http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...travel-democrats-republicans-column/26415031/ I'm generally slow to jump on scandal bandwagons, especially when they're driven by political opponents, because they frequently find a lot of smoke but not fire (Benghazi, IRS scandal, Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.) or they find fire, but nobody cares (Lewinsky and arguably, Iran-Contra). However, I think the rules are different when we're talking about a candidate than when we're talking about an incumbent. Why? Because impeachment is a big deal and pretty disruptive to the nation's business. It's basically firing the President, and most want that to be a last resort and only for the worst conduct. Accordingly, unless there's strong evidence of criminal liability on a critical issue, the public might be critical of a politician but will frequently let him slide. I think choosing a candidate is a different ballgame than impeachment. It's more like choosing not to hire somebody. You may not hire somebody if he gives you a bad vibe or seems shady - a lower standard than you'd likely apply before affirmatively firing somebody already on the job. I do not see how the recent stories about the Clinton Foundation coupled with the hidden e-mail server would not give somebody bad vibes and very skeptical. I've watched the Clintons deflect scandals for over 20 years, and their rap is usually the same and generally works well. (Having a complicit media helps a lot too.) They start by denying everything. As evidence trickles in (meaning their denial is proven to be *********), they start attacking the character of their accusers. After the dust settles, they might admit to "mistakes" (the "I'm stupid and incompetent" defense) but claim that there's no proof of some critical fact that would produce criminal liability. (See how "we were never alone together" turned into, "she just blew me and let me pleasure her with a cigar, so I didn't lie. And Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich are really rotten guys.") That works in the impeachment realm where the public doesn't want the lengthy ordeal. I'm not so sure that it works in the candidate realm. The bottom line is that walking on the line of criminal activity has always been the Clintons' course of conduct, and it always will be. The sleazy activities of the Foundation, exorbitant speaking fees from dirty people, the false or inadequate reporting of foreign donations ("the mistakes"), Russian entanglement with US uranium supplies, etc. have to make any sensible person queasy about voting for HRC. Is there conclusive proof of a quid pro quo (meaning sufficient evidence to charge her with criminal bribery and throw her in the slammer)? No, but there's also the hiding of information through the private e-mail server, which she controls by herself, so if there is evidence of a quid pro quo, we'll never see it unless HRC decides to show it to us. I don't care how partisan of a Democrat you might be. You can't feel good about voting for that, and that's gotta make you sweat, because Democrats win by motivating groups that often skip voting to go vote. If you're a cool, black dude with strong ethics, that's an easier task. I think an old, entitled corporate sellout with extremely questionable ethics and the personal appeal of a disgruntled Walmart greeter is going to have a harder time. It's not too late for Liz Warren to get in.
I would love to see Liz Warren run although I admit to knowing very little about her. But she seems capable of leadership and a person of integrity, which easily gives her the nod over HRC imo.
LIz Warren, the full blooded Cherokee --- NOT. Like we need another Harvard affiliated law professor as President. Don't the Dems have somebody who actually ran a business or held a real job they could run?
I'll readily admit that my kudos to Liz Warren are a little like the liberal pundits who hailed John Huntsman as a great GOP candidate. I'm not going to vote for for her or any Democrat (except perhaps Jim Webb), so my advice to Dems is probably pretty useless. As for her background, I don't know too much either. I know she was a very respected commercial, financial, and bankruptcy law professor and researcher. She really became prominent in political circles when Obama considered appointing her to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The GOP and business lobby threw an absolute ****-fit, because she was considered too consumer-friendly and not a mollycoddler of the banking industry. Obama ended up going with somebody else. She ended up running for the Senate and unseated Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) in 2012. As for her pros, she's everything HRC claims to be, only for real. She really has been a passionate advocate for the middle class and consumers, and in contrast to HRC being a blatant ***** for Wall Street, she's known as skeptical of pretty much all financial industries. If she claimed to be sympathetic to the plight of middle class families, she'd actually have some credibility. HRC doesn't. Hillary's accolades in law are pretty much phony. Liz Warren's are very real. Like I said, I wouldn't vote for her because of policy differences, but she's not a fraud. She's sincere and believes in her cause. People give her a hard time because she once listed herself in a law faculty directory as a Native American when she likely wasn't, but she's not going to lose votes over something like that. It was a minor thing. My guess is that she will run but not now. If she jumped in now, she'd split the party and piss off people who are still convinced that HRC is the Democrats' best bet. She'd rather wait until HRC implodes and then jump in.
She's the best in one regard. She give Republicans the best chance of any Democrat currently in the field. Not saying they'll beat her. After all, they have a good history of screwing up winnable races. However, if they can beat any Democrat, it's her.
To be fair, many in the GOP haven't had "real jobs." Ted Cruz has kinda, sorta had some private sector jobs with law firms, but they were all political gigs, and most of the time, he was in government. Scott Walker was in marketing for a while, but the guy was a state legislator in his mid 20s. The same is pretty much true of Marco Rubio. Of course, like everyone in his family, Jeb Bush has never had a real job. Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina are exceptions. Paul was and still is a very accomplished eye surgeon, and of course, she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Those are real jobs and pretty impressive ones.
I don't know enough about him, but I like a lot of things that I have read about Martin O'Malley for the dems.
The most intriguing part of the story was the comment from the "Democrat insider" stating Elmaleh was "foolish and undisciplined" to put the idea in writing. All this talk about HRC's email and clearly political operatives and politicians still think documentation should be avoided.
O'Malley was a pretty successful governor and man of ideas but not especially "fluffy" and personable. In other words, he'd probably make a decent president but has no chance, because he's not slick enough.
O'Malley really hurt the MD economy due to his policies. Small business and even many larger businesses are leaving the state. I don't know how "successful" he has been other than burdening the populace with progressive laws.
I don't endorse O'Malley's record, but he was pretty accomplished. He didn't sit around and do nothing, and he did all the things that would typically go over well in a Democratic primary.
HRC is such a bad candidate for so many reasons. I am still reluctant to believe the Dems are dumb enough to make her the nominee. In any case, I hope they are.
The old adage about presidential primaries is that "democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line". While HRC certainly has her lovers, I don't know that if she is the type of candidate that most dems can fall in love with. There certainly has to be a significant competitor for her to lose, but if somebody starts getting air time, I could see dems finding that person more lovable and swooning. FWIW, I don't know that republicans will fall in line anymore. Many republican primary voters come across as almost defiant these days, even about their own party. I could see this battle being drawn out more than a typical republican primary.
Sadly, she can only beat herself. And there is a good chance she does. She is not the politician Slick is and she will have a hard time overcoming her public trust issues - especially as more and more is revealed about her past. Joe Biden says "hi!"
None of her current opponents have a chance, because they aren't at all viable. O'Malley is too bland. Jim Webb is too conservative. Bernie Sanders is passionate and speaks directly to the Democratic base, but he's a freak show. (Personally, I like Sanders, because he's not a bullshitter, and I can't help but respect a politician who has the balls to walk around with that hairdo. It's the complete opposite of Rick Perry's.) None of them have anywhere near the money to take on HRC, and no one would take them seriously enough for them to launch a real grassroots challenge. However, if Liz Warren runs, HRC is done. She brings everything positive that Sanders brings, but she doesn't look and talk like a homeless person from Brooklyn. Furthermore, because she looks and talks the part, people would give her money and take her seriously.
Depends on whom Warren is running against. If the Republicans nominate Ted Cruz, from the perspective of most of the country, Warren might seem comparatively centerist. The Republicans have so much practice hating Hillary that in a national election she carries all the high negs of being a whacko leftist, with a lot less appeal to whacko leftist than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
In a Democratic primary, that's a strength. Starting with her Senate bid in 2000, HRC went full corporate and is pretty flagrant about it. Furthermore, being married to a moderate Democrat like Slick Willie doesn't help in a primary. (He was nominated at at time when the Democratic Party was trying to move to the Center after being shut out of the White House for 12 years. That isn't the state of the Party today.) Warren isn't encumbered with any of that. If you're a union voter (and therefore care about things like the minimum wage, opposing trade deals, etc.), would you trust HRC over Warren to look out for your interests (or what you think are your interests)? No. If you're a black voter (who has already ditched HRC once) and care about things like welfare programs, police brutality, and the death penalty, are you going to trust HRC who has been pro-death penalty, whose husband signed welfare reform, and who has been at most indifferent to police brutality over a reliable liberal like Warren? Nope. If you're a God-hater who's concerned with destroying the religious order in public life, are you going to trust a kinda sorta Southern Democrat whose husband has triangulated on a lot of social issues and who played flippy-flop on gay marriage or someone who has consistently opposed and antagonized the religious Right? Nope. And of course, don't forget the Iraq War. HRC was a big supporter. Warren wasn't. HRC just doesn't have the credibility on those issues against a reliable Left-winger like Warren
Solid point about union voters and HRC. Later, I will look at the order of the primaries by state, but it seems like a lot of strong union states go first. If Warren could get some momentum going, it could be interesting. I personally hope she wins as I am not a HRC fan at all.
Does Hillary have much of a genuine following, or is she mostly seen as the default for the party at this point?
My daughter is a Wellesley Alum and I can say HRC has some ardent supporters among Wellesley Women. This group is smart and well-connected, but not especially numerous.
I think she has a genuine following, but I think Obama proved that her following is wider than it is deep. If it was deep, then a relatively unknown junior senator with very little political experience (at least for a presidential nominee) wouldn't have been able to pick off huge numbers of her supporters and rip the nomination out of her hands. True, black voters probably ditched her for racial reasons, but black voters don't drive the nomination process. (Otherwise, Jesse Jackson would have had a lot more success.) The gentry liberals (educated and wealthy white professionals in urban areas) abandoned her in droves to vote for Obama. They didn't vote for him because of race. They voted for him because they knew he was authentic and had been been consistent, while she and her husband had been all over the political spectrum. That left her to try to hustle for less educated, middle class white voters ("hard working white Americans" as she called them). That wasn't enough, and it definitely won't be enough in 2016, because many of those voters have defected to the GOP since 2008. Right now, I think HRC has the gentry liberals and black voters ready to vote for her, because she's the default candidate. It's her turn. However, the problems she had in 2008 are still there. In fact, if anything, they've gotten worse, and that means the opportunity for a more genuine progressive like Warren is definitely there.
