Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, October 23, 2016

Washington (AFP) — Former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton will officially launch her 2016 presidential bid — her second White House run — at the weekend, several media outlets reported Friday.

The announcement by Clinton — who would be the clear Democratic frontrunner — is likely to come Sunday via video and social media, the New York Daily News reported, citing a source close to Clinton’s campaign.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper, also citing a source familiar with the campaign, said Clinton would send a tweet on Sunday at noon (1600 GMT) declaring her candidacy.

She will then send out a video and email announcement, the Guardian said, before launching a tour beginning in the key state of Iowa, the first to vote in the primary season that starts in early 2016.

Spokespeople for Clinton and the Ready for Hillary organization did not comment.

Unlike when she first ran for president in 2008, Clinton’s path to clinching the Democratic nomination appears relatively clear.

The 67-year-old wife of former president Bill Clinton leads opinion polls among Democrats, some 60 percent of whom say they would vote for her in the primaries, according to the website RealClearPolitics.

Two other potential candidates — Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden — have not yet said they intend to run.

Though Clinton has not yet officially announced her candidacy, her supporters and campaign teams have for years been preparing the ground for an eventual run.

The Ready for Hillary group has raised more than $14 million to support her, coming from 135,000 donors. Clinton also can draw on a database of 3.6 million supporters.

But the last few weeks have been challenging for Clinton, after it was revealed that she used a private email address when she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Detailed examinations of donations from foreign states and businesses to the Clinton Foundation when she was secretary of state have also raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Photo: World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • Carolyn1520

    Let the games begin in earnest. The mouth breathers have their “impeachable acts” lists ready. They just crossed out Obama’s name and put in Hillary. 🙂

    • Easy enough to do. . They both are not fit to be leaders.

  • FT66

    Thanks HRC for clearing the cloud which was moving around our eyes. Now we are sure you are in to win it. One good advise though you didn’t ask for it. Avoid all interviews with Fox News. They are there to get you. Remember how they carried the Benghazi issue, how they have carried the e-mail issue. Don’t wait to learn the hard way as Pres. Obama did, after the horrible first Fox News interview with Bret Beiar. It was the interview he will never forget. From that moment he dished them out. You have to do the same. They are not there for you. When you hear them saying: “we need to talk more on HRC emails, her rating are going down”. These are words which came from Megyn Kelly’s mouth. HRC, you have nothing to lose if you will totally avoid them. Pres. Obama by avoiding them, didn’t stop him winning the first election and get re-elected. You can also do it.

    • mike
      • charleo1

        “The numbers,” from several sources have predicted Barack Obama’s imminent demise since 2007. Hillary Clinton remains the most popular politician in the Country. And this is before all the Right Wing Presidential book pushers have had the opportunity to fully air out their braying maws about what kind of President they wouldn’t be. Not an military cutter, like Rand Paul, or another RINO, big government Bush. Absolutely no foreign born Presidents! Sorry Senator Cruz. Likewise to the Right Wing poster boy for illegal amnesty, Rubio. You are correct though, trustworthiness is going to be golden, in their quest to become President. And after 16 months of hearing these corporate hugging mudslingers go at each other. There won’t be enough of it left in the GOP base to elect any of them dog catcher. So get your popcorn ready Sonny Boy, this is going to be one hilarious campaign!

        • mike

          More nothingness from you.
          Popular only from the left. Well known, yes. Popular, no!!!
          Did you mean “Hillarious Campaign”. She is a poor campaigner and that won’t change.
          She is far from warm and fuzzy, she is stale(even Obama said people were looking for that new car smell), even democratic party leaders are concerned about her conduct and viability.
          What I see is a party that looks old and tired, with just one candidate, no newness or excitement, not a great place in this new world.
          Yes, as I said before, 2016 will be fun.

          • charleo1

            More brilliance from you, though! This from a Party where, 1/3 of its constituents think the, “new World,” is only 5000 years old, and science is the devil’s work. Another, 1/3 who think foreign aid is running up the debt. And the final, 1/3 that are stealing the Country blind. You’re right, of course! Where is the downside on any of that?

          • mike

            Yawning!! More diarrhea of the brain I see, not unusual from you though.
            Now aren’t you the one that didn’t know the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending by the Federal govt.? Or was indenpendent1? Oh well, that type of knowledge fits you both.

          • charleo1

            Yeah I know, you still take the technical line that military spending is not mandatory. Here in the Country that spends 5X more on the military than the next 10 combined, year in year out. Common sense will tell you, it’s mandatory, if it can’t be cut. And it can’t. Nevertheless, you know what I’m saying about the Right being a ideological, ignorant mess, is exactly correct. But you’ve got your pride. You can’t defend them, they can’t defend themselves. So, I do understand the sarcasm.

          • mike

            Now you are just being ridiculous!!! Not surprised!!!

      • FT66

        Keep pleasing yourself Mike. What I can assure you her number will shoot up again, after she announces her candidancy tomorrow. If you think am wrong, please feel free to contact me again after the new polls are taken again.

        • mike

          What you and your ilk just can’t get straight in your head is the fact it won’t be the democrats or republicans that will determine 2016, it will be the independents.
          Hillary has lost the trustworthiness and honesty factor at this point so far and if you think that will becoming back, keep smoking whatever it is.
          She will be pelted with being above the law, held to another standard than ordinary Americans, privileged, etc, about not relinquishing her server.
          Will she get a bump? Absolutely!!
          Foreign Affairs will play more of a role in 2016 and she will have her poor performance as Sec. of State, Obama doctrine, to deal with.
          2016 will be fun to watch

          • charleo1

            You see Democrats as old? And tired? As opposed to the Grand Old Plutocrats, Theocrats, and Crazies? A World where the most radical political coalition since the Klan joined the abolitionists, are going to win over middle of the roaders? Sure! When the Plutocrats get out of bed with the Communist Chinese, the Theocrats agree with Gay Rights. And the Baggers decide to cut their own Medicare to stop Socialism. As your posts show, they can fool some of the people all of the time. But they can’t fool near enough of them to elect a President any of the time.

          • mike

            Just look at the top of your party, an old 60+ women, with stale ideas, who is the only one running because of the Clinton machine forcing others out. “Her turn because she is a women” and Bill’s enabler. Then look at the much younger Republicans at fed., state and local levels. Youth is on the side of republicans.
            I see you are still using those stupid, ignorant adjectives. So funny!!!

          • charleo1

            Those stupid ignorant adjectives are the stock, and trade of the of the Cons running the, screw the blue collar Party. It’s what they call the Liberals to excite, and frighten their low IQ base into voting for them. They, the Liberals/Communist/Socialists, are going to give away what little you got now, to the Blacks, Mexicans, and low life slackers, that refuse to work for a living! Isn’t that how it goes? Vote for us, we’ll cut ’em off, and send ’em packing. And you can have your freedom, liberty, and we’ll take you White Country back from them Liberals in the Federal Government! Now, what man or woman with half an idea of what’s going on, or their their head’s not shoved up some televangelist’s rear end, is going to fall for that crap?

          • mike

            Blah! Blah! Blah!
            You really are laughable!!

          • dpaano

            Youth maybe, but certainly not brains or experience!!! I’ll go with old and experienced over young and dumb!

          • mike

            Heck, you didn’t even know Karl Rove was not Secretary of State, so why would I think you were capable of knowing who had brains and didn’t. She has zero experience and the one time she had leadership, she got nothing accomplished, broke the rules to fit her, destroyed govt. documents she was not entitled, etc..

  • Carolyn1520

    See what I mean? The mouth breathers who frequent this site are sharpening their little forked tongues. Probably because they are short on wit and intelligence. Nothing there to sharpen.

    • charleo1

      Well sure! As Bill Maher quipped in his monologue, “Hillary used her E-Mail to kill all them people in Benghazi!” Or, Hillary’s husband accepting money for his charity from Saudi Arabia, while she was Secretary of State, might be seen as a conflict of interest. That is unless one were to consider the 100 million dollars, Sheldon Adelson is donating to a Republican Party, determined to go to war with Iran, at the behest of the Likud Party hardliners Adelson supports in Israel. When in fact, the entire political process in this Country has deteriorated into one giant, conflict of interest. The problem here, is this false conflation in the press of one to the other. In a business constantly obsessed with ratings, and a desire to sensationalize the trivial, while ignoring the potentially devastating. To draw out, and even up, an otherwise lopsided contest. In a process in which they stand to reap billions. The truth is, Hillary Clinton has been a fixture on the National stage for 25 years. She is also, thanks to the Republicans, and their always willing press corp, one of the most heavily investigated, unfailingly exonerated, people in all of American history. And I think Americans get that. She is also one of the most compelling leaders, and iconic women in politics today. And Americans also get that, and are pleased about that. And perhaps more important than anything else one could say about, “Hillary.” (The first name is all you need.) They like her.

  • dtgraham

    I don’t think there’s much doubt that Elizabeth Warren is trying to send a strong message to Hillary about what the progressive left expects and wants out of her.

    Warren is on every talk show any more. She seems to be everywhere. She always expresses all of the things that she believes need to happen in the country. When queried by the host on which of those things she thinks that Hillary should focus on more, she always replies—‘all of them’. It’s as if Elizabeth Warren is clearly hinting that Clinton needs to up her game as a progressive.

    She may be waiting for signals from Hillary that she’s taking this seriously and is talking up Warren’s ideas on the campaign trail. If she doesn’t see this happening, I’m wondering if she’ll reconsider running herself? How about Clinton-Warren on the same ticket?