Hillary's the one

By Infidel753 

Hillary Clinton is now officially in the 2016 Presidential race, and will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. And we're lucky to have her. She can do the job, she can do the job right -- and, critically, she can get the job. She can beat the Republicans.

[I mean no disrespect by adopting the common habit of referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name. Given that Bill Clinton remains a prominent figure, just calling her "Clinton" would be ambiguous, and her own campaign is called "Hillary for America".]

Here's Charles Pierce (found via Progressive Eruptions) explaining what's at stake: 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will accept the science of anthropogenic climate change and treat it as a crisis. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will support marriage equality, and oppose discrimination against our fellow citizens based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she will not destroy the Affordable Care Act, an article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, and despite her closeness to certain Wall Street interests, she will not destroy the Dodd-Frank reforms, another article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential.

[...] 

To get elected, she does not have to wink at state's rights, up to and including incidents of armed resistance. 

To get elected, she does not have to equivocate on the science behind the theory of evolution as does any Republican candidate who seeks the votes of Republicans in Iowa. 

To get elected, she does not have to peddle the snake oil of supply-side economics, nor does she have to peddle scare stories about the oncoming caliphate, nor does she have to create bogeymen about jackboots coming to steal your guns.

That is to say, Hillary thinks and functions in the real world as opposed to being committed to dangerously-delusional policies. I'd add that she won't put any more theocratic nutcases like Scalia on the Supreme Court. And she will build on the progress Obama and Rouhani have made on bringing Iran out of isolation to the point where it has a stake in the international system, and will continue working with amenable Middle Eastern groups and governments to fight violent extremism, as opposed to the Republican strategy of "when in doubt, bomb and invade and hope for the best."

Read more »

Cue the all-out media assault on Hillary Clinton

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What else is new?

As of course you know, if you pay even the slightest attention to American politics, and probably even if you don't, Hillary Clinton is running for president. She just hasn't announced it yet.

But the announcement is coming soon. Perhaps very soon.

And so you know what's coming, right? Not just an escalation of the Republican assault on Hillary, Bill, and all things Clinton, but a media hit job as well.

And I'm not just talking about the usual suspects over on the right-wing noise machine. No, it's the "lamestream" media, so much itself the target of cynical right-wing attacks, that will be right in the middle of this all-out assault, aiding and abetting Republicans and their own media mouthpieces as they do everything they can to bring the Clintons down and derail Hillary's frontrunning campaign, much as they did back in the '90s when they did everything they could to derail Bill's presidency.

Not that this will be much of a change. The anti-Clinton campaign has been in swing for some time now, and one could argue that it's been going on for many years now. But the swing will turn full.

And, indeed, it has already begun. Cue Politico, of course:

The Secret Lives of Hillary and Bill in the White House

Broken lamps, shouting matches, sneaking away to the pool—and other scenes from the Clinton residence during the Lewinsky scandal.

Read it for yourself, if you must, but I assure you it's a shameless piece of sensationalistic gossip and hearsay, mostly quoting anonymous "domestics," household staffers, that seeks to tear down not just Bill and Hillary but Chelsea as well (who apparently called Secret Service agents "pigs," explaining that that's what her parents called them -- the article actually ends with that, as if there's nothing else to say, as if there's no other side to the story, as if there's no doubt that that happened and that the Clinton's are awful).

But I would recommend avoiding it, because it's nothing new, this hit job, and if you pay even the slightest attention to American politics leading up to the 2016 election you'll no doubt hear much more just like it, such is, and will be, the seeming ubiquity of the effort to destroy Hillary.

It may be the surest thing, even surer than Hillary winning the Democratic nomination, of the 2015-16 Crazy Season.

2016: Too early to say anything, but we'll say it anyway

By Richard K. Barry

Jeb Bush leads the Republican field for the 2016 presidential nomination, but Hillary Clinton has a significant advantage over Bush and all other potential GOP candidates in a hypothetical head-to head contest according to a new Washington Post-ABC poll:

At this early stage in the 2016 competition, the prospective candidates suffer from image weaknesses, but the Republicans have a more acute problem. Most Republicans are not well known, but at this point, not a single one of six Republicans included in the survey has a favourability rating that is net positive.

Bush — by far the best known among those running for the GOP nomination — is viewed favorably by just 33 percent of the public, while 53 percent say they view him unfavorably. Only Clinton among all those included in the poll has a net positive rating, but by the slender margin of three percentage points (49-46 percent). Her favourability rating has dropped nine points in the past year and 18 points since she left the State Department in 2013.

I suppose the conventional wisdom is that Hillary can't lose, but I'm not so sure. If the Republicans weren't so screwed up and could be certain of offering up a relatively undamaged moderate, she'd be toast, and of that I am sure.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Peter King on a Ted Cruz presidency: "I hope that day never comes. I will jump off that bridge when we come to it."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I really dislike Peter King -- the Rep. from NY, not so much the MMQB guy. Among other things, he's an avid supporter of terrorism (of the Irish kind) and an anti-Muslim bigot. (The other guy is a Roger Goodell apologist and mouthpiece for NFL speaking points, but also a good reporter despite some shallowness.)

But when he's right, he's right, and you have to give him credit when he is. Like, for example, about Ted Cruz:

Representative Peter King went on CNN to talk with Wolf Blitzer about Senator Ted Cruz's presidential announcement yesterday. His praise for his colleague was muted. Although Cruz "may be an intelligent person," King said, " ... he oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience." He added, "To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results."

When asked to consider a future in which Cruz wins the nomination, King said, "I hope that day never comes. I will jump off that bridge when we come to it."

Of course, King is basically a northeastern conservative Republican, with views and an agenda very much in line with the party establishment that Cruz is so virulently opposed to, even if Cruz shares its views. Hence why King likes Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush but not Cruz and Rand Paul, another thorn in the side of the GOP.

And of course King is also thinking of running for president himself, even if that seems unlikely and he wouldn't go far. (If a warmongering type gets in the race, it'll be someone like Lindsey Graham, not King, though most of the establishment, as well as Cruz, is pro-war, any war, all the time. Paul is one of the few exceptions among Republicans in this regard.)

So it's hardly surprising that he's taking aim at Cruz, who is widely despised among establishment Republicans.

But it sure is amusing. Welcome to the 2015-16 Republican Civil War.

Rand Paul is wrong about himself, Democrats, the Republican Party, and 2016

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rand Paul, riding a wave of egomaniacal hubris given his current position at or near the top of national Republican politics, thinks that Democrats are scared of him:

"I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who — she fought her own war, 'Hillary's war,' you know?" Paul said in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And I think that's what scares the Democrats the most — is that in a general election, were I to run, there's going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war. We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she's so gung-ho.’"

Uh, no, not so much. There are some progressives to the left of the Clintonian Democratic center who don't much care for Hillary, and who certainly object to the warmongering aspects of the Democratic foreign policy elite, but in the end they wouldn't abandon her and the party (even if they voted for a progressive alternative in the primaries). Furthermore, while Americans are, by and large, tired of -- and generally opposed to -- the sorts of military misadventures that Bush and Cheney led the country into, isolationism (or at least non-interventionism) as represented by Paul just doesn't have the level of public support he apparently thinks it does. Besides, Hillary, like Obama, isn't "gung-ho." If you want "gung-ho," just look at Paul's own party, and therein lie the deeper problems for him.

Read more »

It is better to be feared than loved, or not

By Richard K. Barry 

Ryan Lizza has a fascinating piece in The New Yorker on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's political style. For the piece he interviewed former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, who clearly has issues with Christie:

"He doesn't always try to persuade you with reason," Kean said. "He makes you feel that your life's going to be very unhappy if you don't do what he says." He added that one of Christie's flaws "is that he makes enemies and keeps them. As long as you're riding high, they'll stay in the weeds, because they don't want to get in your way. But you get in trouble, they'll all come out of the weeds, and come at you." 

I couldn't help thinking about a passage in Machiavelli's Prince (Chap. XVII), in which he discusses a particular aspect of political style:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Perhaps Gov. Christie has read his Machiavelli and believes it is best to keep everyone around him in a constant state of fear that he could do them harm if inclined.

But Kean's comments are instructive. If those surrounding the leader are loyal only as long as he is powerful enough to hurt them, they may happily "come out of the weeds" when they sense he is no longer "riding high." If there is real respect and affection, however, it is possible those around him may remain on side when times are tough.

I'd like to think Machiavelli got this one wrong, and that Christie will suffer for it. 

Newt Gingrich: always good for a yuk

By Richard K. Barry

This is a lightbulb, signifying a good idea --
something I have never had.

When it came time for professional sleezebag Newt Gingrich to address the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he used part of his time to paint Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee,  as an "obstacle to economic progress," saying that to frame her in this way was a "key to winning the White House":

If this is a fight between the future and the past and we truly represent for the average American a better future and they truly represent for the average American those forces blocking that future, we will win decisively.

As proof, Gingrich went on about how Democrats want to slow down the number of smart-phone apps we will be able to get, pointing to the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed regulating health-related smart-phone apps. Oh, horrors. 

If you are wondering what is this hideous debasement of our freedom of which he speaks, this is from a Sept. 2013 FDA press release:

Mobile medical apps currently on the market can, for example, diagnose abnormal heart rhythms, transform smart phones into a mobile ultrasound device, or function as the "central command" for a glucose meter used by a person with insulin-dependent diabetes.

"Some mobile apps carry minimal risks to consumer or patients, but others can carry significant risks if they do not operate correctly. The FDA's tailored policy protects patients while encouraging innovation," said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

This, he says, is "a fight where we can be on the side of younger Americans and the left is hopeless."

I can't say what particular bug is up Newt's ass on what seems a reasonable regulatory approach, but if he thinks the GOP is going to turn itself into the party of techno-cool by appealing to young people's concerns about mobile medical apps, good luck with that.

If Republicans really want to appeal to young people, perhaps they should get on the right side of marriage equality, legalized marijuana, an increased minimum wage, good paying jobs generally, or education affordability. 

That's a thought, although the medical app thing could work too. 

You mean Chris Christie may not actually be the second coming?

By Richard K. Barry 

The new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicling the 2012 presidential campaign contains some interesting revelations about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the man so many in America seem ready to anoint an across-the-aisle-working, pragmatic saint who can save America.

In a review of Double Down: Game Change 2012, CNN's Peter Hamby writes this, referring to the Romney team's vice presidential vetting file:

According to the authors, Romney and his team were shaken by what they discovered about Christie during "Project Goldfish," as the hush-hush veep search process was known. [The] "disturbing" research file is littered with "garish controversies," the authors write: a Justice Department investigation into his free-spending ways as U.S. attorney, his habit of steering government contracts to friends and political allies, a defamation lawsuit that emerged during a 1994 run for local office, a politically problematic lobbying career that included work on behalf of a financial firm that employed Bernie Madoff. And that's not to mention the Romney team's anxiety about the governor's girth.

Hamby adds this:

For Christie, who is coasting to reelection on Tuesday and already laying behind-the-scenes groundwork for a 2016 presidential bid, the book's revelations are a Drudge-ready public relations nightmare that will send his advisers scrambling to explain awkward aspects of his record and his personal life just as he is stepping onto the national stage.

Never did like that Chris Christie.

Silly things morning show hosts ask politicians: Survey says...

By Richard K. Barry

Is there anyone with even a passing acquaintance with American politics who is unaware that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is going to make a run at the presidency in 2016? Yet, for some reason, it was a story yesterday that Christie refused to commit to serving another full term after he is re-elected (and he will be re-elected).

Christie was on "Good Morning America" on the first anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, but the topic of conversation also included Christie's potential 2016 presidential run -- a campaign that, were he to win, would require him to step down with a year left in his term. "I'm committed to being the best governor New Jersey can have for as long as I can possibly do it," Christie said.

He went on to say the kind of thing elected officials in his position always say, which is, "But, you know, George, neither one of us have a crystal ball and know what's going to happen in the future."

I'll do this job as long and as aggressively as I possibly can, and my current intention is to spend four years, but we'll see what happens, George, you never know what life's gonna bring you.

For those who don't know, Christie's comments are on page 432 of the media relations handbook under the heading: "Shit Politicians Say When They Have No Intention of Serving a Full Term."

Remember that scene in Bull Durham in which Crash Davis teaches "Nuke" LaLoosh how to do media interviews in the major league? Same book. 

Jeb Bush blows it for 2016

By Mustang Bobby

The former Florida governor has some advice for his fellow Republicans.

During an interview for “This Week,” former Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush encouraged the GOP to come up with an alternative and show some restraint if their aim was to repeal the president’s signature healthcare law.

“I think the best way to repeal Obamacare is to have an alternative; we never hear the alternative…we could do this in a much lower cost with improved quality based on our principles, free market principles…and two, show how Obamacare, flawed to its core, doesn’t work,” Bush said.

“So have a little bit of self-restraint. It might actually be a politically — a better approach to see the massive dysfunction,” he said, after being asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl what his message would be for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is vowing to do everything he can to repeal Obamacare.

Telling the current crop of Republicans to “have a little bit of self-restraint” is like acting a sugar-bombed eight year old to sit quietly and read The Odyssey, so if Mr. Bush has any thoughts about running for president in 2016, this kind of advice isn’t going to go over too well with the gang that wants to secede and impeach because Bo the dog took a crap on the South Lawn.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Dick Morris registers an anti-Hillary PAC

By Richard K. Barry

Remember when political consultant/operative Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win the Presidency in a landslide in 2012? Because imprecision is for sissies, he said that Romney would win 325 electoral votes and Obama would win 213. 

Morris has had an interesting career, having been a close advisor to the Clintons through both the Arkansas years and then at the White House. And then there was that nasty prostitution scandal that had him pushed out the door and out of the Clinton's world.  More recently he had been making his money at Fox News as a Clinton hater, while also supporting a range of conservative causes and candidates. 

Politics may frequently be without principle, but Dick Morris takes that to whole 'nother level. Wherever there is money to be made,  you will will find Mr. Morris. 

Roll Call recently reported that Morris has institutionalized his hatred of the Clintons with a new super PAC. 

A former conservative commentator for Fox News, who ran a $4 million super PAC against the Democrats in 2012, has started a new super PAC apparently to make independent expenditures against former Secretary of State and former Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Hillary Clinton has not announced she is a candidate.

Dick Morris’ Just Say No to Hillary PAC was registered at the Federal Election at the end of this week. The treasurer is Nancy Watkins in Tampa, Florida. She is a specialist in campaign finance law and provides accounting services to many political committees. Watkins also registered a second PAC, Just Say No to Hillary PAC.

Because there is a good chance Hillary Clinton will continue to be big news through 2016 and perhaps beyond, a joker like Morris couldn't stand not to have a piece of the action. And since he is not going to be inside their tent, he'll have to settle for being outside in the same neighbourhood, which is likely okay with him as long as he gets paid.  

Who cares about Ted Cruz and his citizenship?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So right-wing mouth-frother Ted Cruz, senator from the not-so-great state of Texas, has released his birth certificate. And, yes, he was born in Calgary -- that is, not in the U.S. -- and is a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. (given that he was born in Canada to an American mother). Which, yes, means he likely can be president, as he is a "natural born" American, unlike, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger, though there may be some lingering dispute as to the meaning of "natural born." But the facts of his birth will continue to hound him politically:

The circumstances of Cruz's birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.

"Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen," said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. "To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship."

Well, apparently he still has it, whether he likes it or not, and so he'd have to go through the formal process of renouncing it.

As a Canadian, I'd welcome any such renouncing. Cruz being a Canadian citizen, even unwillingly, or unwittingly, makes this country worse.

While I loathe him, though, and while I understand that a political leader -- particularly one with presidential ambitions -- needs avoid not just the reality but even the perception of conflicted loyalty, this is all quite ridiculous.

It's abundantly clear that Cruz is an American. He may have dual citizenship, like a lot of people do (including me), but in this case one of his citizenships is merely a technicality. (I'm Canadian and British. I'd say I'm overwhelmingly Canadian, but I have close family in England and have voted in the U.K. and so have more of a connection there. Indeed, I would say that I'm far more American, as I'm one-quarter American, than Cruz is Canadian.) There's no good reason why the location of his birth should automatically disqualify him from the presidency. (I would even say that the "natural born" rule should be removed from the Constitution.)

It's either opportunism or jingoism that is fueling this "birther" controversy, and of course it's also the latter that will come in to play if he's criticized for holding dual citizenship.

But, fine, let him recounce his Canadian citizenship if he must. The key fact about Cruz isn't his birthplace or the extent to which he's a Canadian but rather his political views: he's a Tea Party extremist out on the fringe even of the extremist Republican Party, a faux right-wing populist with a crazy right-wing anti-government agenda.

It's those views -- what he is politically, what he stands for, what he would do in office -- that truly should disqualify him from the presidency.

New York Times publishes Politico-style smear job targeting Hillary Clinton right on its front page

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As far as political reporting goes, the transformation of The New York Times into another Politico -- gossipy, with a right-wing bent, regurgitating Republican talking points and otherwise kowtowing to the right-leaning Beltway establishment -- is almost complete.

Okay, okay, the Times has had problems for some time now. Remember when it was regurgitating the Bush-Cheney lies about Iraq, cheerleading the country into a disastrous war? Well, it may not be The Washington Post, which editorially has fully embraced the center-right, but the Times continues to get worse on the political reporting front.

And the connection to Politico is clearer than you might think. 

One of the Times's newest reporters, holding the lofty position of national political correspondent, is none other than Jonathan Martin, who had been at Politico for almost seven years and who was one of the key figures at that mostly wretched place.

And yesterday the Times published -- on Page A1 -- a piece by Martin that is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to find at... Politico.

Entitled "Republicans Paint Clinton as Old News for 2016 Presidential Election" for the web version, the piece acts as a vehicle for the latest Republican line of attack on Hillary: her time is done, she's a thing of the past, she's way too old.

And just to make that clear, Martin hands the first three paragraphs to three leading Republicans, quoting each one: Romney strategist Stuart Stevens, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The next two paragraphs reiterate this "theme," telling us what "Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls" are going to say about Hillary and stating, citing "Republican leaders," that Hillary is "vulnerable to appearing a has-been." 

Does the article then at least give us the other side? Maybe quote some Democrats leaders? Maybe something about how Hillary was both a senator and secretary state after being first lady for eight years, and before that in Arkansas, and all that after a long and successful career in law? Maybe something about how her age doesn't really have anything to do with it, about how her extensive experience actually means she's qualified to be president, about how there would be nothing odd about her becoming president at her age and with all that experience behind her, about how others have run for president and won at similar ages and also with a lot of experience behind them, like, say, Ronald Reagan?


Read more »

Tempest in a teapot that doesn't exist: The Republican "outrage" on Benghazi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So we were told by Fox News and pretty much the entirety of the Republican conspiracy machine that yesterday's testimony before the (Republican-led) House committee "investigating" the Benghazi attack and its aftermath would provide the evidence that would finally expose President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, and anyone and everyone else the Republicans have been targeting as liars, and therefore as worthy of impeachment or whatever other severe punishment the vindicated Republicans wished to mete out.

Alas, it was nothing of the sort. Instead the testimony of the key Republican witnesses only served to crush the various right-wing conspiracy theories -- e.g., fighter jets could have been sent but weren't, a special forces team that could have helped was held back in Tripoli, Ambassador Rice's statements on the Sunday talk-show circuit were evidence of partisan-political interference -- that have become gospel among Republicans, not just with the crazies in the House and throughout conservative media but with media-promoted superstars like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Kevin Drum sums up the whole nonsense:

Was Benghazi mishandled? Maybe. Are there lessons to be learned? Probably. Is there a scandal or a coverup? There's never been any evidence of it, and there still isn't. This is a show that goes on and on without end, but it never delivers a payoff. Issa and his colleagues need to start paying more attention to stuff that actually matters, and give up on the Fox-friendly conspiracy theories that never pan out. Enough's enough.

Yes, but it won't be for Republicans, because it's not really about Benghazi. (If Republicans really gave a shit, maybe they wouldn't have voted against funding for diplomatic missions. As usual, their outrage is completely faux.) Before last November's election, it was about taking down the president. But now, with Obama secure in his second term, it's about taking down the Republicans' worst nightmare for 2016, Hillary Clinton. It's obvious. Steve M. looks ahead:

They're going to let up a little on Obama after 2014, and Hillary's going to become the most evil person in the world again. They may even decide they kind of like Obama, if they can figure out a way to use that against her. It's going to be bizarre. And it's going to be as ugly as the Obama-hate has been.

It's ugly, it's vicious, it's pathetic, and it's pretty much all they've got. So expect much, much more of it.

Winning votes with smears, lies, and ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's the Republican way.

Read more »

Benghazi again

By Mustang Bobby

Republicans never run out of dead horses to whip: 

Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.

Three State Department officials are scheduled to testify before a House committee on Wednesday about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

"I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “...We're going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton."

On Monday, a Fox News anchor asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) how damaging the issue is for Clinton. "I think it's damaging because it happened under her watch," replied Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday's hearing.

It's pretty obvious that this is a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and the Republicans are going all in on it; Mike Huckabee said this will be worse than Watergate. (Note: Watergate is the Godwin's Law of scandals: the longer the discussion goes on, the chances that someone will compare a scandal to Watergate increase to a factor of dead certainty.)

It was terrible that people were killed in the attack in Libya last September. But it's worse that the Republicans are exploiting it for no other reason than politics, and their crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Stevens wouldn't seem so craven if they had bothered to look into the lies and deceptions that killed and wounded several thousand American soldiers in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Rand Paul is already running hard

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Rand Paul is certainly running hard for the presidency, early as it is. He'll be in Iowa and New Hampshire in May, and in South Carolina in June. 

CNN reports that he is getting ready to endorse Mark Sanford in the special election in South Carolina:

Paul is organizing a series of public and private appearances across the first-in-the-South primary state in June, GOP sources with knowledge with the plans told CNN. The trip is "an effort to get to know Republicans across the state," as one person involved in the event-planning described it.

Paul makes no secret of his libertarian leanings, just like his father, but he is trying to cleave to the centre a bit more in order to have a credible run at the top job. The question may be whether he can appeal to moderates without completely alienating libertarian activists who make up so much of his enthusiastic base. 

The bigger problem is probably that he won't be able to shed enough libertarian orthodoxy to appeal to moderates. 

And if Rand Paul finds some way to get the GOP nomination, Hillary won't need to break a sweat. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Gov. Cuomo was never going to challenge Clinton

By Richard K. Barry

I typically avoid sourcing anything to the New York Post, but since this recent story is hardly counterintuitive, I'll take the chance. Call me a snob, but I am suspicious of any media outlet that calls a campaign for the most powerful political office in the word "running for prez."

Anyway, they are reporting that New York Gov. Cuomo is "quietly" telling "friends and associates that he is resigned to the fact that he can't run for president in 2016 if Hillary Rodham Clinton enters the race":

"The governor has told people in recent weeks that there's not a chance for him to run if Hillary gets in the race because she'll easily wrap up the Democratic nomination," said a Cuomo administration insider with direct knowledge of the situation.

"He knows that and he accepts that, and so he won't even be thinking at all in those terms -- unless Hillary decides not to run, which seems unlikely," the source continued.

Cuomo has repeatedly denied an interest in "running for prez," but few believe he would refrain if there was a plausible path to the nomination.
Alas, there is not, which makes the anonymous sources cited credible enough.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Hillary Watch 2016: What gives Republicans nightmares?

By Richard K. Barry

Time magazine ran a piece this week on Republican concerns about a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2016. The GOP got together recently at the Republican National Committee's spring meeting "with plans to court minority votes and modernize their political operations." But high on their list of problems is the fear is that no matter what they do, Clinton will clean their clocks. 

Near the end of Zeke J. Miller's piece is this comment:

But the perception of Clinton as more moderate than Obama is another component of the GOP's Hillary fear, especially as the party struggles to boost its appeal to liberal-minded minorities and young voters. One state chair described the GOP's annual meeting as less about winning and more about fighting to remain a credible alternative to the Democratic Party. "We can't even think about winning until we stop losing voters every cycle," he said.

Then, of course, they're is this:

And one former Romney aide here warned that grassroots activists pushing for an even more conservative GOP identity could seal the party’s fate: "If we listen to some of the people here and come back with a hardline conservative in 2016, she’ll wipe the floor with us."

It's a funny little box the Republicans have put themselves in. Clinton might be able to expand the Democratic voter base by being perceived as more moderate than Obama. At the same time, the more liberal component of the Democratic support won't complain as long as the GOP continues to court hardline conservatives.

A Joe Biden presidential campaign would break new ground

By Richard K. Barry

The New York Times recently pointed out a relative novelty in the current landscape to succeed Barack Obama as president. It's about the status of a potential Joe Biden candidacy:

Mr. Biden faces a situation unique in the annals of modern American politics. He is the vice president, the highest-ranking member of his party interested in running for president, yet he is not the heir apparent. While every sitting vice president who sought it in the last half-century captured his party’s nomination, Mr. Biden would start as the underdog if he ran against Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state.

There's nothing particularly interesting to say about it, given that it is obviously true.

Hillary Watch 2016: More pithiness from Mr. Carville

By Richard K. Barry

Maureen Dowd had a piece in The New York Times over the weekend in which James Carville gave one of those great quotes, this time about the fact that Hillary Clinton is certainly running for the presidency in 2016:
 

Running for president is like sex. No one ever did it once and forgot about it.

As I wrote a couple of days ago in the same context, Mr. Carville has a way of saying things. In this case, it's not a bad way to put it. 

Most people just can't walk away unless they can be convinced, absolutely convinced, it's over - that they can never do it again. No one could convince her of that because it's not true (and we're talking about a strong, credible, and very likely successful run for the presidency).

Like it or not, and I like it, she'll be back. 

One note to those Democrats who want a more leftish candidate: It ain't gonna happen. America doesn't do left, at least not in electoral politics. Hillary Clinton can win and keep the right-wing bastards at bay for another eight years. Take what you can get and forget what you can't have (or move to another country).