the primary is not a guarantee, the mudslinging within the party will be nothing compared to a national campaign where it will be a very desperate, and no holds barred attack on all of the Clinton baggage. All politicians have baggage but the Clinton name brings a very public life to the political table.

    I believe a Clinton run for the White House will cement every extreme right-wing group in America into a solid voting bloc with vast resources, committed on destroying her and putting all liberals in their place, which is under their thumb. As the writer of this article says, “Democrats want to fall in line”, perhaps going with a white male this time around might make for a smoother transition and a better chance to hold on to the White House. Pushing for the first female president right after the first black president will be too much for many Americans to handle, I am a cynic after all.

    As I said in the beginning, I believe she would make an excellent President so I truly hope I am wrong in thinking she cannot win in a national election for the White House.

    • tigerakabj

      If the same right wing couldn’t take down President Obama with Ayers, Wright, bittergate, Benghazi, bad economy, Obamacare, they won’t take down Hillary. At this point people are so used to their tripe that it is just background noise. They don’t pick their battles and they’ve cried wolf so many times that people now just roll their eyes and say, “There they go again. We’ve heard all this before. It amounted to nothing.”
      The GOP’s credibility has been wittled down to the hardcore supporters who would never vote Democrat under any circumstances. With everybody else their reputation is in the crapper and attacking Hillary will not only lift her up, but push them down even more. Their war on women also a nation of fired-up females ready to pull the lever for not just Hillary, but the next round of female politicians that represent their interests.
      The GOP is scared of Hillary even more than in 2008 for these reasons. And I really do think that she, Bill and Barack will team up once again b/c all 3 have a score to settle with the GOP.

    • TheSkalawag929

      I agree that the Clinton name carries a lot of baggage but I think that she will have more than enough support around her that it will be of no consequence.

      You’re right that the extreme right-wing will do EVERYTHING they can to destroy her but in the end it will be viewed a desperate attempt by a desperate party to win an election by any means necessary.

      Yes Democrats will fall in line in 2016 but only because they have already fallen in love. And as far as electing the first woman to be President after having elected and reelected the first black president being a push I think that kind of thinking is a mistake. My thought is it will be a DEMAND by the people that she be elected.

    • whodatbob

      You offer a realistic view and I agree. Hillary would be an a strong canidate, run an unbelivablly good campain, be an excellent President, but lose the election. Two minority presidents in a row will not fly. In 1960 we elected our frist minority Catholic President JFK. It took 48 years before another minority would win. Let us hope it does not take 48 years, but not 2016. To win in 2016 will require a strong white protestant canidate.

      • TheSkalawag929

        I disagree with you about the election of Hillary. It took 48 years to elect another minority because after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 there were no viable minority candidate to appeare on the scene, although
        Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton were intriguing prospects prior Barack and Hillary they were not truly viable.

        And if you think that the enthusiasm for Hillary has dissipated you are sadly
        mistaken. It has only been marginally contained.

        Then if you add to the mix the growing Latino constituency in this country don’t overlook Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa and Julian Castro as a rising stars in the Democratic party.

  • I love the mention of the reverse of “Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line” LOL And, Republicans need to stop talking as though they’re still going to be a party in 2016… in a four-month period from the beginning of November last year through the end of February, the GOP lost one-third of its membership (33% to 22%). At that rate of loss, there’d only be 2.9% GOP by the 2014 midterms and nearly extinct by the November 2016 elections. Right now, I’d say that the GOP need to worry more about survival than anything else. Also, in case the GOP hasn’t received the memo: if your policies suck (and they do, big-time), it doesn’t matter HOW NICELY you foist those policies, they still suck. Thus, the reason that the GOP need to immediately jettison their governing philosophy, “screw the poor, middle class, elderly, disabled, women, children and minorities, the wealthy and big corporations need more money and power (aka, fascism)!”

  • JDavidS

    Assuming no missteps between now and then, she’ll be almost unstoppable. And she’ll have “the Big Dawg” in her corner. Love him or hate him, he’s a force to be reckoned with. (And personally, I like the guy.)

  • Would love to see her run………maybe Rubio for VP!

    • latebloomingrandma

      Rubio’s a TP Republican!

      • lana ward

        Hillary Clinton is a communist, just like that piece of black-both studied Saul Alinsky

        • Yawn!!! My goodness…The right wing propaganda and ignorance just never stops, does it?

    • Siegfried Heydrich

      Ummm . . . how about Joaquin Castro, instead? You know, a Democrat?

    • Rubio?!!!! A tea bagger Republican who’s only claim to fame is his very unconvincing recitation of right wing talking points as the Republican answer to the SOU address — and maybe the only Hispanic in the nation that couldn’t carry the Hispanic vote — If you are suggesting this to even the playing field so the Republicans have a prayer, maybe — otherwise leave him to the tea baggers!

  • And what better campaign manager could she have: “First Husband” of the US =FHOUS

  • The best defense against your detractors, against your persecutors, and against those who would spitefully try to defeat you— the best revenge is success. All Mrs. Clinton need to do is to be herself. Her works speaks volumes for her. Though she may have failed in her presidential run, she went on to do great things, the same as she had been doing for all of her career. Though she started out as a young, “Goldwater Democrat”, her brilliance made it clear she was in the wrong arena and she moved on to head the committee for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. It wasn’t Bill Clinton that Newt Gingrich and Republicans were angry with. They sought revenge against Mrs. Clinton for taking down Saint Nixon. Mrs. Clinton would do great things for America, and with Elizabeth Warren as her VP, miraculous things to bring America to full recovery.

  • Bestofit342

    She is much to sickly to run… and her lies on Benghazi do not make her Presidential material. More Clinton liars in the white house? sorry, but no thanks.