Update: Is it time for Charlie Cook to retire because he is too old and too stupid and can’t use Google? Cook writes he has not come across anyone who thinks Hillary will not run in 2016. His collegue at National Journal has written exactly that and the wackadoodle Rand Paul has said he doesn’t think Hillary will run – which makes his recent attacks on the Clenis even more bizzare and clearly self-serving because they further harm the Republican Party brand as panty sniffers. There are many of us who think Hillary just might tell the Obama Dimocrat party to fu*k off after she makes a bundle giving speeches and writing books but Charlie Cook is clueless.
Is Hillary Clinton Too Old to Run?
Entering a presidential race is effectively a nine-year commitment: one year to run, another eight if she runs for reelection and wins. [snip]
Clinton turns 67 this October. At that age, she will likely be making her candidacy decision, and if nominated Clinton would turn 69 two weeks before the 2016 general election, notably the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was first elected in 1980. [snip]
A law school friend of the Clintons’ put it to me this way to me last year: “If Bill and Hillary are healthy, she will run,” a subtle reminder to me that her husband will be 70 by Election Day 2016, having already gone through quadruple cardiac bypass surgery and two heart stents. [snip]
There would absolutely be many challenges along the road for Hillary. For one, the challenge of a 68-going-on-69-year-old going after a considerably younger electorate, particularly in the primaries, and how to make herself more relevant to the future, rather than to the past. Running on how great the economy was in the mid-to-late ’90s, when her husband was president, would be tantamount to a sequel of Back to the Future. Clinton needs to lay out a rationale for her relevance to the future electorate of a rapidly changing country. Not that she can’t do it, but it would be a different battle than that of 2008.
Finally, don’t expect that Hillary would have a free ride for the nomination. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo presumably wouldn’t run if she does. Similarly, it would seem unlikely that another major woman like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren would make the race either. But there’s Vice President Joe Biden, and one could easily see former Govs. Howard Dean of Vermont and/or Brian Schweitzer of Montana decide to take a stab at it.
Unmentioned by the doddering can’t-use-Google-can’t-relate-to-the-present-electorate Cook is that Joe Biden is older than Hillary and goofier than Uncle Si, yet Biden is touted as the backup nominee by Cook without age being mentioned. The same “too old” argument against McCain was made by goofballs like Matt Damon in 2008. Damon argued that McCain was too old and actuarial tables showed he would die in office and Palin would become president and that Palin was beyond the pale. McCain is still aliive and Damon’s career is dying. Cook also raises the specter of Howard Dean as president but fails to mention Dean will be the same age as Hillary by the end of this year.
This “too old” argument is only used against those that are opposed by Big Media and/or Kooks. Likewise, the “dynasty” argument is never used when it is a Kennedy, Rockefeller, Cuomo, Gore, Salazar, or Udall. It’s time for Cook to reture and make way for someone who can use Google – he’s too old.
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Hillary Clinton 2016 has finally had a really good week. Credit goes to attempted attacks on Hillary Clinton that fizzled – or flowered into full love bouquets for Hillary.
Rick Lazio Rand Paul decided to re-fight a lost battle that lost a war. Some think the wackadoodle mad dentist with two head’s attacks brilliant as strategic landscape setting. If you believe that then, hey, let’s have another battle to settle a war in Southeast Asia at Dien Bien Phu.
Then the reptile Jim Clyburn decided to gin up some publicity for a package of lies he calls a book. Clyburn claims Bill Clinton called him up in 2008 to hurl insults and blame. Way to go Bill, you should have physically slapped liar, phony, race-bait con artist Clyburn.
Finally, the full-time Kooks began to fulfill our prophecy that they will go all Kook all the time against Hillary Clinton 2016. Kracked Krystal flung her ball from MSNBC against Hillary Clinton 2016 pins:
“MSNBC host Krystal Ball told her audience on Tuesday that she admires former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and she would support her over any Republican and most Democrats to replace President Barack Obama. However, she said that America’s present “existential crisis” requires a candidate that is not as “anti-union” and friendly to Wall Street as Clinton. For that reason, Ball urged Clinton not to run and for freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to get in the race.”
Kracked Krystal brings up Walmart rubbish we debunked long ago and all the other lies from Kookdom against Hillary Clinton 2008.
“In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics,” she continued, “is someone who sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Walmart the right person to restore workers’ rights?”
“In a time when we’re still reeling from global financial disaster brought on by foolhardy bank deregulation, is someone who took $400,000 to give two speeches at Goldman Sachs the person we need to wrest control of the asylum back from the banking inmates?” Ball asked. The MSNBC host further assailed Clinton for reassuring the “masters of the universe” that “banker-bashing” on the left was “unproductive.”
Ball swiped at Bill Clinton as well for signing into law much of the deregulation she was decrying. Ball said that she would back Warren to replace Obama as an example of a politician who felt “in their bones the plight of the worker.”
“Don’t run, Hillary,” she concluded. “Don’t run.”
Kracked Krystal’s attack from the Realm of the Kooks was echoed at the National Journal:
“Is Hillary Clinton Blocking a New Generation of Democratic Leaders?
The former secretary of State’s inevitability is good for Democrats in the short-term. But it masks the party’s longer-term challenges. [snip]
But her inevitability masks a potential weakness within the Democratic Party: the lack of a deep bench of future national leaders. For a coalition that prides itself on diversity, the list of presidential hopefuls is filled with white men: Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. With Clinton, the party that nominated Barack Obama in 2008 is now looking to the past for their presidential hopeful.
Furthermore, the Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton hampers the development of a Democratic farm team. With Clinton expected to take up so much room in the post-Obama party, is there much room for anyone else?“
There’s a lot of rubbish and hogwash at the National Journal “analysis”. For instance did you know that if Hillary does not run “there are a lot of substantive potential candidates” such as Biden? Once you stop laughing you can appreciate how funny and desperate the full tilt Kook wing of the Kook Party is.
To the rescue came… Republicans? Conservatives? Hide the salami Howard, the world is upside down!
“If Hillary wants the nomination, nothing’s going to stop her. And the worse Obama’s second term gets, the fewer Democrats there’ll be who are willing to forfeit her electoral advantages in order to roll the dice on a purer liberal like Elizabeth Warren with one-tenth the name recognition of the Clintons and one-thousandth the fundraising potential. There’s a cold calculation coming, just as there was for Romney: At the end of the day, who’s most likely to help us win power? Lay aside what he or she might do with that power. At a bare minimum, no matter how bad it gets, at least we’ll be keeping the ball away from the other team. [snip]
Democrats are deathly afraid that increased turnout among minority voters for Obama’s two elections will dissipate once he’s out of politics. If the “Obama coalition” falls apart, they’re in trouble — although Hillary, probably uniquely among Dems, might be able to make up the shortfall with increased support from women. [snip]
Exit question: How soon will it be before lefties seize on Hillary’s ruthlessness as a new reason to block her? Bridgegate is an easy peg for a pretext like that. E.g., “How can we criticize Chris Christie for bullying when we’re poised to re-nominate a couple who keep an enemies’ list?”
The Obama coalition led what was once the Democratic Party into a cul-de-sac Cult. It was no way to build a party based on the coalition built up and expanded by FDR-JFK-Bill Clinton.
As to “ruthlessness” we have repeatedly written that the halls of the DNC will be awash in waves of blood from Obama cultists if/when Hillary Clinton 2016 grabs control of the party once again. Hooray for ruthlessness we say. We will continue to defend “ruthlessness” over flabby weakness as we so recently did. Hey, we are not alone. Thursday morning Don Imus who insults Bill and Hillary Clinton regularly sang the praises of “ruthlessness” and Hillary Clinton (starting at around the 3:30 mark):
Some may think “revenge” or “ruthlessness” will hurt Hillary Clinton 2016, but after flabby boob Barack Obama’s weakness and cowardice it’s time to throw out the ruth. Watch and weep as Don Imus, notorious anti-Clintonite Imus (who is in the interview brutally analytical on Benghazi, women who hate Hillary because of her marriage decisions, and Bill Clinton) applauds along with us.
Phony Clinton friend and Primary Colors liar Joe Klein likewise does not think the “ruthless” charge from the “Hillary Papers” hurts:
“Blair was ill then, suffering from cancer, but she was vehement about two things: that Hillary was a dynamite friend–smart, funny, thoughtful and loyal–and that the Clintons had a real marriage. She told me a story about the two of them getting into a wild, screaming fight over some obscure policy issue, a fight so intense that she was beginning to get embarrassed and thought about making for the door…when Bill took Hillary’s face in his hands, looked over to Blair and said, “Isn’t she amazing?”
And so I wasn’t expecting much dirt from the Diane Blair papers, even though they were splashed internationally on Drudge on Sunday, with a big SCANDAL headline. And I wasn’t disappointed: not much there, except Hillary’s stiletto discription of Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony tune.” Indeed, the “editor” of the “publication” that “broke” this story described the then-First Lady as “surprisingly human.”
To which I can only ask: Why surprisingly? I’ve known Hillary Clinton for nearly 30 years now. I wouldn’t say I know her particularly well, but well enough to describe her in an entirely different way–as relentlessly human. She has been willing to get really angry in my presence (I didn’t like her health plan). She has been willing to have open, questioning discussions about policy. She has, at times, displayed a wicked sense of irony; she has, at other times, admitted to having been badly hurt by the public reaction–the spitting, the invective–that splattered her 1994 health plan speaking tour. She has a profoundly goofy okey-dokey-artichokey personal manner; she is an extremely hard worker and clear thinker. She really cares about people, including the people on her staff, all of whom would stop a bullet for her. I’m not nearly cynical enough to attribute these qualities to pretense. She is obviously ambitious and can, at times, be ruthless–but so what? She is one of the finest people I’ve known in public life. (Which is not to say that I don’t think she may have some real problems running for President, problems of insufficient boldness and sometimes being just plain wrong–but that’s a different story.)
Oh, and one other thing: She loves her husband. The marriage is not a “partnership.” She loves the guy. Indeed, one of the saddest intimacies of the Blair papers was the implication the Clinton blamed herself, in a way, for the Lewinsky disaster.
My overwhelming reaction to the release of the Blair papers was sadness–sadness because I remember Diane Blair fondly, the sort of smart, level-headed person I’d want as a friend. But also because it brought back the disgraceful bilge volcano of the Clinton years–the non-stop garbage peddled and sleazed by Drudge and Rush and the then frisky young Fox Network, the fact that the Clintons were accused of drug-trafficking, murder, financial scandals and all sorts of vile craziness–none of which proved to be true. And no apologies have ever been forthcoming from the greasy perps.
In the end, Bill Clinton‘s behavior toward women was primitive and embarrassing. He defiled the Oval Office…but looking back, he wasn’t a half-bad President, was he?“
And hey, after all that there’s Bill O’Reilly. Unfortunately O’Reilly video is behind a pay wall so we can’t access a video of this week’s Wednesday night show wherein O’Reilly repeatedly said, what we have written, that Hillary Clinton 2016 must get away from Barack Obama. Like us, O’Reilly insists that Obama is toxic and Hillary Clinton 2016 cannot be seen as in any way a continuation of Barack Obama and his Kook Kingdom. The only video we can produce of Wednesday night’s O’Reilly show is this one of O’Reilly taking on the Kooks:
“With President Obama’s job approval numbers falling, and the Democratic Party having trouble in an election year. You would think that committed liberal Americans would low key it a bit. You would think.
But no, they are upping the rhetoric especially the anti-capitalism stuff. Hillary Clinton is widely seen to be the Democratic nominee in 2016 for president but she portrays herself as a moderate. That’s not good enough for some on the far left.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BALL: Does Hillary Clinton sound to you like the right person for this moment? In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics enabling them to reap all the profit without feeling any compunction to do right by their workers?
As someone who has sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Wal-Mart for six years, the right person to restore worker’s rights. At a time when we’re still reeling from a global financial disaster brought on by foolhardy bank deregulation, as someone who recently took $400,000 to give two speeches at Goldman Sachs, the person we need to wrest control of the asylum (ph) back from the banking inmates.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now that anti-capitalistic commentary is the far left’s signature issue. “Talking Points” believes there must be oversight on banks and big business to trust them to do the right thing is foolish and naive. If you don’t believe me, read a little Teddy Roosevelt.
But many on the left want to dismantle the entire corporate system and we are seeing the consequences of that in the Obama administration. Now entering his sixth year in office the President has not been a friend to corporate America. He advocates high taxes to pay for an entitlement culture.
Business knows that and has not expanded, preferring to hoard profits or keep them overseas where they cannot be taxed. That’s why the job situation and income for working Americans is stagnant. For every good job available, there are plenty of applicants therefore salaries are suppressed.
It’s hard to believe but the far left does believe that the government can provide well-paying jobs on a mass scale. It cannot. And every country that has tried that has failed. 90 miles off the coast of Florida take a look what happen in Cuba; that should be an affluent country but communism has killed the economy.
So Hillary Clinton must fight zealotry on her left. She will defeat it she will get the nomination and Mrs. Clinton will run as a moderate Democrat promising to reform some of President Obama’s anti-business policies. That’s what she’ll do.
O’Reilly guests political scientist Dr. Jeanne Zaino and former Obama campaign aide Ellen Qualls agreed that Hillary Clinton 2016 has to differentiate Hillary from Obama. But the Obama Kook wants Hillary to move closer to the left too:
“There is an enormous and increasing division in the Democratic Party,” Zaino declared. “You see the attacks that Hillary is getting from her left and many people predict Wall Street will be her Achilles Heel in 2016 the same way the Iraq war was in 2008. People on the ‘progressive’ left fear that she’ll be too close to Wall Street and will continue her husband’s moderate policies.” But Qualls dismissed the notion that there is a great rift in among Democrats. “I see a rhetorical concern about whether Hillary Clinton is talking to the right people and hearing the right ideas. People on the left want to have Elizabeth Warren’s voice represented in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But there is a great unanimity among Democrats that Hillary Clinton will be a great candidate and we’d love to have her.”
As in 2008 the Kooks want to force the party further and further into the totalitarian left. The opening gambit is to have “Elizabeth Warren’s voice represented in Hillary Clinton’s campaign” but it won’t stop there. These Kooks somehow think that Hillary Clinton will foolishly accept their poisoned chocolates and paper hearts as well as surrender to them. Instead it is their hearts that will be stomped on once plucked from their chests later to be fed to dogs.