Paper Tigress

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
One of the most boring weeks during my time in Washington has given the press an opportunity to indulge in a gross habit: inflating Hillary Clinton’s already considerable reputation.

The Los Angeles Times ridiculously and melodramatically says that this week Clinton “return[ed]” to the “public stage”—a location from which she has never moved an inch since her husband won his first gubernatorial campaign in Arkansas in 1978—“for the opening scene in what many expect to be a carefully plotted performance concluding with another presidential try.”

Clinton sits atop the polls. Her next book will be released in the middle of the midterm campaign. Her allies are working to elect crony Terry McAuliffe governor of Virginia in what Politico calls the “first test” of 2016. James Carville has signed on with a pro-Clinton Super PAC. The nation awaits only the formal announcement of Hillary’s candidacy.

The media cheering section is as triumphalist and boorish as ever. “Many savvy GOP insiders conceded that any Republican nominee would face an uphill battle against the former Secretary of State,” Business Insider reports. Clinton is in “a class well above the rest” of potential 2016 contenders, writes John Dickerson of Slate and CBS News. “No non-incumbent in the history of contemporary U.S. presidential politics ever looked so formidable three years before an election,” writes Al Hunt.

But Hunt is wrong. I can easily think of another “non-incumbent in the history of contemporary U.S. presidential politics” who looked “so formidable three years before an election.” Her name was Hillary Clinton. The election was in 2008. And, you might have noticed, she never became president—indeed, she never became the Democratic nominee.
Column: Why Hillary is less

I think Benghazi will bite her in the azz.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I just read that article. Two things come immediately to mind.

One is that three years is an eternity in politics. Who knew in 2005 that Obama would be the nominee in 2008? I mean, I guessed it in 2007, but 2005? It's a long way to 2016.

But the other is - and this is especially true of the Democratic Party - who's to say that a much younger, more aggressive challenger WON'T challenge Hillary? She's been beaten before, and in 2016, she'll have been out of politics for a while without an impressive SoS resume to show for it. Moreover, she has indicated too many times in the past, she's done. Done with politics. Despite dipping her toe in the water, a serious challenger might change her mind. I don't think she still has the fight in her for another primary battle.
 
Top