Discussion: David Plouffe: Hillary 'Much Stronger' Now Than 2008

Discussion for article #222701

Plouffe joked that if Clinton runs, "I’m sure that, on our side, there’ll be a Democrat or two that will run because they want an MSNBC show."

I appreciate his insightfulness and honesty! While I know that she is not the ideal candidate for some of us here and that she comes with baggage no one else has her profile nationally.

So, having said this I’ll now go pop some corn and return to read the standard argle-bargelling in this thread.

Git Some!

3 Likes

Let’s look back to late 2007. You know, the last time Hillary was I-N-E-V-I-T-A-B-L-E.

A valid point, but until I start seeing some Democrats that can beat her it is hard to argue that she isn’t.

3 Likes

That’s great David…but could any one of you high profile Dem talking heads perhaps talk about the election coming up FIRST instead of a non-declared possible candidacy 2 years away?

Not asking much, except perhaps giving the sitting President a functioning congress NOW, and a potential future President HRC a functioning congress THEN.

If I’m yelling, it’s on purpose. Time for some people to pull their heads out of their asses…LONG past time, actually.

6 Likes

While I quite agree we need to focus on the mid-terms. What is Plouffe going to say when asked about Hillary; Not going to talk about her until after the mid-terms. Now ask me a question about the mid-terms. Damn it!

After the Obama/McCain matchup, I’ll never trust what seems like a sure thing in US politics. Charisma (Obama) and a fatally flawed candidate (Romney), among many other things, can totally throw off primaries.

“…giving the sitting President a functioning congress NOW, and a potential future President HRC a functioning congress THEN.”

Thank you for bringing that point up. Sometimes it gets lost in the fast-forward to '16.

1 Like

I don’t disagree with the premise that he should answer the question.

What continues to frustrate is that not only are the MSM not talking about the mid-terms in anywhere near the levels they’re talking about HRC/2016, but the high profile Dems like Plouffe aren’t talking about it either. They aren’t holding any part of the MSM to any standard regarding the question. Why would it be improper for him to answer the question, and then turn and ask those asking the questions one in return about why they aren’t discussing the mid-terms?

It has the same feeling as 2010, they’re just going to concede the mid-terms to the GOP with their Benghazi fixation (much like they conceded 2010 to the Death Panel/ACA fixation) and then try to make things function in a chronically dysfunctional environment until 2016.

Not only does that put the Dems in a hole, it would put HRC in a hole too if she ran and won. She’d be in the exact same position as the President is now. Which puts you guys no further ahead.

Sorry. I just get frustrated when I read this much nonsensical tea leaf reading over someone who hasn’t even committed to running for the job…and they’ve been doing it for over a year now. No wonder the Koch Brothers are left to run roughshod wherever they plant their flags.

2 Likes

And she would have been, had Obama not emerged (and indeed had the Clinton camp handled his emergence more graciously… it was a very close-run race, after all; hailing him as her obvious running mate from the start might very well have tipped the race to her – instead, she only started suggesting that when she was already trailing). Hard to see any other Dem playing that spoiler role this time.

Also, Plouffe is right: she IS stronger this time, after her service as Sec of State.

Hillary Clinton is much stronger now than in 2008 because she practically has no valid opponent in her own party. She is Democrats only hope to win the Presidency, that’s why the vast majority of Democrats want her to run.

Hillary is not inevitable.

I was just looking at a Quinnipiac poll that has Rand Paul beating her 48-43 percent in Colorado. Her unfavorable numbers are chronically low at 48-47 percent.

Um, so I’m sure then, that in 2006, you saw that Obama was going to give Hillary a run for her money?

Right?

You saw that, right?

Naw, only dreamed of it in 2006. January 2007 saw my first campaign donation to him.

So, must be nice to be so “sure” of things.