Get PJ Media on your Apple

Hillary Is In No Rush

There are a couple major reasons for delaying any announcement that her candidacy is official.

by
Rich Baehr

Bio

August 28, 2014 - 10:30 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton will make her announcement that she is trying for a second time to become the Democratic nominee for president sometime in 2015.  She will then go on to easily get nominated, and  coast to a solid victory in the 2016 general election against any Republican nominee.

Clinton’s presumed path to victory relies on a number of factors, including  that her candidacy will enable Democrats to excite another key element of their  base — female voters, particularly single women, much as Obama did in 2008 and 2012 with African American voters. If she runs, she will have no serious opposition, unlike in 2008, when she was heavily favored, but led Obama in the year before the primaries began (2007) by only 10-15 points, not the roughly 50-point lead she now holds over any potential opponents for the nomination. So too, Obama , even while trailing, represented a real threat to Clinton, with his ability to pull away black voters, and even women once he was endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Obama also appealed to the anti-war left of the Democratic Party due to his early opposition to the Iraq war, which Clinton had supported as a senator. One study has calculated that  Winfrey’s support may have shifted a million votes in the tight Democratic nominating contest from Clinton to Obama, undoubtedly the decisive factor, if the numbers are even close to accurate.

With no serious opposition this time, Clinton’s already established national fundraising base, plus what she can absorb from the Obama campaign and DNC apparatus in terms of voter targeting and online fundraising, will enable her to fire away at any of her potential GOP opponents from the start of  the campaign season. If any Republican candidate catches fire and begins to emerge in the early primaries, negative attacks and a character assassination effort can be financed, similar to what Obama’s campaign did to Mitt Romney in the spring of 2012. Clinton, in essence, will have all the fundraising and organizational advantages normally associated with an incumbent running for re-election.

Clinton is well-known to voters, and seems less divisive as a candidate this time around. Bill Clinton has struggled to restore some dignity to his name, achieved through his “work” with the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, whatever they may actually do. The Clintons will welcome a grandchild into the world later in the year, a great send-off to Hillary’s campaign if her goal is to help soften her image a bit. All the $200,000 and up speeches by the two Clintons have reconnected both of them to a very wealthy donor base, among both individuals, and corporations seeking to cement relationships with the likely next president.

There is one other major reason for delaying any announcement that her candidacy is official.  Her national rollout campaign tour, disguised as a book tour, fell flat and at times proved embarrassing. Clinton seemed tone deaf about her family’s financial fortunes when Bill left office and she seemed defensive about her record as secretary of State, in particular the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012, which spoiled an otherwise nearly risk-free tenure as America’s chief diplomat.

The rapid shift in public opinion on issues like gay marriage also poses a bit of a problem for Hillary, given Bill’s effort to get the Defense of Marriage Act passed. Hillary seems to be a very cautious  candidate and public official (unlike her husband), and  when events or social trends move quickly, she is not always lightning fast in turning with them.

Barack Obama seems to delay acting until Valerie Jarrett and other trusted political operatives tell him it is OK, and assure him that his image and political standing with the groups that matter to the Democratic Party will not be damaged. There are blue groups and red groups, and never the two shall meet, regardless of the lofty rhetoric from Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Hillary, on the other hand,  seems to be more interested in  wanting a poll taken before she decides to shift her message from the one she adopted after prior polling.

Clinton’s caution may serve her well if any of the potential alternative contenders for the nomination are waiting for some major mistake or catastrophic gaffe to derail her. Her poll numbers still show her with a comfortable lead over any potential Republican challenger (Paul Ryan comes the closest, though he is more than 6 points behind in a head-to-head race).  Clinton held larger leads over Republican candidates earlier in the year before her book launch, which reflects a fact that became evident in the 2007-2008 campaign — when she is more visible, she becomes more of a lightning rod and a bit less appealing as a candidate.

Top Rated Comments   
Obama is "prepping the battlefield" with his lawlessness.

He is starting small with ACA law changes, DACA, and immigration amnesty. If Obama is not stopped, he will move on to more serious lawlessness (and I don't mean to understate his current instances of lawlessness).

So yes, it is entirely possible that Obama does not intend to leave the WH in 2016. He loves the adulation, the work of the President can be outsourced to radical leftist Czars. Oh wait, it already is.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (42)
All Comments   (42)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Mark v is uninformed. Hillary is far more connected to Alinsky than Bill or Obama ever was. The facts bear it out. Read D'Souza's new book or watch his new movie, and it will all become clear.

As far as Mark v is concerned all Democrats are pro-Alinsky. If Obama is the uber-Alinsky, then why are the Democrats trying to separate themselves from him? They don't show up at his fundraisers, they don't want to be seen in public with him, and they don't want to be aligned with him, because to do so would be an electoral disaster.

Democrats want to be elected so that they can continue their progressive/socialist agenda.

The American people, on the other hand, are seeking a different direction. They want a constitutional republic of sovereign states. They want economic growth and devevelopment. They want rising wages. They want border security and immigration control. They want a strong national defense. They want fair but not free trade.

Anyone who does not understand this does not have his hand on the pulse of America. Mark v is on of these people. Don't you get it? You're nothing but a troll. So f you.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Democrats ARE pro-Alinsky.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
" Hillary is far more connected to Alinsky than Bill or Obama ever was."

Being "connected" is irrelevant. Both are devotees. So one knows him personally and one doesn't? Big deal. There are a lot of Buddhists around who have never met the Buddha, yet are quite devoted to him and his teachings, and carry them out faithfully. Same for Mohammed, or hadn't you nonticed?

Connected, schmonnected.

Obama is doing quite well at channeling him, and is probably better at it than the rather dull-witted Hillary will ever be.


" If Obama is the uber-Alinsky, then why are the Democrats trying to separate themselves from him?

Asking that silly question shows you don't understand very much. The world is not quite so black and white.


Better go back to Hillary being Alinisky's girlfriend in high school. At least that was amusing.


12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay, I should have said Hillary met Alinsky when she was in high school, which she did. She continued a relationship with him, inviting him to speak at her college and writing her thesis on him. That's all true. It's all in Dinesh D'Souza's new book and movie.

Obama never met Alinsky. He might have read his book, Rules for Radicals, and received instruction on it from Bill Ayers, but that's about it.

Hillary is far more closely associated with Alinsky, and she is way more radical left than Bill ever was. For all his personal failings, which are well documented, as an executive he was at least a pragmatist. He knew when to make a deal and how.

Hillary doesn't have that capacity. She is a full throated radical leftist, a true believer in the Alinsky mode, which is why I don't think the Democrats will nominate or elect her.

Of course the Democrats want to win elections and dominate the political sphere, that's what political parties do. However, Hillary is simply not an electable candidate. Yeah, sure, she has name recognition, money, connections, Bill at her side, the stupid single female vote, and all that. But none of it matters. Any conservative Democrat who springs up will clobber her in the polls. Elizabeth Warren is not one of those.

We'll have to see what happens in the mid-term elections. If, as I believe, the Republicans take control of the Senate and increase their majority in the House, the Democrats will then have a serious choice to make as to who they nominate in 2016. The last thing they want is a Republican President, House and Senate, along with a majority of Republican governors and legislatures.

Nominating Hillary is not the anti-dote to that. Because she will surely lose.

I doubt that she will run. If she does, I doubt that she will win the nomination. And if she is nominated, I doubt that she will win the election.

It's called Clinton fatigue. Same as Bush fatigue. Jebb has as much chance of being elected President as Hillary.

The American people desperately want a different direction. The economy is in shambles, foreign policy is a disaster, illegal immigration is out of control, no way are the American people going to continue down this road.

If the Republicans gain control of the Senate and increase their majority in the House in the mid-term elections, Obama just might go berserk and try all sorts of unconstitutional measures to stop the changing of the tides. And that does not bode well for any Democrat, especially Hillary.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Polls don't show Clinton fatigue. If the election were held today (assuming for the sake of argument that the polls are accurate), the Clintons would win handily. You underestimate the depth of their popularity despite Hillary's negatives that typically go up when she talks too much. If she's clever, she will follow Bill's playbook on campaigning & staying on an even keel.

The only thing that is likely to stop this in its tracks is the emergence of a Republican dark horse candidate who comes into the fray with the capacity to capture the base & unify the badly fractured Republican Party. Short of that, we can all look forward to a Clinton presidency in 2017.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's the girl's turn. They have waited for a century, now it's time. Unless the GOP runs a female against her, she will be the next POTUS.
The POTUS that takes the oath in 2017 will have ovaries. Since 'ell will freeze over, the sun raise in the west and Scarlett Johansson wiull kick my front door in and sexually assault me in my living room before the mycohnist old men of the GOP will allow a female to be nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate.
Pity really. The GOP has some excellent femes that would make an outstanding POTUS.
Pundits have to think issues matter. They have to or they are out of work. Presidential voting is mostly feelings. only when the like/dislike thangie is equal do issues matter.
What percentage of voters that voted for Obama wish today they had voted for little Mac instead? 20%? 30? What would he have needed to win? 5%, 10% and he has a mandate.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
"If she's clever, she will follow Bill's playbook on campaigning & staying on an even keel. "

She's not clever. Not at all. But if enough bigwigs (especially donors) beat up on her hard enough, she may stuff her cosmic-sized ego long enough to let Bill call the shots.

If he runs the campaign, she'll be hard to beat, unless he's lost his touch. We won't know that unless and until he gets a shot at running her campaign.

If SHE runs it, we have a shot at beating her, even with an Establishment candidate.

A GOOD candidate will mop the floor with her, even if Bill runs the campaign.

The big question mark in that scenario is the "it's a woman, so I'll vote for her" factor.

We'll lose a lot of female voters to that factor.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary has more problems than you think. My sister was rabidly pro Hillary, works at a University, donated and worked for her Campaign against Obama. After Hillary let Ambassador Stevens and the 3 other brave men die in Benghazi, she checked out on her. I'm sure millions of other women have made the same decision. Besides, Hillary may very well have a stroke in the next year anyway. Plus, millions of Black people loathe Clinton because of her invention of the birther charges against Obama. Racial hatred dies hard.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
So several millon women don't like Hill-de-Beast. That still leaves her at 48% of the vote BEFORE the campaign begins. IIRC, a little over 125 million Americans voted in 2012. With roughly half the population Female it is hard to she how any male candidate can beat Hill-de-Beast.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Obama never met Alinsky. He might have read his book, Rules for Radicals, and received instruction on it from Bill Ayers, but that's about it.

Hillary is far more closely associated with Alinsky,"


That's just silly. A personal acquaintance doesn't mean she's more committed to his goals and methods. Obama has proven that he's a capable and devoted student of Alinsky. In fact, he's got a much better track record of LIVING Alinsky than she does.

As for the Dems not nominating her because she's an Alinskyite? Get real! That's a plus in their book!

Their only concerns with a candidate are:

1. Is he a True Believer?
2. Is he electable?


As for Hillary being more of a radical leftist than Bill, please stop smoking whatever you are smoking. He's smarter than she is, certainly, but they are BOTH "full throated radical leftists". The nation has changed since Bill's day, so Obama and now Hillary are more free to act like what they are, but there is not a dime's bit of difference between them in terms of their goals and ambitions.



12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
A personal acquaintance? She wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky, for crying out loud. Obama might have read his book, but Hillary wrote about it. As someone who has actually written a thesis--in graduate school; it was on Blake--I can assure you that the research required means more than a personal acquaintance.

No, you have to get into the mind of the writer, and that takes time. Hillary didn't just read Rules for Radicals and write a paper about it. She actually met the man in high school and invited him to speak at her college.

She researched him thoroughly. She's far more connected to Alinsky than Obama or Bill ever was.

The Democrats are not going to nominate or elect someone like her. Obama is just an Alinsky mini-me, and after the disaster that is his administration ends, the Democrats will not want to nominate another Alinskyite. They want to win.

We'll see what happens after the mid-term elections. If it's a Republican landslide, as I expect it to be, then all bets are off for the Democratic primary. And for the Republican primary as well.

If the Republicans take control of the Senate and gain seats in the House, I doubt that Hillary will run. Obama may just go rogue and destroy any chance every Democrat has in 2016.

That's what they're scared of. Losing electability for decades. Losing the Senate, losing the House, losing the Presidency is not in their plans. But there's not much chance of them keeping the Senate or gaining seats in the House, so they're only choice remains maintaining the Presidency.

Nominating Hillary doesn't offer much hope for that.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're an idiot.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you for that well-reasoned response.

You may go now.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Hillary seems to be a very cautious candidate and public official (unlike her husband), and when events or social trends move quickly, she is not always lightning fast in turning with them."
That's because she's a ruthless worshiper of money and power; she would also bow down at an altar to herself should someone ever erect it.

"Hillary is behaving exactly like a candidate who views herself as inevitable."
Remember the Katie Couric interview? Her remark is around 2:20 - 2:30.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/confident-clinton-takes-aim-at-attackers/

It shows how America would be stuck with another victim-oriented, anti-freedom, pro-totalitarian tyrant, who would surely build upon the foundation that she would inherit from Obama and the dependent, ignorant masses.


12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
The CIA, DIA, DEA, FBI. Secret Service, NRO anf ONI are all out looking for one of her accomplishments. Soon as they find one and report back, she will announce.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
The primary thing she should consider, the longer she keeps her mouth shut the longer she looks smart. Did you hear that statement e made about Ferguson, totally idiotic. God help us if she ever gets elected.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
it seems more by process of elimination that Hillary will be the Dem nominee. Who else could it be? They have all made fools of themselves and become associated with some mess somewhere. The Clinton's specialize in extricating themselves from their own screw ups and have that incredible sense of entitlement that sucks in so many voters who have not sufficiently evolved away from the need for monarchs. Possibly Elizabeth Warren but Fauxcahontas is way too far into socialism for even the Democratic crony capitalist brigade and that would be a serious impediment.

The big question is: can she be defeated? . . and that probably totally depends upon who the Republicans run against her. In that regard, God help us.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Further, Hillary tried to distance herself from Obama; a normal step for a same-party candidate when the incumbent is unpopular. Normally, the lame-duck incumbent accepts this criticism in the name of party loyalty.

What did the Obamaists do? They pushed back....hard. Why would they not support the next Democrat nominee?

Hillary has not announced because she is not sure if Obama plans on leaving.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why would they not support the next Democrat nominee?"

Because they hate her guts. Don't read anything else into it.

Either side would cheerfully put the other in a body bag. Literally.

Obama brought Hillary on board as SecState to keep her quiet. He didn't need her sharpshooting him during his first term. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

He knew she couldn't turn it down. It gave her foreign policy cred, and kept her in the public eye. She had the choice of taking his offer and playing nice, and getting the nod in 2016, or turning him down and trying to unseat a sitting President in 2012. That's a fool's errand, and she knew it. He had her where he wanted her. She hates him for that and she hates him for beating her.

Now that he's gotten his second election behind him, he doesn't have to worry about what she says, so the gloves are coming off.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
If Obama doesn't leave in 2016, it will herald the institution of martial law, as such a thing would illustrate the complete collapse of the US as we know it & I don't believe that many of the American people would take it lying down.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
....leave in 2017, .....
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
A few more Fergusons, terror attacks and an on-going illegal alien invasion should be justification enough for martial law eh?
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
No. It will take more than just sporadic, isolated incidents. Think along the lines of major disruptions in commerce culminating in no gas at the pumps & empty grocery shelves.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama is "prepping the battlefield" with his lawlessness.

He is starting small with ACA law changes, DACA, and immigration amnesty. If Obama is not stopped, he will move on to more serious lawlessness (and I don't mean to understate his current instances of lawlessness).

So yes, it is entirely possible that Obama does not intend to leave the WH in 2016. He loves the adulation, the work of the President can be outsourced to radical leftist Czars. Oh wait, it already is.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
First of all, I think its pretty plain that Obama doesn't even want to be POTUS *now*. Why would he want to stay on or run again, when he can get all the accolades he wants as EX-President, without any of the actual responsibilities of actually holding the office? So the premise here is faulty.

Even if Obama did want more time in office, there is simply no way for Obama to stay in the White House after this term is up. For one thing, his popularity is at an all time low, and still sinking, and that, by itself would make it impossible for him to stay on. If he ran for re-election he'd lose, and there is nothing he could do now as POTUS to prevent the upcoming Presidential election.

If he simply refused to leave, he'd have no legitimacy. No other branch of gov't would stand for it, the public would be dead-set against it, and the military wouldn't back him either, meaning if push came to shove, he would probably physically be escorted out.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Her poll numbers say volumes about the collective intelligence of our "electorate."
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
An interesting and thorough assessment of the potential candidates from both parties for 2016, Mr. Baehr, but I don't think Hillary will run. She might, I don't know, but if she does neither her nomination nor election is inevitable.

She certainly has the money and connections, and the support of the media, but seriously she's unelectable, and Democrats know it. Two years is a long way away, and after the disaster that is Obama the electorate is going to want a new direction. Hillary can't provide that. She doesn't have any executive experience. She's shrill and unappealing. And she's more of an Alinsky-radical than Obama ever was. She went to high shool with Alinsky, you know. She invited him to speak at Wesley, and she wrote her thesis on him. The American people will have had more than enough of his style of politics by 2016, and she's his head cheerleader.

Americans traditionally have switched sides in election cycles. They'll vote for Democrats in one cycle and Republicans in another. This has been the case since FDR. Hillary has as much chance as being elected President as Harry Reid.

A conservative Democrat, a Blue Dog, might have a chance in the general election, although one hasn't popped up yet. He or she will though, when it comes to deciding time. A conservative Democrat, maybe a governor or senator or reprenstative, would clobber Hillary in the polls.

We'll see what happens this November. I predict a Republican landslide, a wave election. With a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Obama's dictatorial impulses will only further damage the Democratic party, especially if he grants amnesty to illegals by fiat. Which is why Hillary is trying to distance herself from him, as are most other Democrats. The party is desperate for new leadership, and Hillary, Reid and Pellosi aren't it.

On the Republican side, Perry, Walker and Christie have their legal ussues to sort out. But these specious indictments will be squashed. Cruz is appealing to many, but he should remain in the Senate. Ryan has problems of his own.

So, we'll see what happens. After this mid-term election, I expect several potential candidates to come out for the Democratic nomination in 2016. Hillary might be one of them, but I think she's just using the prospect of running to raise her speaking fees. It's going to be a bloodbath. As it will for the Republicans.

The country, and indeed the world, is rudderless, and the people desperately seek direction. Personally, I favor a Perry-Walker ticket, two conservative and experienced governors, strong on national security, border defense, econmic growth, and job creation. Those are the most pressing issues.

My problem is that I would have voted for Hillary over McCain in 2008. But since the Democrats nominated Obama, I couldn't vote for either, so I did the libertarian thing and voted against the incumbent, regardless of party. I like a lot of turnover, as most Americans do.

Hillary will never be President of the United States. I can't foresee the future, but I do know that.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think thats why Jay Nixon was light-footing the whole Ferguson thing. He sees an opening for a somewhat Southern, somewhat Black-friendly candidate since every other candidate seems to be a northeastern gentry liberal. If Hickenlooper eaks out a re-election victory in Colorado, he might emerge as a palatable non-Hillary. Manchin, Crist (if he beats Scott) or Wolf (if elected over Corbett) in PA are the VP pool.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their a$$ when they jumped.
Hill-de-Beast has been running since she was 12 years old. She will never stop. Once elected I expect Bill to actually work the shop.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Crist! May the good Lord strike me down, I thought there couldn't be a worse prospect than HRC v Jeb. Thanks for "cheering" me up!
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
" but I don't think Hillary will run. She might, I don't know, but if she does neither her nomination nor election is inevitable."

The only things that will stop her from running are an assassin's bullet or a devastating health issue. Being President is more than LIFE to her. Even a major scandal won't stop her from running.

Winning is another matter. She is a lousy campaigner, a lousy speaker, and a dull (at best) candidate.

She has a few things on her side:

1. Name recognition.
2. A résumé that includes 4 years as SecState. Any other candidate will have to overcome the perceived "foreign policy expertise" gap.
3. Bill. He's a master campaigner. If she can overcome her ego enough to let him run the campaign, she will be hard to beat.
4. Gender. Many women will vote for her on that basis. Many supposedly Republican women will vote for her in a nanosecond.

You've given good reasons why she can be defeated.

That's not the same as saying she won't run. You don't know her.



12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree. She will most definitely run if she can, even if fettered by health issues because she knows in the back of her mind that Bill will be there to help out with the day-to-day presidential duties. This also serves as a source of comfort for many, many voters who realize that a vote for her is also a vote for him.

I predict that Hillary will be our next POTUS. I just hope that she will be tempered by a Republican-dominated House & Senate.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Look, I dislike Hillary as much as the next person, but where on earth did you get the argument that she went to high school with Saul Alinsky? A quick google of the two of them shows that he was born almost 40 YEARS before she was, so would have been in his 50's when she was in high school. Granted he was from Chicago, but they did not go to school together. Hillary would have to be 105 for that to have happened.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
"A quick google of the two of them shows that he was born almost 40 YEARS before she was, so would have been in his 50's when she was in high school. "

On second thought, you are probably wrong. We both overlooked the fact that Hillary was named after a famous person who didn't become famous until 8 years after she was born. Obviously, time isn't linear for Hilliary, so she very well might have been a classmate of Saul Alinsky AND Karl Marx at the same time.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Heh. Details, details, eh?


I do think it's accurate to say metaphorically she went to high-school with him. Metaphorically, he's her father and mother.

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All