Another NY Times article arguing against a democratic process. I honestly don't care what is best for Ms. Clinton----I care what is best for the nation, and a vigorous and serious debate over policy in a democratic process from primary through the general election is best for every American.
20
Enjoyed reading just now how Mrs. Clinton stopped on the road in Iowa for a brief lunch at Chipotle and was unrecognized. Way to go! When one of the managers found out afterwards, he was upset because although he is not planning to vote for her, he added that "it hurts" to have missed this opportunity to see the political Democrat who is running for the Presidency. Call it 'My 60 seconds of fame with Hillary', if you will.
If Mrs. Clinton has a weakness, it is perhaps because she has been coming on too strong for some voters, and is now easing into a position of behaving in an assertive manner rather than aggressive way. Naturally I got clocked once for suggesting that if she had worn a tailored look with a string of pearls, instead of trying to look like many of us folks, it might have helped her image as a presidential candidate in 2008.
There is no other primary challenger to match her this time, and should one show up, the politician is late for an important date. Wishing Mrs. Clinton well on a long and hard road, and it is a comfort to know that she has many good people around her. I believe it may be lonely at times and taxing for the Democrat hopeful, but Mrs. Clinton has the strength to hold her own, and that might not even be debatable.
If Mrs. Clinton has a weakness, it is perhaps because she has been coming on too strong for some voters, and is now easing into a position of behaving in an assertive manner rather than aggressive way. Naturally I got clocked once for suggesting that if she had worn a tailored look with a string of pearls, instead of trying to look like many of us folks, it might have helped her image as a presidential candidate in 2008.
There is no other primary challenger to match her this time, and should one show up, the politician is late for an important date. Wishing Mrs. Clinton well on a long and hard road, and it is a comfort to know that she has many good people around her. I believe it may be lonely at times and taxing for the Democrat hopeful, but Mrs. Clinton has the strength to hold her own, and that might not even be debatable.
5
A primary is helpful for Democrats as it is for Republicans. Even if the candidates are disagreeing about some things, the viewers see them agreeing on a lot more, and those agreed-on have the potential to become assumed knowledge on the part of the viewer. If viewers see several candidates onstage agreeing that there is no climate emergency, or, alternatively, all agreeing that as a species we are in an unprecedented climate crisis, then those become more plausible positions.
2
Would former SOS Clinton benefit from a primary challenger? I've been looking around. Is there a primary challenger that would really be able to topple her? If so, who has the stature and experience and the "star power" factor to match her? Anyone?
7
Dotconnector said, "not good for democracy. There were some awfully important reasons why the Founders did their best to prevent coronations. Imagine their reaction if they knew we had turned what they bequeathed us into an oligarchy."
Dot connector - Democracy? Nope. Never. The Founders made this country of "I pledge allegiance to the Republic" right out of the gate, where people elected representatives to decide the issues for them.
Sadly, the majority of voters in our Republic have decided to stay home over the years and let a minority represent us. That turned us into an oligarchy, or the rule of the many by the few. In the last couple of decades how often has Congress actually voted on the things we said we wanted, needed or believed in? Anybody?
Maybe, whether we are for Bush or Clinton, we can change things in this election, if we get off our rear ends, vote, and become a Republic again, but I doubt it. Sadly.
Dot connector - Democracy? Nope. Never. The Founders made this country of "I pledge allegiance to the Republic" right out of the gate, where people elected representatives to decide the issues for them.
Sadly, the majority of voters in our Republic have decided to stay home over the years and let a minority represent us. That turned us into an oligarchy, or the rule of the many by the few. In the last couple of decades how often has Congress actually voted on the things we said we wanted, needed or believed in? Anybody?
Maybe, whether we are for Bush or Clinton, we can change things in this election, if we get off our rear ends, vote, and become a Republic again, but I doubt it. Sadly.
5
Let you in on a little secret: Maryland voters and Democrats will not support Martin O'Malley in a Presidential Democratic primary here. He is not well liked, raised taxes, and his hand picked successor, as govetnor, Anthony Brown, went down in flames in the last general election.
He is just angling for a job as a federal appointee. after the general election in 2016. No more Curran-O'Malley dynasty in Maryland!
He is just angling for a job as a federal appointee. after the general election in 2016. No more Curran-O'Malley dynasty in Maryland!
1
Even if Hilary Clinton has no Democratic Party nomination opponents, she will be under more or less continuous attack from the various Republic contenders, as the past several days have shown. Divisive nomination contests can be harmful to the nominee, especially if the fights are over policies and if the unhappy people in the party are moderates. There is also the hazard of spending so much money in the primaries that the party has trouble financing the general election campaign, though that doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in presidential politics.
3
Hillary Clinton has as much right to run for POTUS as any other American citizen who fulfills the Constitutional requirements does. And the Democratic Party has every right to put forth the best candidate it can muster for the job. For its own good, the party should not allow a coronation to occur. To that end, I suggest the party draft from among its midst one other candidate, should no volunteers step forward. Jim Webb or Elizabeth Warren are viable national candidates on the strength of their intelligence, convictions, and straightforward approach to problems faced. Either seems capable of challenging Hillary without turning the primary into a mud wrestling match. Should Hillary take top honors, well, there you are. Conversely, should she come in second, the party's chance of holding the White House will be even better.
11
The sad truth is that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, we will see at least three consecutive Republican presidential terms.
6
I am concerned by the comments that suggest that Secretary Clinton has "ridden her husbands coattails." Any honest look at her life will refute that. She graduated ahead of her husband in college. She was a partner in a prestigious law firm. She was a first lady engaged in policy like none before her. She was a workhorse of a Senator. She was a worthy Secretary of State. Because it is clear that she not only performed well, bet excelled in every job she has ever had, I must question those who only see her as a first lady riding her husbands coattails. The only reason, in short, for claiming that Hillary is only valuable because of Bill, is sexism. Any real look at this power couple would conclude that Ms. Clinton is, and always has been, smarter and bolder.
24
i love reading this from a man!
4
What a bunch of total nonsense. It appears Mr. Cohn is angling for a spot on the Clinton campaign payroll. I mean, "Most of the concerns about an unopposed Clinton candidacy are overstated...?" Overstated by who? What are the concerns? Are they concerns related to policy positions or concerns only about her chances in the horse race? Overstated in what sense?
Forgive me, but this is an opinion piece masquerading as analysis and, as has already been pointed out by many readers, it tellingly asks the wrong question. Should corruption go unquestioned or ignored? Should duplicitous or hypocritical positions be left unchallenged? What nonsense. Would our democracy benefit from a primary during which Mrs. Clinton's ideas and her integrity were tested prior to being anointed? Without question. Which is perhaps why Mr. Cohn disingenuously avoids asking that.
Forgive me, but this is an opinion piece masquerading as analysis and, as has already been pointed out by many readers, it tellingly asks the wrong question. Should corruption go unquestioned or ignored? Should duplicitous or hypocritical positions be left unchallenged? What nonsense. Would our democracy benefit from a primary during which Mrs. Clinton's ideas and her integrity were tested prior to being anointed? Without question. Which is perhaps why Mr. Cohn disingenuously avoids asking that.
14
All of this makes good sense if, and only if one accepts the premise - that Hillary will be the nominee. But it is not impossible that Elizabeth Warren will change her mind but -- I know, I know -- she could never beat Hillary, just as Barack Obama, eight years ago, "could never beat Hillary."
Warren's national support is remarkable, and I think her candidacy would take off like wildfire because she is so much more honest and straightforward than Hillary. Obama could never be elected because he is Black, and Warren could never be elected because she is to the left of Genghis Kahn. To paraphrase one the great U.S. Presidents (sic): Don't misunderestimate the Amerrican public.
Warren's national support is remarkable, and I think her candidacy would take off like wildfire because she is so much more honest and straightforward than Hillary. Obama could never be elected because he is Black, and Warren could never be elected because she is to the left of Genghis Kahn. To paraphrase one the great U.S. Presidents (sic): Don't misunderestimate the Amerrican public.
12
I have been lobbying in "Comments" for a Warren/Webb or Webb/Warren ticket. Senator Webb's record of service to this nation from Vietnam to present day has no comparable counterpart in the Republican Party. Senator Warren's stance against Wall Street resonates not with just Main Street, but Elm, Maple, and every other street in America where the people who truly make this country a great place live, regardless of inherited or reasoned political leanings.
In the quarter century following WWII, the Democratic and Republican looked into a circus mirror and each became the other philosophically, except for the problem of money. Both have knees of Jello in the presence of real money. I think Elizabeth Warren would put some bone and cartilage back in those knees. Jim Webb has the foreign relations knowledge and experience the Republicans only wish they could field.
In the quarter century following WWII, the Democratic and Republican looked into a circus mirror and each became the other philosophically, except for the problem of money. Both have knees of Jello in the presence of real money. I think Elizabeth Warren would put some bone and cartilage back in those knees. Jim Webb has the foreign relations knowledge and experience the Republicans only wish they could field.
7
People I would like to see Hillary Clinton debate: Joe Biden, Kristen Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Jon Tester, Clair McCaskill, Jim Webb
17
This opinion piece is a complete joke. So, according to Mr. Cohn, here, we're supposed to just swallow whatever "Democrat" is selected for us by the wealthy and the elite within Wall Street, the military industry, and oil and gas industry, and what, smile the whole time, too? We're supposed to just "reckon our true feelings" with a candidate that, as this guy puts it, we don't actually get to have any choice or say about? Nate Cohn needs to realize that its nonsense like this that makes 'Democracy' in the U.S. a completely broken mess, and utterly unrepresentative of the will of the people.
Plato and Socrates, essentially the founders of the ideas of 'democracy' and the 'republic', they said Democracy would never work, would always fail, said the only thing worse than Democracy was tyranny. Their reason was because the masses who vote would always be co-opted and duped by those with wealth and power, and tricked into mindlessly engaging in these popularity contests between wealthy elites, none of whom would ever truly DESERVE these positions of power.
Seeing how Democrats like Mr. Cohn, all in the name of "supporting Obama," and now Hillary, have all been duped into looking away and supporting a Middle Eastern war, letting the banks get away with settlements and no punishments, jailing legitimate whistle-blowers, engaging in a massive, all-encompassing surveillance program, and expanding the fracking and oil industry, it would seem that Socrates and Plato were right.
Plato and Socrates, essentially the founders of the ideas of 'democracy' and the 'republic', they said Democracy would never work, would always fail, said the only thing worse than Democracy was tyranny. Their reason was because the masses who vote would always be co-opted and duped by those with wealth and power, and tricked into mindlessly engaging in these popularity contests between wealthy elites, none of whom would ever truly DESERVE these positions of power.
Seeing how Democrats like Mr. Cohn, all in the name of "supporting Obama," and now Hillary, have all been duped into looking away and supporting a Middle Eastern war, letting the banks get away with settlements and no punishments, jailing legitimate whistle-blowers, engaging in a massive, all-encompassing surveillance program, and expanding the fracking and oil industry, it would seem that Socrates and Plato were right.
10
The Democratic party ought to rally together immediately to "coronate" Hillary Clinton their candidate for president. Just look at the concerted effort going into bashing her by the GOP - no one has stopped calling her names, spitting on her, and vilifying everything and anything about her. The ugliness and nastiness is more than any I can remember. If O'Malley, Webb, Sanders, and Warren truly want to see a Democrat in the White House in 2017, please stay away and do not join the Republican smear teams. Think about the future of America instead. We cannot afford to lose this one - unless you want to go to war again and unless you want to lose the Supreme Court by more than 5-4.
4
With Nate Cohn you get more opinion than analysis.
6
Most readers (even Democrats) admit Clinton is a poor choice for President but feel obliged to vote for her because of the Supreme Court influence. The last thing we need in the Oval Office is a Bush or a Clinton. It's too bad a real candidate like Bernie Sanders can't get the nomination because he speaks the truth and Americans hate to hear it. It's truly depressing that all signals point to the Monarchy being perpetuated.
14
turtle165
Most of us readers are obligated to vote for the only Democrat candidate because of the Supreme Court influence? Keep this in your shell, but if I had my way, I would feel quite comfortable if tomorrow America declared that Mr. Obama had been designated as the first Emperor of our Country.
Since this is not going to happen, and I have always admired Mrs. Clinton for her brilliant mind and strength of character, she has the support of this voter. Should Hillary Clinton be elected as President, we are not going to see the rising of Camelot again, but an extremely strong Democratic party, perhaps the strongest ever, with the help of a few good men and women who are willing to help in building a sound future for our next generation.
Turtle Bay
Most of us readers are obligated to vote for the only Democrat candidate because of the Supreme Court influence? Keep this in your shell, but if I had my way, I would feel quite comfortable if tomorrow America declared that Mr. Obama had been designated as the first Emperor of our Country.
Since this is not going to happen, and I have always admired Mrs. Clinton for her brilliant mind and strength of character, she has the support of this voter. Should Hillary Clinton be elected as President, we are not going to see the rising of Camelot again, but an extremely strong Democratic party, perhaps the strongest ever, with the help of a few good men and women who are willing to help in building a sound future for our next generation.
Turtle Bay
4
I welcome a Democratic primary. Someone has to step up and challenge Hillary. I am not enthusiastic about her being our next president. We need new blood in the White House. None of the declared Republican candidates are worth a hill of beans. I realize that Reagan was up there when he became president but was showing signs of dementia in his second term and needed Nancy by his side. Hillary will be approaching seventy early on in her first term and I don't think she'll be able to handle all of the stress that comes with the office. Being in my early seventies, I see a big difference in my seventies as compared to my sixties. People still marvel at my stamina for someone who has thirteen children. They might be grown and on their own but there's still a lot of issues that arise that still require my assistance and input.
8
Hillary's campaign is well planned, it is magic in the making, written by the best story tellers and will unfold as a major movie, collecting an oscar for the finale.
history in the making, as the people will be the cast as they lift their voices, WE THE PEOPLE!
history in the making, as the people will be the cast as they lift their voices, WE THE PEOPLE!
Mr. MacGillis is wrong. It's not "collective amnesia". Hillary has always had her fans but most Democrats grimly accept her 'inevitability' because what else do we have? We've all watched in horror the Republican party descend to ever lower depths of reactionary madness and delusion. Democrats see Hillary as an electoral "fire-wall": the only thing preventing the "Kansas-ification" of the nation after 2016.
Hillary's candidacy is the measure of how bankrupt the Democratic party has become under Obama. We offer a grab-bag of anemic liberal policies that, like Obamacare, only look liberal because the alternative is so reactionary. The only thing we seem to get enthusiastic about is gay marriage, cop killings and college rape; but the war on American labor? That's so 1932 and it doesn't enjoy corporate sponsorship. Democrats have no national vision, no New Deal, and no New Frontier or Great Society. Free community college, a solution in search of a problem, is about as long-term as it gets. Who knows what a liberal foreign policy is: at least with Hillary, it'll be Bush-Lite.
Hillary's candidacy is the measure of how bankrupt the Democratic party has become under Obama. We offer a grab-bag of anemic liberal policies that, like Obamacare, only look liberal because the alternative is so reactionary. The only thing we seem to get enthusiastic about is gay marriage, cop killings and college rape; but the war on American labor? That's so 1932 and it doesn't enjoy corporate sponsorship. Democrats have no national vision, no New Deal, and no New Frontier or Great Society. Free community college, a solution in search of a problem, is about as long-term as it gets. Who knows what a liberal foreign policy is: at least with Hillary, it'll be Bush-Lite.
15
We need to get past any thinking that Hillary Clinton is somehow owed the Democratic nomination. She's flawed, every candidate is flawed. Doing whatever seems necessary to obtain the ridiculous amounts of money to run a campaign and saying whatever seems necessary to secure votes look to me to be common flaws among every candidate, from both parties, that have announced to date.
The potential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders should be taken seriously. I heard him speak recently in Austin and I'm looking forward to him running as a Democrat. To date, he is the only voice that is neither influenced by billionaires nor the voters to whom he is speaking to at that moment.
We need to have real issues discussed and real proposals for dealing with those issues. Bernie Sanders would not attack Hillary personally, but he would insist she gave real answers. Having those debates before the nomination and putting forward a platform voters can understand and believe in might well make the difference in 2016.
I am certain of this, any debate in which Bernie Sanders takes part would be anything but boring.
The potential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders should be taken seriously. I heard him speak recently in Austin and I'm looking forward to him running as a Democrat. To date, he is the only voice that is neither influenced by billionaires nor the voters to whom he is speaking to at that moment.
We need to have real issues discussed and real proposals for dealing with those issues. Bernie Sanders would not attack Hillary personally, but he would insist she gave real answers. Having those debates before the nomination and putting forward a platform voters can understand and believe in might well make the difference in 2016.
I am certain of this, any debate in which Bernie Sanders takes part would be anything but boring.
12
Thank you for some sanity,
The main danger with a primary is that if people decide to vote against Mrs. Clinton in the primaries, they may well decide to vote against her in the general election or stay home.
I am sick of people saying that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush (the most likely Republican. I am sick of people decrying a Bush-Clinton race, saying that it doesn't matter either way who wins.
Certainly the Koch brothers and those on the extreme right think it makes a difference. Otherwise, why are they planning to spend so much money to defeat Hillary Clinton?
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is stark and complete. If the Republicans gain the Presidency and keep Congress, there is no stopping them.
The main danger with a primary is that if people decide to vote against Mrs. Clinton in the primaries, they may well decide to vote against her in the general election or stay home.
I am sick of people saying that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush (the most likely Republican. I am sick of people decrying a Bush-Clinton race, saying that it doesn't matter either way who wins.
Certainly the Koch brothers and those on the extreme right think it makes a difference. Otherwise, why are they planning to spend so much money to defeat Hillary Clinton?
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is stark and complete. If the Republicans gain the Presidency and keep Congress, there is no stopping them.
9
Analytics are all the rage, and that's fine, but are we -- or at least the perpetual Clinton campaign -- paying so much attention to them that we're losing sight of aesthetics?
The electric orange pantsuit in the photo accompanying this article and the dreary Dr. Evil jacket worn a month ago at the U.N. news conference about the erased emails make an observer wonder where a sense of style fits into the projection of leadership anymore.
Maybe Mr. Cohn and his colleagues at The Upshot could run some numbers on what it means to "look presidential" in the 21st century. With so much talk about image makeovers, illusion versus reality, "message" and so forth, it would be helpful.
Granted, it's all a matter of taste, but nevertheless, it's hard to imagine, say, Ike (who left the presidency at about the same age that Mrs. Clinton would be entering it) or JFK or Reagan wearing head-to-toe orange.
The electric orange pantsuit in the photo accompanying this article and the dreary Dr. Evil jacket worn a month ago at the U.N. news conference about the erased emails make an observer wonder where a sense of style fits into the projection of leadership anymore.
Maybe Mr. Cohn and his colleagues at The Upshot could run some numbers on what it means to "look presidential" in the 21st century. With so much talk about image makeovers, illusion versus reality, "message" and so forth, it would be helpful.
Granted, it's all a matter of taste, but nevertheless, it's hard to imagine, say, Ike (who left the presidency at about the same age that Mrs. Clinton would be entering it) or JFK or Reagan wearing head-to-toe orange.
6
These arguments read sound to me, except that they presuppose that progressives’ first concern ought to be Hillary’s success in the general election. I think many democrats, independents, and liberals are growing weary of such blind partisanship, particularly in instances as here where it silences liberal critiques of the centrist positions of the democratic establishment.
5
'After a year of being characterized as a Wall Street hack, or a warmonger with low-grade corruption issues, Mrs. Clinton could face a Ralph Nader-like third-party challenge, which generally becomes likelier after a party has held the White House for consecutive terms.'
The truth hurts - and we need some truth in this election. I expect a lot of false populist rhetoric coming out of Hillary shortly.
It's way past time to start to build a serious third party that is not Corporatist like our existing parties.
The truth hurts - and we need some truth in this election. I expect a lot of false populist rhetoric coming out of Hillary shortly.
It's way past time to start to build a serious third party that is not Corporatist like our existing parties.
6
Hillary Clinton is every Goofy looking & thinking person's candidate for President.
2
I have no amnesia about what I didn't like about HRC the last time around. Too entitled, and definitely some low-level corruption. The e-mail thing is inexcusable and just shows she has something to hide and wants to hide it. I would love to see a viable alternative candidate.
But I will vote for her if she is the nominee. To prevent a GOP win and all the negative sequelae that would entail, from Supreme Court placements to capsizing the Iran deal. I don't see anyone else in the field who could beat Jeb Bush. In a Bush-Clinton race, at least the dynasty factor is even. I think the Democratic party is counting on people like me to shut up and get in line. Don't like it, but I probably will.
But I will vote for her if she is the nominee. To prevent a GOP win and all the negative sequelae that would entail, from Supreme Court placements to capsizing the Iran deal. I don't see anyone else in the field who could beat Jeb Bush. In a Bush-Clinton race, at least the dynasty factor is even. I think the Democratic party is counting on people like me to shut up and get in line. Don't like it, but I probably will.
6
Of course it wouldn't help her. It would just point out again what a weak politician she is, just like in 2008.
5
Could not agree with this more. There in lies the tragedy and the damages averted, depending on the perspective, with no Obama like figure to remind people the obvious fact that: HRC is a weak candidate with no accomplishments of any kind (except skills of coattails riding), no genuine leadership in political thought (waits for the dust settles before speaking up), and no trustworthiness (plays by own rules for offense, destroys evidence as defense),...
The campaign is a shallow celebrity worship. The message is a tone deaf hustle. The rationale is me, Me, ME. Yes, pave the gender path for Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian for POTUS!
The campaign is a shallow celebrity worship. The message is a tone deaf hustle. The rationale is me, Me, ME. Yes, pave the gender path for Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian for POTUS!
2
Nate's attitude seems to be "let the coronation begin". Let me say the following:
As a NY voter during Hilary's run for NY's U.S. Senate seat, I was extremely resentful when the Democratic Party made a complete sham of the democratic process by telling all of Hilary's potential rivals to get out of the way, to just sit down and shut up. I had two choices in the primary: A) vote for her, or B) not. I chose B).
The Dems are now making the same mistake. I will again chose column B) come primary day, if there are no alternatives to A).
As a NY voter during Hilary's run for NY's U.S. Senate seat, I was extremely resentful when the Democratic Party made a complete sham of the democratic process by telling all of Hilary's potential rivals to get out of the way, to just sit down and shut up. I had two choices in the primary: A) vote for her, or B) not. I chose B).
The Dems are now making the same mistake. I will again chose column B) come primary day, if there are no alternatives to A).
7
I really dislike the coronation of Hilary Clinton that is already going on and would like to see a real primary. There are a tremendous number of Democrats who are not yet comfortable with Clinton, myself included, and we deserve a real primary with real choices where Clinton is forced to fully explain her platform, defend her record, and answer real questions about her connections to Wall Street and her support of the Iraq War. Not having a primary might be good for Clinton but it is not good for a vibrant democracy to have "inevitable" candidates.
8
I agree with Mr. Cohn that the primaries in this case aren't a crucial piece of understanding our party's choice, of breaking any logjam in candidates or getting to know someone who is new to the public. Hillary is a classic democrat. Anyone writing here that she is too far to the right or too close to the center has perhaps never travelled beyond the eastern seaboard lived outside of a college town. Those who think a Bernie Sanders or a Senator Warren could cobble together a national win outside their home states is really living in fantasy land where a Dennis Kucinich campaign still makes sense, or didn't learn the lessons of McGovern. They criticize the way right swing of the republican party into tea party and birthers' territory but don't see any problem in pushing their own party way that far left. Hillary is a classic Democrat in the mold of Kennedy and FDR, Eleanor, Bill Clinton and our current centralist Obama. That is what wins. That is what can win. That is what serves the needs of a diverse country. I am to the left of Bill and Hillary and Obama but I see that my country isn't. A big center-left tent makes sense and is just. And anyone who doesn't think biography doesn't matter, that her legacy doesn't count, that her gender isn't a crucial decision point right now is morally and politically blind.
If Hillary wins in 2016, then on the hundredth anniversary of women getting the vote in 1920 we will have a democratic woman president: Go Hillary!
If Hillary wins in 2016, then on the hundredth anniversary of women getting the vote in 1920 we will have a democratic woman president: Go Hillary!
2
The problem with no serious rival in the primaries is that *if* she falters along the way for any reason - not necessarily scandal, even ill-health the Democratic Party will be left with no alternative who could run a credible general election campaign, thus losing by default.
8
The more I parse this candidacy, the more I believe that Hillary's most difficult hurdle will be following Barack Obama. No Democrat can argue her mere competency for the office of President, but many of us see very little in the way of accomplishment. She is like one of those actors with a great resume but mediocre, if any, reviews. President Obama has taught Dem's who are watching that corporate compromise is necessary to get elected, therefore that aspect of Clinton's candidacy should not be a real problem. But Obama, as President, has accomplished huge things even in the face of a dysfunctional Congress. Clinton, even as Secretary of State, has few headline-makers to brag about, particularly after John Kerry's successful Iran efforts. She is bringing forward women's issues as a last resort, just as she did in the 2008 election. This belated expedience is not lost on the voters, and, in comparison, it flies in the face of Obama's wise determination to make his campaign an appeal to ALL races and genders. Unfortunately, candidate Clinton is once again running against Barack Obama. And she did not do so well last time.
3
I have a hard time squaring, “She is not an inexperienced candidate who needs to be vetted or to prove her ability to handle a presidential campaign,” with “But primary campaigns tend to expose the flaws of fundamentally weak candidates.” First of all, Hillary suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a candidate who professed progressive views in her try seven-years ago, and so “her experience” has been mainly experience in losing. Secondly, although the author never lets the name “Warren” drop, it is clear to me that by vetting he means surviving a primary fight against the senior Senator from Massachusetts. But given Clinton's incredibly ineffectual response to the e-mail affair, it is by no means certain that she can win a primary against such a formidable opponent, one who will attract young, highly-motivated progressive supporters in droves.
If Democrats do not want to lose the next Presidential election, they had better field their strongest candidate. And the best way of determining who this is through a primary.
If Democrats do not want to lose the next Presidential election, they had better field their strongest candidate. And the best way of determining who this is through a primary.
6
I am not particularly worried about the lack of primary challengers to Hillary Clinton. Not exactly her fault that potential Democratic chellengers are making the political calculation not to run. I am not looking forward to a general election campaign consisting of the Republican who emerges victorious from their internecine warfare campaigning on "third Obama term," "repeal the ACA," "no to raproachment with Cuba," with the only articulation of positive policies being "lower taxes for the 'job creators'," and "protection of 2nd Amendment rights." The coup-de-gras will be Tray Gowdy calling a hearing on Bengazi about a week before the November, 2016 election ;-)
2
Agree, someone like Hillary doesn't not need to have someone fight her early on, if she does she is dogged by all the drama for a very long time. She already knows how to fight, been doing it for many years. And she tends to be picked apart by the media, down to every last word, the less of that the better. She's a flawed candidate but no one else is stepping up, and that is not on her, that's on them. Tough road ahead of her, i support her 100%. Okay, but 98%.
1
Your favorability chart reminds me that Jeb Bush might be associated with one of the most unpopular U.S. presidents, while Hillary Clinton might be associated with one of the most popular. Marco Rubio is the more worrisome opponent. He is quick on his feet and makes non-facts sound like facts. And he's Hispanic. Hillary should study his Daley show appearance from last year. The Republicans will try to discount her major accomplishments and experience as Secretary of State, but she should make that experience one of her central assets. Rather than make the mistake John Kerry did by even surprising George Bush in a debate with the information that he had been a state Attorney General. Who knew? (And we never heard that fact again.)
2
People should not lose sight of the fact that Hillary "won" the popular vote in 2008. She has had her primary and she has served her country well!
1
Geez, it's like her whole life has been one long primary fight.
4
HRC is already measuring the White House drapes. She doesn't need the little people voters getting in her way.
3
By running she invites a primary fight. Far better to have stayed out and been drafted by a united Democratic convention.
1
I am not sure what the correct solution is for the Democrats. I don't know if there is a candidate who can win the general election in 2016, but I am quite confident that Hillary cannot. She has too many negatives, too much baggage, and quite simply lacks 'likeability' or 'relatability.' At the end of the day, I think that some part of what people vote for is someone with whom they can picture having a conversation in their living room. I don't think Hillary is that person.
We need a democrat who can offer a different, new and more relatable message. How we find that person without a primary campaign is not clear to me. But if it comes down to Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton, I think Bush takes it in a walk.
We need a democrat who can offer a different, new and more relatable message. How we find that person without a primary campaign is not clear to me. But if it comes down to Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton, I think Bush takes it in a walk.
4
"a better chance of winning her party’s nomination without a serious contest than any nonincumbent in the modern era".
What do you mean by "modern era"? I remember being taught that the modern era began after the middle ages, but that's obviously now what's meant here. Is there a standard definition of what the "modern era" of American history is? Sometimes people mean post-WW2, sometimes post-WW1, sometimes post-Civil War...
What do you mean by "modern era"? I remember being taught that the modern era began after the middle ages, but that's obviously now what's meant here. Is there a standard definition of what the "modern era" of American history is? Sometimes people mean post-WW2, sometimes post-WW1, sometimes post-Civil War...
Since it would help America and Americans, who cares whether or not a primary fight would benefit or hurt Hillary Clinton?
Hillary already had her White House chances as more than a First Lady and a credible "inevitable" 1st female POTUS candidate. Hillary Clinton is much more like Richard Nixon, Jimmie Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in her familiar quest for office.
Hillary already had her White House chances as more than a First Lady and a credible "inevitable" 1st female POTUS candidate. Hillary Clinton is much more like Richard Nixon, Jimmie Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in her familiar quest for office.
2
Oh the added unscripted exposure would hurt Hillary? All the more reason to have a primary. If there's no primary, it's just democratic bosses putting up their candidate. As a NYer, I'm sick of having no choice of candidates.
I'm not necessarily a hater, but I don't see why any candidate should just be entitled to run.
On second thought, I might be a hater. I don't want to be called an "everyday American" for the next year! It's not even a real thing. It's a Sly and the Family Stone song!
Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my song
The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in
I am everyday people, yeah, yeah
I'm not necessarily a hater, but I don't see why any candidate should just be entitled to run.
On second thought, I might be a hater. I don't want to be called an "everyday American" for the next year! It's not even a real thing. It's a Sly and the Family Stone song!
Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my song
The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in
I am everyday people, yeah, yeah
1
isn't the question whether democracy is served by a primary?
Hillary Clinton and those who directly benefit from her ultimate consolidation of political power agree with you.
But what about the 99.999 percent of the rest of us.
Not exactly 4th pillar of democracy journalism is it?
Hillary Clinton and those who directly benefit from her ultimate consolidation of political power agree with you.
But what about the 99.999 percent of the rest of us.
Not exactly 4th pillar of democracy journalism is it?
5
Listening to Carl Bernstein discussing the Clinton campaign, he suggested that even though he supports her, the press must not fail to ask her hard questions and challenge her, as she does not have a democratic challenger. Evidently, the NYT, Upshot, does not seem to think so. Has the media become so entrenched in promoting Ms. Clinton, that she gets a pass to the White House. If the press does not do their job, our democracy will be finished.
6
3 quotes from the article:
"there are big reasons she will benefit from running unopposed in the presidential primary."
"Vigorous primary campaigns do tend to make fundamentally sound candidates stronger."
"But primary campaigns tend to expose the flaws of fundamentally weak candidates."
So what, pray tell, is reassuring about Ms. Clinton running unopposed, other than that it allows her to keep the lid on any flaws or fundamental weaknesses? Is this how democracies really work? Presidential aspirants are annointed by behind-the-scenes power brokers, and then all internal dissent is stifled for the next 18 months?
This isn't the Politburo. Sorry, Carpetbagger Hillary, you only became NY senator because Guiliani withdrew from the race due to illness, leaving you virtually unopposed. You expected the red carpet treatment in 2008, but instead got schooled by a relative unknown. He gave you the Sec of State position as political payoff for not stabbing him in the back in the general election, something you and Bill obviously threatened. What exactly are your qualifications, besides being famous?
"there are big reasons she will benefit from running unopposed in the presidential primary."
"Vigorous primary campaigns do tend to make fundamentally sound candidates stronger."
"But primary campaigns tend to expose the flaws of fundamentally weak candidates."
So what, pray tell, is reassuring about Ms. Clinton running unopposed, other than that it allows her to keep the lid on any flaws or fundamental weaknesses? Is this how democracies really work? Presidential aspirants are annointed by behind-the-scenes power brokers, and then all internal dissent is stifled for the next 18 months?
This isn't the Politburo. Sorry, Carpetbagger Hillary, you only became NY senator because Guiliani withdrew from the race due to illness, leaving you virtually unopposed. You expected the red carpet treatment in 2008, but instead got schooled by a relative unknown. He gave you the Sec of State position as political payoff for not stabbing him in the back in the general election, something you and Bill obviously threatened. What exactly are your qualifications, besides being famous?
8
The Upshot is disclaiming the theory that having a primary challenger would benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign. The proponents of pro-primary thinking comes from people who are not enamored of Hillary, resent the fact that she might feel 'entitled', who scorn a 'coronation' of her 'inevitable status', and feel others should now have a shot at running. The thinking goes that with other primary candidates she could refine and clarify her policies, and it is 'good' for democracy to have multiple choices for voters. Well and good. However, the final say comes from the - so far- three people who are interested in the challenge and have the will to go for it. Hillary has no say in the matter. Of course, as this article points out, she has a better chance of winning the nomination with no challengers to speak of.
Either way, to my way of thinking, she can prevail, with or without a primary challenger. This is her second go-round. She's a debater. She's experienced. And she can make history as our first woman president. The baggage will never go away. The slings and arrows against her - personal and professional - will continue unabated. She will never please everybody all the time. But until the opposition has a better slate of candidates to offer - and the news media restrains itself - my money's on Hillary, primary or no.
Either way, to my way of thinking, she can prevail, with or without a primary challenger. This is her second go-round. She's a debater. She's experienced. And she can make history as our first woman president. The baggage will never go away. The slings and arrows against her - personal and professional - will continue unabated. She will never please everybody all the time. But until the opposition has a better slate of candidates to offer - and the news media restrains itself - my money's on Hillary, primary or no.
1
Good for her personally, of course. But certainly not good for democracy.
There were some awfully important reasons why the Founders did their best to prevent coronations. Imagine their reaction if they knew we had turned what they bequeathed us into an oligarchy.
There were some awfully important reasons why the Founders did their best to prevent coronations. Imagine their reaction if they knew we had turned what they bequeathed us into an oligarchy.
35
Actually at the time of the framing of the Constitution there were no parties and primaries and the fist state to have a primary election was Oregon in 1910. Moreover, the first Presidential Election was as close to an uncontested coronation as they could possibly imagine.
What's best for Hillary? Seriously? No, it's what best for US. And the choice of HRC or HRC doesn't help anyone but HRC, her billionaire backers, her staff, her family. But US? No proof of any benefit, just a lot of vague rhetoric like the last time she ran.
28
There is still a strong independent/undecided voter base in this country, and the right has a stable of viable candidates, this go 'round. Where this type of situation hurts, is when players like Bernie (and the like) have to reach into whatever bag of tactics is necessary to gain an advantage. Refining the message on *why* Hillary isn't fit to represent a party is going to give the RNC a platform for why she isn't fit to lead America. You never want to be spoon-feeding your opponent the game plan to beat you.
The best idea for the left is quell the options that would require such an opposition campaign, and require them to run as I's. Either way, she'll lose votes, but at least this way she's not coming out of a "Who's worse" fight, while her opponent steps into the ring having won a "Who's better."
Mr. Obama hasn't helped her, either. She will have a lot of navigating to do, to even get to the finish line, winner or otherwise. I don't see how she wins the whole thing.
The best idea for the left is quell the options that would require such an opposition campaign, and require them to run as I's. Either way, she'll lose votes, but at least this way she's not coming out of a "Who's worse" fight, while her opponent steps into the ring having won a "Who's better."
Mr. Obama hasn't helped her, either. She will have a lot of navigating to do, to even get to the finish line, winner or otherwise. I don't see how she wins the whole thing.
4
"There is still a strong independent/undecided voter base in this country"
Pew just came out with a survey that proves once again that shows that the vast majority of independents almost always lean towards one party or the other when it comes to actually voting, and this has not changed for decades.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Pew just came out with a survey that proves once again that shows that the vast majority of independents almost always lean towards one party or the other when it comes to actually voting, and this has not changed for decades.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
If by viable you mean they have a pulse then yes.
The number one reason Hillary would not benefit from a primary fight is that she would lose it. The vast majority of the Democratic voters are ready to chuck her, and just waiting for a creditable alternative to appear. The group of core supporters is tiny, and shrinking every day.
37
This premise of this article, that a flawed candidate would not benefit from a rigorous primary challenge, certainly applies to Clinton. I can not think of a more flawed leading candidate since Nixon in 1968. Indeed, Clinton shares many of the same flaws that Nixon possessed. Frankly, if democrats are not confident that Clinton would prevail unscathed against a primary challenger, the American people will probably not be confident that Clinton will be able to meet the far greater challenges that the office she seeks will certainly present.
28
This piece is ridiculous. The idea of the pei.art is to give the party's core voters a chance to learn about more than one candidate, and to have a choice as to who represents us the best.
This piece is written as if the Democratic Party exists to insure Hillary gets her entitlement presidency.
Those of us who are registered Democrats who hold views on most issues to the left of Ronald Reagan, a d those of who feel squeamish about Hillary's pro lens with telling the truth, and with the unassailable fact that she is about oligarchy and plutocratic power, and foreign wars, and imperialism, and corporate power, would like to actually have a choice of a meaningful sort in 2016.
However, it seems clear the Democrats won't even have a meaningful primary campaign.
It may time to finally dump this wretched party.
This piece is written as if the Democratic Party exists to insure Hillary gets her entitlement presidency.
Those of us who are registered Democrats who hold views on most issues to the left of Ronald Reagan, a d those of who feel squeamish about Hillary's pro lens with telling the truth, and with the unassailable fact that she is about oligarchy and plutocratic power, and foreign wars, and imperialism, and corporate power, would like to actually have a choice of a meaningful sort in 2016.
However, it seems clear the Democrats won't even have a meaningful primary campaign.
It may time to finally dump this wretched party.
37
Clarification on my post, which was typo-ridden and hasty. The "point of a primary" is to offer choices (typo in first sentence) and upon consideration the written piece is more reasonable and balanced than at first I thought.
Hillary is a polarizing figure. Nonetheless, those of who are badly alienated by her need to give commentators a full reading before clicking the "yell angrily!" button made available to us, as tempting as it is. I retract my statement about the written piece being "ridiculous".
Hillary is a polarizing figure. Nonetheless, those of who are badly alienated by her need to give commentators a full reading before clicking the "yell angrily!" button made available to us, as tempting as it is. I retract my statement about the written piece being "ridiculous".
Hillary Clinton will, and should be, the next president of the United States. I enthusiastically supported her in 2008, when, to my dismay, Mr. Obama upset her apple cart, much to the detriment of both the country and the Democratic party. While not an Obama Hater, I am one of the deeply and profoundly disappointed Americans who found him to be an empty suit.
While Mrs.Clinton is not quite as exciting or liberal as everyone's favorite mom Elizabeth Warren, she is brilliant, tough, experienced and shrewd. She would be a formidable president. With the near psychotic Republicans scurrying through the halls of Congress like demented cockroaches, she will be a effective can of Raid. And having Bill as First Man should a hoot. He's still the most interesting politician in America.
While Mrs.Clinton is not quite as exciting or liberal as everyone's favorite mom Elizabeth Warren, she is brilliant, tough, experienced and shrewd. She would be a formidable president. With the near psychotic Republicans scurrying through the halls of Congress like demented cockroaches, she will be a effective can of Raid. And having Bill as First Man should a hoot. He's still the most interesting politician in America.
21
What do you actually think Hillary will DO if elected? Where do you actually think that what she will DO - what specific actions and policies to expect, based on her history - that will be particularly different than Republicans?
Based on her history, she and Jeb Bush should be running on the same ticket. Minus abortion, they are effectively the same candidate.
Based on her history, she and Jeb Bush should be running on the same ticket. Minus abortion, they are effectively the same candidate.
2
While I disagree with your assessment of Obama -- although I have my own disappointments in him, I am glad and proud he has been our president for the last 7 years -- I have to say your confidence in Mrs. Clinton is well-expressed and infectious. And the cockroach image is priceless. Thank you!
1
This comment is from fantasyland. An empty suit?
1. Osama Bin Laden is gone.
2. We did NOT fall into a depression.
3. A comprehensive health care act was past by Obama, at which HRC ignominiously failed, and in the face of total opposition by the unAmerican Republicans
4. Middle East wars, which HRC supported and Obama didn't, are being wound down.
HRC is not tough and shrewd. She is rigid and defensive, and does not make good decisions. Review her performance in the primary season of 2008.
1. Osama Bin Laden is gone.
2. We did NOT fall into a depression.
3. A comprehensive health care act was past by Obama, at which HRC ignominiously failed, and in the face of total opposition by the unAmerican Republicans
4. Middle East wars, which HRC supported and Obama didn't, are being wound down.
HRC is not tough and shrewd. She is rigid and defensive, and does not make good decisions. Review her performance in the primary season of 2008.
2
If Hillary is the best chance for the Democrats to retain the White House in 2016 then she has my support. The worst Dem is better than the best GOP candidate. The GOP will likely start a war in Iran, continue the pattern of income inequality, do everything possible to deny equal rights to the LGBT community, offer no solutions for healthcare/immigration and not be happy until every person in the US over the age of six owns at least one firearm. No thanks.
90
Actually I think the target for universal gun ownership is three years old...
3
I suppose if your concern is electing Clinton, no matter what her commitments or politics du jour happen to be, then you are right. A primary battle will not help. If your concern is democracy, and the fact that the Democratic party has turned into a corrupt clone of the Republican, and that the media is increasingly hysterical in its attempts to convince us that the two parties are diametrically opposed, etc, then the more debate the better. I'm in this battle for the long haul. I will never vote for another corporate Wall Street Democrat.
51
It doesn't help that the GOP is just starting to take a second look at crony capitalism and law-enforcement excesses, just as the Democrats are ossifying into the party of the 60s.
2
Really? No difference? Will you still be happy with your non-Democratic vote when the Supreme Court is occupied by three more Scalias?
1
I would consider a Democrat like Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee, after careful examination of their records and views. But if the Democratic Party decides that we should have no choice and that's it will be a HRC coronation, I will definitely not be voting Democrat. I'll vote third party, write in, or not at all. I don't owe the corrupt corporate Democratic Party my vote--they have to earn it, with an open primary and no attempted suppression of third party candidates. With their behavior in the last few years, in growing a fascist NSA-police state, it's their last chance with me.
3
Yes it sure says a lot about how she would stand up to the leaders of the world's stronger nations. What a mess the U.S.would be in!
11
This is a democracy -- not a coronation, even with the dynastic subplot of her candidacy. Primaries bring out/focus the positions of candidates, and test their capacity and ability to conduct a nationwide campaign. Is there something that you are worried about in her meeting these robust challenges? She should not and will not be immune from an aggressive campaign from either party.
29
If Mrs. Clinton doesn't have an opponent, that will leave her wide open to the issue of whether she feels 'entitled' to the nomination. Even if Jeb Bush would run and be the nominee, he would at least be able to say that he had presented his message to the primary voters and was their choice in an open competition. Running unopposed, her pre-convention campaign would be reduced to a series of bland, pre-scripted, essentially meaningless events that, looking back through campaign history, has been the hallmark of presumptive candidates who go down in flames.
23
Well, well. The lesser of two evils rationale is getting an early start. Don't expose the lesser of two evils with a primary challenge; it might ensure the more evil candidate's election. Are you leading us down the garden path, Mr. Cohn? Say it ain't so, Nate. Say it ain't so.
19
At the end of the current SCOTUS session in June, we may find out the hard and socially catastrophic way the results of not having a Plan B.
8
What does this mean? What happens in June?
1
The court scuttles Obamacare with no Plan B in the pipeline and a congress with no desire to fix it.
HRC stumbles in the primary run up or the winds of fortune bode ill for legacy candidates, who replaces her?
HRC stumbles in the primary run up or the winds of fortune bode ill for legacy candidates, who replaces her?
I suppose Mrs. Clinton and supporters including the NYT might be better off without contested primaries. Surely those who would cast a vote in a primary election and in the general election if there were an acceptable choice are not.
11
NYT does not support her, they're pretty darn awful to her actually.
If Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, or any other Democrat feels that he or she would make a better president than Hillary Clinton, that person deserves a chance to compete in the primary. That's what primaries are for: to give multiple candidates a forum to state their case, and may the strongest candidate with the best ideas win.
Republicans will use it to try to sow division, but they'll try to sow division based on anything and everything. A healthy party is able to have both a vigorous primary and a unified general campaign. These are signs of strength, not weakness.
Republicans will use it to try to sow division, but they'll try to sow division based on anything and everything. A healthy party is able to have both a vigorous primary and a unified general campaign. These are signs of strength, not weakness.
51
It is important to note that the various factions of the 'far-right' tend to have the financial capability to influence the behaviors of candidates and thus the results. Candidates appealing to such varied narrow views will look like flip-flopping. And corporate people dollars often does not equal the actual people votes needed to win the Presidency.
Yes Democrats have their 'far-left', but they don't seem to hold that same power over their candidates. Also the Democratic messages are more aligned, strong social programs, equal pay, and so on. They bicker over how to get the same thing done.
Also via Primaries the Republican base seems more involved. In the last few elections the Republican party has increasingly participated. In this papers 538 Blog.
In 2010 Brian McCabe reports on the dwindling Democrat turnout vs. Republican turnout at elections. - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/fivethirtyeight/chart1.png
It seems the party said "Obama's President my Job is done" Is the Democratic Party less passionate? Lazy? lack motivation? ability?
With Barack there was a primary and we all got involved to elect the first African-American President. Should it not be a primary to then wake up the base? Hillary needs to earn her nomination, just as Barack earned his. My wish is that a Primary prompts Hillary to motivates the base, fine tune her campaign, clean out her skeletons, and by golly bring in Elizabeth Warren as her running mate!
Yes Democrats have their 'far-left', but they don't seem to hold that same power over their candidates. Also the Democratic messages are more aligned, strong social programs, equal pay, and so on. They bicker over how to get the same thing done.
Also via Primaries the Republican base seems more involved. In the last few elections the Republican party has increasingly participated. In this papers 538 Blog.
In 2010 Brian McCabe reports on the dwindling Democrat turnout vs. Republican turnout at elections. - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/fivethirtyeight/chart1.png
It seems the party said "Obama's President my Job is done" Is the Democratic Party less passionate? Lazy? lack motivation? ability?
With Barack there was a primary and we all got involved to elect the first African-American President. Should it not be a primary to then wake up the base? Hillary needs to earn her nomination, just as Barack earned his. My wish is that a Primary prompts Hillary to motivates the base, fine tune her campaign, clean out her skeletons, and by golly bring in Elizabeth Warren as her running mate!
3
"But primary campaigns tend to expose the flaws of fundamentally weak candidates."
That is the point. We should not nominate a "fundamentally weak candidate." We should not nominate a candidate who accomplished nothing in life except through marriage. We definitely should not nominate a candidate who is owned, one hundred percent, by the Wall Street and the military-industrial-espionage complex.
That is the point. We should not nominate a "fundamentally weak candidate." We should not nominate a candidate who accomplished nothing in life except through marriage. We definitely should not nominate a candidate who is owned, one hundred percent, by the Wall Street and the military-industrial-espionage complex.
42
"We should not nominate a candidate who accomplished nothing in life except through marriage."
Huh? U.S. senator from NY, Secretary of State - I call those major accomplishments. As a NY'er, I can tell you she worked hard for us and was popular all over the state.
I'll vote for Hillary. And if I ever falter in that resolve, I will remind myself of the mischief the Justices brought to the Supreme Court by GW, the last Republican President, have wrought. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby - corporations are people with full rights as 'political' and 'religious' beings. No thanks. President Hillary sounds great to me. I trust her - she'll do a great job for ALL of us.
Huh? U.S. senator from NY, Secretary of State - I call those major accomplishments. As a NY'er, I can tell you she worked hard for us and was popular all over the state.
I'll vote for Hillary. And if I ever falter in that resolve, I will remind myself of the mischief the Justices brought to the Supreme Court by GW, the last Republican President, have wrought. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby - corporations are people with full rights as 'political' and 'religious' beings. No thanks. President Hillary sounds great to me. I trust her - she'll do a great job for ALL of us.
32
RHE - thanks. I don't get Hillary supporters. They seem entirely blind to the reality of the woman, and what history she has, and to instead be wrapped up in a slogan-engineered cult of personality.
19
Huh? U.S. senator from NY, Secretary of State - I call those major accomplishments. As a NY'er, I can tell you she worked hard for us and was popular all over the state.
========================
What major legislation did she write and get passed through Congress? I can't think of anything, but correct me if you have something.
What major accomplishments did she have as Sec. of State? Frankly it appears that just about everything she touched fell to pieces: Libya, Egypt, Yemen, reset with Russia. The entire foreign policy approach she and Obama took has ended in one disaster after another
========================
What major legislation did she write and get passed through Congress? I can't think of anything, but correct me if you have something.
What major accomplishments did she have as Sec. of State? Frankly it appears that just about everything she touched fell to pieces: Libya, Egypt, Yemen, reset with Russia. The entire foreign policy approach she and Obama took has ended in one disaster after another
1
Time for the Nineteenth Amendment to fully blossom. According to 2010's census.gov stats (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf) there's more voting age women than men. Period. End of story.
Ladies (as well as gentlemen) - time to elect our first female president! Yes?
Ladies (as well as gentlemen) - time to elect our first female president! Yes?
19
As a gentlemen (I hope), I second that. Although I will be voting for her because she is, by far, the best person for the job.
11
No.
13
Can you articulate a reason besides her gender to vote for her? Based on her actual specific achievements and actions while either Senator or Secretary?
13
Is this some kind of manufactured pieced for the power elite? I most certainty think we need a primary fight. There are much better people (cough.. Elizabeth Warren) that America desperately needs now than to carry on with the same establishment that's been dragging the world down for the past 15 years.
39
Exactly!!! Liberals/Democrats who think a vigorous Democratic primary is a good idea are making a huge mistake for all the reasons Nate Cohn stated. It will be costly; and it'll likely drive up her negatives. Without a competitive primary, she gets to do what Obama did in 2012: conserve money and define the Republican nominee early. Clinton is as well-known as Obama was in 2012. She doesn't need a primary to introduce herself. Without a primary, Clinton can visit more states, fine-tune her message without distraction, and build a general election war-chest that humbles her opponent.
19
Maybe she doesn't need a primary (still debatable in my mind), but we do.
3
Huh, what's her message? Couldn't find one so far.
1
Even if she is the democrats' anointed one (shudder), without an opponent who is going to bother to vote in the primaries. She won't know what kind of real support she has.
20
How is she anointed? Because no one else is running? Take it up with those not running.
Well, in 2008 she had 18 million Democratic supports and was basically tied with Barack Obama.
No statesman in the country has lived their life under closer scrutiny, more intensive investigation, or scurrilous accusations than Hilliary Rodham Clinton. None of it, and I repeat - none of it has ever produced a shred of evidence against her this public servant. Her "hyper cautious" answers are totally understandable in light of the treatment she has endured over the years. The NYT and other responsible media need to remember this before publishing the sound bite of the moment in the year to come. Do your work and we'll do ours.
60
Yes!!!
2
None of it, and I repeat - none of it has ever produced a shred of evidence against her this public servant.
===============
To be fair, when you circumvent public law and State Department policy to use your own email server and then wipe it clean, it makes it difficult to find a "shred of evidence'
===============
To be fair, when you circumvent public law and State Department policy to use your own email server and then wipe it clean, it makes it difficult to find a "shred of evidence'
2
There was/is no law stating government email had to be used. And it is not uncommon for public officials to use private accounts. I'm sure that will change, but she broke no laws.
2
So in other words a primary would be good for the Democratic party, but bad for Hillary Clinton?
Or in still other words - by being good for a larger share of Democrats than one, a primary challenge would be good for all Americans, though bad for Hillary Clinton?
Or in still other words - as this author implies Clinton is a particularly weak candidate - she will be ill served by a strong primary contender - though the rest of us will be much better off.
Nothing less is at stake than the Presidency of the USA for the next 8 years.
Nothing less is at stake than the fact that either a Democrat, or a Republican will hold this office ... either of two nominees as it were.
But the entire institutional Democratic Party apparatus sees fit, on behalf of the rest of us I guess, to throw all of its eggs, and ours for that matter, into one basket.
No "plan B" required.
Just sayin'.
Or in still other words - by being good for a larger share of Democrats than one, a primary challenge would be good for all Americans, though bad for Hillary Clinton?
Or in still other words - as this author implies Clinton is a particularly weak candidate - she will be ill served by a strong primary contender - though the rest of us will be much better off.
Nothing less is at stake than the Presidency of the USA for the next 8 years.
Nothing less is at stake than the fact that either a Democrat, or a Republican will hold this office ... either of two nominees as it were.
But the entire institutional Democratic Party apparatus sees fit, on behalf of the rest of us I guess, to throw all of its eggs, and ours for that matter, into one basket.
No "plan B" required.
Just sayin'.
23
Better than all of the eggs being smashed by a Republican victory and ability to nominate Supreme Court justices.
11
... and more: the complete reversal of all the progress made by the Obama administration, and that progress has been considerable -- a significant move toward an "extended hand; talk first" approach to conflict, a responsible and fair approach to immigration, a much needed reproachment with Cuba and the rest of the Americas, and a general preference for coalition-building over bullying.
1
And a free hand to pass anti abortion and anti contraception legislation.
1
Hillary doesn't need a primary fight. What she needs, and more importantly what the country needs. is for her to retire, right now. After 8 years as senator, and four years as secretary of state, she has gone as far as her husband's coattails deserve to take her.
America does not need another Bush or Clinton in the White House, ever. America does not need another president the age of Ronald Reagan, ever. HRC is a poster for everything that which Democrats ought to hate about their own party; devious, waffling, unprincipled, unimaginative, worn-out and capable of doing little more than slightly tweaking the onslaught of Republicans who know how to fight and win (even though they have been an even greater disaster for the USA than the Democrats).
If America is to surrender to yet another completely unnecessary era of Republican misrule, without even attempting a credible alternative, better to do so openly rather than through the delusion of a Hillary Clinton presidency which would open the floodgates for Tea Party Nonsense Forever.
Better yet, of course, would be to nominate ANY of the many Democratic females in Congress who are younger, more experienced, and less dishonest than Hillary. That this is not deemed even a legitimate question for Democrats 18 months before the national election tells the world and History that this is a party which deserves to die and be replaced by one capable of something other than re-running its past failures.
America does not need another Bush or Clinton in the White House, ever. America does not need another president the age of Ronald Reagan, ever. HRC is a poster for everything that which Democrats ought to hate about their own party; devious, waffling, unprincipled, unimaginative, worn-out and capable of doing little more than slightly tweaking the onslaught of Republicans who know how to fight and win (even though they have been an even greater disaster for the USA than the Democrats).
If America is to surrender to yet another completely unnecessary era of Republican misrule, without even attempting a credible alternative, better to do so openly rather than through the delusion of a Hillary Clinton presidency which would open the floodgates for Tea Party Nonsense Forever.
Better yet, of course, would be to nominate ANY of the many Democratic females in Congress who are younger, more experienced, and less dishonest than Hillary. That this is not deemed even a legitimate question for Democrats 18 months before the national election tells the world and History that this is a party which deserves to die and be replaced by one capable of something other than re-running its past failures.
69
While you raise several legitimate issues, I find the ageism of your comment galling and indefensible, and am at a loss to explain the 25 people who also, apparently, support such sad, tired, outrageous prejudice.
2
Hillary doesn't need a primary fight. What she needs, and more importantly what the country needs. is for her to retire, right now.
==================
The problem is, if she does retire, it's likely those big foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation would dry up and she'd lose that source of income
==================
The problem is, if she does retire, it's likely those big foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation would dry up and she'd lose that source of income
1
Huh!! If there are so many younger experienced women in the Democratic party who occupy leadership positions why is Hilary running for President?
Americans love criticising the rest of the world for falling behind in women's rights but they've not had a single female president or vice president. What does this say about the status of women in the United States? Best of luck in catching up with the rest of the world -perhaps this will take another hundred years.
Americans love criticising the rest of the world for falling behind in women's rights but they've not had a single female president or vice president. What does this say about the status of women in the United States? Best of luck in catching up with the rest of the world -perhaps this will take another hundred years.
1
Shouldn't the question be whether the Democratic voters need a primary "fight"?
I would be much happier with a nominating process with at least two options rather than a coronation.
I would be much happier with a nominating process with at least two options rather than a coronation.
46