Ed Kilgore is correct to insist on a nuanced understanding of the term “clearing the field.” When people talk about the possibility of Hillary Clinton “clearing the field,” they do not mean that she will run for the Democratic nomination in 2016 completely unopposed. What they mean is that all the potentially viable candidates who are thinking about running for the nomination might bow out if Hillary gets in. I’m talking about people who have a combination of experience, appeal to big fundraisers, name recognition, and support within the party. We can compile a list of these people more easily if we simply pretend that Clinton won’t run. If she doesn’t, who will?
Most obviously, Vice-President Joe Biden wants to run. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to run. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is probably interested. We know that Senator (and former governor of Virginia) Mark Warner has presidential ambitions. Historically, speaking, this roster is pretty strong. But I doubt any of them are strong enough to beat Clinton. Additionally, I think they all know that they are not strong enough. So, who might run against Clinton?
It’s possible that Biden will challenge her. Martin O’Malley might want to raise his profile a bit. Other than that, we’re probably talking about people who want to emphasize certain issues or to offer a progressive alternative. In other words, we’re talking about people filling a role like Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes or Michelle Bachmann. Those are all people who ran for president without any serious expectation that they might win, but who thought they could either help their career or push their respective parties in a more progressive or conservative direction.
There is an intermediary position between vanity/issue-oriented candidates and serious frontrunners. That’s the pol who wants to audition for the second place on the ticket. This type of candidate usually lacks something needed to win, but is qualified to govern. Think Joe Biden in 2008, but also Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Maybe they are talented politicians but they can’t compete with rare talents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe they just can’t compete financially. Maybe they are a little out of step with the base of the party. In any case, they hope to impress the leading candidate enough during the campaign to warrant consideration to be on the ticket. You can usually identify these folks because they never get too rough with the frontrunner.
Now, I know that there are a lot of frustrated progressives out there who would line up to support someone willing to run sharply to Clinton’s left. The problem is that we aren’t likely to find someone who is willing to do that who also has the fundraising base and the experience and the talent to actually beat her.
Even strong past opponents of the Clintons, like myself, find it hard not to salivate at the numbers we’re seeing. Clinton is polling ahead of Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Rick Perry in Texas. She is ridiculously strong in Florida:
Hillary Clinton now leads Florida’s own Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by double-digit margins in 2016 presidential match-ups as her popularity continues to climb in the state, according to PPP’s latest poll.
Clinton leads Bush by 13 points (53/40), Paul Ryan by 13 points (54/41) and Rubio by 16 points (56/40). This is a significant gain from January, when Clinton led Bush by 5 points and Rubio by 4 points. Clinton now claims 20-24% of the Republican vote and 55-58% of the independent vote against each of her potential Republican opponents.
I’m pretty sure you’ll find similar eye-popping results in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, which are among the states most hostile to Obama. A Clinton candidacy doesn’t just promise victory. It has the potential for historic victory.
Combine considerations of that type with an approval rating in the stratosphere, and a bandwagon effect is likely.
It’s a problem for committed progressives that is complicated by another factor that should be better understood. We could swap out Obama and replace him with Evan Bayh, and we would not get any different results as far as legislation is concerned. We could do the same with Bernie Sanders. What is determining the legislative output in Congress is not what the president is offering but the absolute ideological rigidity of the Republicans and the rules that give them the power to block everything. In 2009-2010, Obama was arguably less partisan, but he got much better results because he had numbers in Congress. A Clinton presidency with control of the House and a big Senate majority is going to produce more progressive outcomes than an Obama (or Bernie Sanders) presidency without control of the House and with a narrower Senate majority.
Yet, we can’t forget that the Clintons have always surrounded themselves with people like Dick Morris, Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, Doug Schoen, etc., who are the mortal enemies of progressive values. That’s why Alex Pareene introduced the Mark Penn Test.
The question for someone considering whether or not to support Clinton in 2016 is, will a Clinton 2016 campaign pass the Mark Penn Test? The Mark Penn Test, which I just invented, determines whether or not a person should be trusted with the presidency, based solely on one criterion: Whether or not they pay Mark Penn to do anything for their campaign. Paying Mark Penn means you’ve failed the Mark Penn Test…
…Mark Penn is just the worst example of the general Clinton family habit of associating with the most repulsive party hacks the Democrats have to offer. Her campaign was a dream team of generally useless hacks, from sweatered communications director Howard Wolfson to charmless fundraiser Terry McAuliffe to ill-tempered Harold Ickes (who, unlike the rest of the campaign, at least seemed mostly competent). These are the same Clintons who are responsible for the national stature, such as it is, of Dick Morris. In general, the Clintons run with a pretty lousy crowd. (And this is not even getting into Bill Clinton’s many gross rich man-child “friends,” like Ron Burkle.)
So, in 2016, will Hillary Clinton surround herself again with longtime Democratic National Committee and Clinton administration veterans whose primary qualification for their positions is knowing the Clintons? Or will she hire people who understand that the Democratic Party coalition, and the ways to appeal to its many members, have changed?
Mr. Pareene has identified “The Rub.” There has always been a character issue with the Clintons, albeit the character issue has always been more of an issue for Bill than Hillary. And there’s the consideration of simple judgment, illustrated by Hillary’s vote authorizing military force in Iraq. And there’s the ideological problem with a restoration of the original champions of the DLC.
If her health holds out, Clinton probably cannot be stopped in either the primaries or the general. Progressives will have to figure out if it is even worth trying. But without an alternative candidate who can actually make a serious go of it, we won’t even have a decision to make.
Is there someone out there that I’m just not seeing?
In 2009-2010, Obama was arguably less partisan, but he got much better results because he had numbers in Congress.
Not a lot better, since even most of that time we didn’t have 60 Senators. Even when we had 60, we had to contend with corrupt idiots like Ben Nelson.
You could have changed a few names and posted this exact diary in 2006. Hillary was supposed to be the runaway winner in 2008 and people scoffed at Obama jumping into the primaries. And when they started actually competing they realized that Hillary isn’t all that great at campaigning.
Unless she plans on skipping Iowa in 2016, she’ll be in the same position as 2008. The more she campaigned in Iowa, the more people didn’t like her. I think a better candidate like O’Malley or Patrick could beat her in Iowa and follow the Obama 2008 plan to victory.
Unfortunately, I think the media and Dem establishment is going to put a lot pressure on candidates to not challenge Hillary because “its her turn”.
If progressives are smart, they’d align behind O’Malley. He has been pursuing a liberal agenda in Maryland for years now. He repealed death penalty, is about to pass strong gun control, he passed state DREAM Act, the economy is pretty good in Maryland, etc. He has charisma, he is in a band and has an interesting story. And he stands the best chance of beating Hillary of the candidates who may run. Patrick would be a good option, but he seems to be done with politics.
I think you misremember the 2008 primary. Hillary’s campaigning skills were vastly improved over the course of the primary. People were incredibly passionate about her candidacy as it rolled on. She was doing really by March 2008; trouble was by that time it was too late for her, due to Obama’s huge margins in the caucusing states.
She really did become a great Presidential candidate by the end. But she was beaten, barely, by one of the all-time great candidates in American history. No shame in that. What I hoped she took from that experience is that she was disserved by her shitty staff and campaign structure, which she needs to overhaul for 2016. There are plenty of Obama folks who will go to bat for her if she asks.
Hillary’s campaigning skills and talent are vast and should not be underestimated.
You do remember her crazed bunker speech the night she refused to concede even though the race was over right? She was never better than average on the stump and she got progressively worse as the campaign went on.
Yet, in 2006, when I asked if there was someone I was missing, plenty of people could have told me John Edwards, and others could have told me Barack Obama.
Who do you have to tell me now?
There is a whole list of candidates that are as strong as Obama and Edwards now – O’Malley, Schweitzer, Warner, Patrick. The other dark horses won’t run if Hillary does – Gillibrand, Cuomo and Klobuchar. So, I am not seeing how this field is any weaker than the ones in the run up to 2008. And let’s not forget that Biden might run.
No, thanks. I’d rather Hillary stay retired. End this Clinton garbage once and for all.
Her candidacy is absolutely worth it for the Congressional margins. Absolutely worth it. We have got to have solid working majorities in both Houses by 2016 and she is the vehicle for that.
Not to mention the strong possibility of trading 8 years of a Clinton presidency for 30 years of a liberal Supreme Court.
Exactly. Plus the rest of the half-empty federal bench.
LOL!! Is she going to fight for her nominees like PBO has?
What nominees of Obama’s failed to make it to the SCOTUS? If only he peppered some “leadership,” his nominees to the DC Circuit would be confirmed! Don’t act like a Villager.
I’m talking about nominations like Halligan and Liu!! I’m not talking about Supremes. I’m talking about the bench. You know, the same place the Pukes got Roberts & Alito from(among others).
Yeah, that was my comment at the end. What is he supposed to do? “Enact leadership?”
I don’t know … maybe ask why Harry Reid didn’t get guaranteed votes for Halligan and other judges(or even appointees like Cordray)?
There is no evidence that the Dems would have a clue or the motivation to use working majorities for anything worth doing.Maybe if they got a 99% or more edge they’d show some spine, but why would Clinton do better than Obama when it comes to crap like endorsing Social Security cuts?
Glad you are focusing on Congress. Hillary’s potential for big coattails in 2016 is the number one reason for supporting her candidacy IMO. She would/will no doubt make a fine president, but we have a deep bench and a lot of other potential Prez’s who would do just as well. Hillary’s great strength is that she can bring along a Congress that can actually get good shit done. If that happened, in some ways it would be the final vindication of the worth of the historic Democratic primary battle of 2007-08, which got this whole ball rolling.
I am curious about which candidates might choose to run for the Veep spot if Hillary enters the race. Is there a risk that being crushed by Hillary will damage their careers, even if everyone understands that they’re basically running for second place?
I’m guessing O’Malley will do it, as his 2nd term ends in 2014 (and he may be term-limited after that, not sure how things work in Maryland).
I don’t see Cuomo getting in if Hillary does. He could damage relationships with his NY donors who support Hillary, and he still has plenty of time left as NY Gov, assuming he runs and wins a second term. Given how many Presidents have come from that office, I bet he keeps his powder dry for 2024. Same for Gillibrand (who’s already said she’ll support Clinton anyway).
I can see Schweitzer definitely running. Maybe Napolitano (although I don’t see any circumstance in which the party would nominate a woman for both Prez and VP).
Joe B. will, I hope, ride off into the sunset. Love him, but don’t want him to run.
Hillary would be a very strong candidate and have a big impact on congressional races. That said, I hope she doesn’t run. Napalitano would be my choice at this time.
I think O’Malley could have an equally strong positive impact on Congressional races.
Clinton is good because she’s not a new deal democrat. That group is dead and thank god. She’s a new democrat, what the party is now. Socially liberal and neoliberal. The old party is gone and hoping for those values is an exercise in failure, the party can’t win doing that. I get that this upsets some people. But Obama cutting entitlements is kinda why I and many were able to support him. We are getting what we want and voted for.
Sorry if that pisses some people off, but my support of the democratic party is due to social values and the price we extract for our vote is that it is no longer the party of the new deal. And since social issues are the litmus test for liberals now (instead of allowing social regressives who support new deal policies) this is the party we have. And progressives will vote for someone who will slash social security because if they don’t, their daughters will have to get Santorum’d!
You don’t have to like it, but it’s the truth.
You have a problem with The New Deal?
If you really believe this, I predict that you’re going to be very disappointed in the coming decade. Neoliberalism is already at or past its high-water mark. It seemed to deliver the goods for most people in the Clinton years, but everybody can see that that’s not happening now and isn’t going to in any foreseeable future. Policies that screw the the average voter economically can only be sustained for so long by political and media corruption. There is tremendous pent-up demand for a more populist line, and more and more Dem politicians are going to start figuring this out and riding it.
Which is why Hillary Clinton, while having great numbers now, is still very vulnerable in ’16 if she were to win. Her past ties with Walmart, Bob Rubin, Mark Penn and the rest should doom her if a candidate was smart and had a decent amount of money.
I think that she could get away with changing her spots, if she came to believe that was necessary (and figured out a way of getting Bill to shut up.) Of course, in that case, I as a primary voter would have the difficult task of deciding whether I believed that the transformation was more than just a change of rhetoric. I would not be an easy sell.
Sending Bill off to some island somewhere with no phone or internet might tempt me to vote for her. She’s been a mostly OK sec of state, but the opposition will have a huge arsenal of attacks, some with some truth to them, others not, based on her term there.
Her numbers now will plunge dramatically as the campaign heats up. If she, like Obama, tries to ply the left of the party with empty rhetoric she’ll have to go for GOP votes just to stay in the running.
Most depressing scenario for the next election: tired retreads Clinton and Jeb Bush slugging it out. Ick.
Yeah, agreed. And not just here, but worldwide. People are getting pissed the fuck off at the Reagan-Thatcherite era; shit even Andrew Sullivan — who SiDC reminds me of — thinks they overreached with their neoliberalism bullshit.
Ha-ha, you’re not long for the party if this is your view. Leave aside the fact that the Blue Dogs have been decimated and the Progressive Caucus is the largest in the House.
But more seriously, the idea that you really think that the Dem party will be abandoning the principal elements of the New Deal—social security and medicare–shows you can’t really see the lay of the landscape. Those are not the Dems winning elections, and those won’t be Hillary’s Talking Points, I’ll predict! How’s Lynch gonna do against Markey? How’d that New Dealer Sherrod win Ohio? Hard to fathom…
It’s more likely that center-rightists like you will be having to stomach economic and social welfare policies that you (obviously) loath in order to get sensible social policies. You don’t have to like, as you say….
The “Kerry will win” folks seem to be in charge of the discussion.
I would like to see some western latinos on that debate stage. The Castro brothers of TX are too young, LA Mayor Villaraigosa has too much baggage and I never got what was up with Richarson. Time for the non cuban latinos to participate in this democracy.
Depressed I am.
I think the “It’s her/his turn” argument would work just as well for Joe Biden, maybe even moreso as Obama’s faithful wingman, and as to electability he would appeal to that certain segment of folk who aren’t too keen on having a Black man or White woman in charge (Pennsyltucky in particular), and can talk the populist talk legitimately (MBNA notwithstanding).
We’ll see, but I fully expect Hillary to fail the Mark Penn test. Besides, I still measure the Clintons’ political capital in Confederate dollars…
It sure looks like Biden is leaning towards running.
The ongoing and determined media/political propaganda drive to assume that Biden is not smart enough or capable enough to be a serious contender is astonishing. The likes of Gohmert, W, Steve King and the rest get respect, but Biden can hardly get introduced without a virtual clown suit. The reality is 180 degrees different, but you’d never know it from the “news” or the pols.
I wonder why he’s so scary to to members of the failed establishment all along the political/ideological spectrum?
The biggest threat to any hustle is the genuine article…
Will Obama’s organization weigh in? If so, then perhaps Obama will reward Uncle Joe’s loyalty with his support.
I have to say I didn’t get what people saw in O’Malley, but boy now I do. He freakin’ rocks. I wanted to be done with caucuses by now, but I’d go to the mat for him in WA if he ran.
I (the white hot variety) H A T E the Clintons. I want to be done with them and move on to our very deep bench. Clinton does not equal progress. She’s too in love with war and aggression. They’re both too in love with the uber wealthy and I will never forgive Bill for letting the GOP take over the main stream media.
This is all going to be about staffing in my book. If someone like Jeremy Bird signs on with O’Malley, look for a more favorable outcome. If the Clinton machine keeps their loyalty to the Mark Penns of the world…they will crash and burn.
If we have learned nothing else in the last four years it is that Conventional Wisdom is worthless. Hillary has tons of baggage that will show up early on. The divisiveness will be very hard to overcome.
I’ve heard O’Malley speak and he is very telegenic. But how is he in terms of governance? Pretty progressive/effective? And how about ethics/potential scandals? Isn’t the Mayor from The Wire based on him or something?
Genuinely curious, as I have heard his name tossed around a lot but don’t actually know much about his record.
He’s been very progressive as Governor. Some of his accomplishments:
Passed Same Sex Marriage
Repealed Death Penalty
Passed State DREAM Act
Passed Strong Gun Control Bill
Working on lowering loosening marijuana laws
Maryland is #20 in Unemployment rate which isn’t great, but shouldn’t hurt him too much in 2016.
As for scandals, the GOP tried to start rumors about infidelity in his first Governor race that went nowhere. That’s the only major scandal I know of for O’Malley.
To be fair, Maryland is also very blue. The Republican Party exists but not in any amount of noteworthy strength. O’Malley has help. But yes, he has definitely left his mark on Maryland for the better.
I feel exactly the same way about the Clintons and Martin O’Malley. I don’t want to get my hopes up about him running, but he seems like he’d be a great president.
As for staffers, I am more interested to see if Axelrod or Plouffe gets involved with the a campaign. They were the brains behind the Obama campaign apparatus.
Axelrod has already said he’s done with campaigns. After you win two Presidential campaigns, it’s all anti-climactic after that, and he has a family. He’s a great guest on pundit shows and isn’t he the new director of that Chicago political institute now?
Yeah, it sounds like Axelrod is intending to retire from campaigns, but Plouffe is still active. So, I am curious to see where he lands.
Axe is supposedly helping the right-wing(what passes for it anyway) candidate in the next Brazil elections.
Yep, as far as the candidates I know on the chopping block, I’ve been behind O’Malley since at least 2010.
It may be a historic victory, but there’s absolutely no reason to think it will be a historic presidency — far from it. Yet another term full of rightwing goombas, DLC bots, and, of course good ol’ Bill whispering all the advice he himself took to become such a crappy president. I can hardly wait.
Or we can give up the supposedly easy shot and go for someone without the crushing mountain of baggage to carry.
The “it’s her/his turn” is too often a nomination winner and a general election loser. The only exception in the past few decades was GHWB — and only because Democrats nominated a bigger loser in 1988 and he only lasted one term. Okay, Gore didn’t lose in 2000 either but he didn’t win and he was a more experienced pol and better speaker and campaigner than Hillary will ever be.
If the GOP continues to elevate half-crazed nasty candidates, a Democratic ham sandwich could beat any of them. However, that’s unlikely to happen. And like Democrats in 1992 and 2008, they’ll be really hungry.
Doubt that one of the so-called “deep bench,” well-fed neo-liberal Democrats has much of a chance to pull off a third WH term for the party. But that won’t stop all the inside the box Democrats deluding themselves that it’s the way to go.
He also writes:
And:
AAAAAHHHH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Lemme see.
Booman is a very strong supporter of Barack OBomb’em.
Barack OBomb’em ran against Hillary Clinton. And he won. (Or of course…the fix was in way back then. That’s my take on it, for sure.)
Barack OBomb’em chose Hillary Clinton for the absolutely most visible cabinet position possible.
He also chose Joe Biden for the almost totally useless figurehead position of Vice-President.
Now…you’re an OBomb’em supporter. You think he’s a brilliant pol, and you’re right. He is.
Guess who gets the Dem nod in 20016.
And guess who’s the designated loser.
Please.
Deal wid it.
AAAAAHHHH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
I’m going to so enjoy watching the leftinesses cringe as they kiss the new
popess’s ring…errr, ahhh,…preznit’s ass.AAAAAHHHH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
AG
I would personally prefer to see only younger candidates. But the reality is that Hillary has a very good chance, and the most important thing is for the Dems to control the White House for the next eight years. Even if she doesn’t get the Congress and absolutely nothing got done, the ACA would have time to affect lives, the economy would improve considerably, marriage equality would become a given, and the strongest supporters of the GOP would die off. Our chances of getting a Progressive for ’24 would be very high. It’s very likely that 2016 will determine the state of this nation for decades. I’ll vote for whoever can win.
Hillary have a good credentials to run for presidency in 2016. However, no one knows if she will be the only candidate that is fit to be president by 2016.
y’all are delusional about some 2016 polls. fall for them if you want.
if you are a progressive, how the hell could you want Hillary Clinton?
And my question is:
if you are a real progressive, how the hell could you want Barack Obama?
Just sayin’…
They’re all part of the same system. All true “possible candidates” must first be vetted through the system as it stands. If they meet with the approval of the controllers…the money people (bankers, Wall Street, corporate controllers, etc.) and the secret and not-so-secret armed forces, then they have a real shot. If they do not, they are either used as electoral cannon fodder or…if they are truly dangerous to the system (real “progressives” no matter how they are labeled in the UniParty scam)…they are non-personed by the media. Scuttled by scuttlebutt.
There it is in a nutshell.
Anyone who dreams of seeing a real “progessive” in the White House…unless of course the control system changes radically, something that is not likely to happen short of a total crash of the economic, political and/or social control mechanisms…is fast asleep. Ain’t gonna happen.
So it goes.
Deal wid it.
AG
Don’t know what I think on this. The saying “may you live in interesting times” comes to mind. We certainly do.
Wow, if we take 10% of the interest Dems have in Hillary’s nascent campaign and convert that energy into winning the 2014 elections, we could take the House and actually govern!
How is Biden polling against Rubio, Christie, and Perry? How’s he polling in Florida?
Yeah, I thought so.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/02/187544/the-really-early-2016-line-hillary.html