The other big question, if not Hill, who? What about Joe Biden? Usually, the sitting vice-president is heir apparent, like Gore in 2000, Bush 41 in 1988, and Mondale in 1984.
But, then again, it’s Joe Biden. His foot-in-mouth disease might hold him back.
Hey, no automatic likes this time.
After his melt down on FOX on election night 2012, where he was even mocked by Meagan Kelly,
Rove is a has been. The only reason he still appears on FOX is so they can throw red meat to the FOX demographic and attract eyeballs and make money
I am so tired of the Clintons. and I understand that republicans are idiots, but can we please get someone else to run other than the Clintons.
Well Karl…You’d better not fuck with hillary. She will cut off your balls, have them gold plated and made into tiny earrings…And she will wear them to her inauguration…
His alleged foot in mouth disease is as nothing compared to yours. Standard issue affliction with all RWNJs.
Typical, bitch and moan about the baby boomers with a healthy dose of drama queen. I was unaware your generation had the unanimity of action previous generations lacked (and you are smoking something if you believe that). The previous generations need no excuses and offer none; the blame and excuses we leave in your capable hands. “What have the Romans ever done for us”
jw1, I like your line of reasoning.
Rove and Brain! The two things do not co-exist. Repubs wrongly think Rove helped Bush to win the presidency. But it is not Rove, it is the SCOTUS. Rove has been given the credit as a cover-up. We have already seen the $ 300 M super-strategist on camera in the FOX studio. He is after Hillary’'s health now only because he is scared to the core!
You make a number of fair points. As for Hillary being considered a second Clinton administration, I am not convinced that Hillary was ever really sidelined from the White House. She and Bill have always been a team. Bill even sold it that way in 1992; that we would get two great minds in the White House. Yes, between the fiasco that was the health care wars of the early 90s and the revenge for Nixon in the late 90s, Hillary was very much knee-capped as far as her public role is concerned. But I have always felt that she did more than just bend Bill’s ear. Obviously Bill was the president, but I always felt they were tag-teaming it. Not that that is a bad thing at all. With how strong and wonderful of a person Michelle is, I am sure she is doing the same with Barack. But that is why I think a Hillary administration would be very similar to Bill’s administration.
I think Obama has been a remarkably successful POTUS considering what he is up against. I complain about his foreign policy, which I think is better than Bush’s, but miles away from good. But domestically, considering the hurdles he has faced, I think he has done a pretty good job. Honestly, I think he is the best president we have had since Johnson (who had his own foreign policy problems).
Let’s just say that Hillary has a long way to go to convince me that she would be more in the vein of Obama than her husband. Maybe you are right, maybe Hillary will do great things, especially when it comes to climate change and the nation’s energy supply. Maybe she can convince me in the primary. Provided there is one, and she isn’t just handed the crown, as so many people seem to want to do. I think I object to the foregone conclusion that she will be the nominee no matter what more than anything else. It almost feels forced upon us by the Democratic chattering class, and it would be nice if the voters got to decide and had real choices. And if she won, then that would be fantastic.
Konrad Adenauer became chancellor of Germany in 1949 at the age of 73, and he stayed in that job for 14 years. And then he was forced out of office by his own party for political reasons, not for health reasons.
There is no specific age after which a candidate becomes “too old”. You can be senile at 60 or completely on top of your game at 90 (ask former Justice John Paul Stevens).
Big difference between bushes brain and Hillary’s. Hillary’s still works wonders and rove wonders out loud for attention and money. Along the lines of respectable and dis respectable or smart and stupid as we live in the post traumatic clean up of bushes little brain.
Yeah … but can she match the Jelly Bean COLORS with the Jelly Bean FLAVORS???
You’re absolutely right. And where is her walker?!?!?
WTF … you have ever gotten an ‘automatic like’???
In 2016, if we want to seal the deal and win the White House for a generation, no … Hillary is the answer. Her running mate, hopefully Julian Castro, is our future.
Please say you will vote Dem.
Your not glad about shit, miserable concern troll, and you’re just too juvenile to make progress on your own recovery.
Screw you.
Republicans hold up Ronnie Raygun as some sort of god-like figure and he was one of the oldest presidents in American history.
Getting shot does not give you Alzheimer’s disease.
Correlation vs. causation. When I was a lot younger, watching Reagan’s decline in real time, my impression was that his being shot and critically wounded led, perhaps from anoxia, to a cognitive decline. Now it seems more likely that the decline was associated with his Alzheimer’s Disease, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I find it interesting how quick Reagan’s defenders have been to deny that Reagan had even the slightest cognitive slip while in the White House, as I recall a lot of examples that are consistent with the onset of dementia, such as confusing the plot of a film he was once in with a historical event.
Moving back to Rove and Clinton, I think Ross Douthat’s column, There is No Alternative to Clinton, (which doesn’t actually say much) reflects the Republican conventional wisdom,
As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the latest issue of National Review, while “the Democrats of the 1980s had to respond to a country that was largely happy with Republican governance and to specific conservative policy successes,” today’s electorate “is persistently unhappy” with the direction of the country, and “liberal policy successes are too hard to detect to be the basis for concessions” by the right. And liberalism’s current forward-looking agenda, such as it is — immigration reform, climate-change regulations, some jaw-jaw about inequality — doesn’t really align with those unhappy voters’ immediate priorities. Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Advertisement
Which means that Obama’s coalition, while real enough, may not be durable — and that a Republican comeback at the presidential level might be more likely than many Democrats currently assume.
Especially since the liberal coalition’s extraordinary diversity also offers many potential lines of fracture. To invoke an example from this year’s grim centennial, the post-Obama Democratic Party could well be the Austro-Hungarian empire of presidential majorities: a sprawling, ramshackle and heterogeneous arrangement, one major crisis away from dissolution.
But this is where Hillary Clinton comes in. If her party is Austria-Hungary, she might be its Franz Josef — the beloved emperor whose imperial persona (“coffered up,” the novelist Joseph Roth wrote, “in an icy and everlasting old age, like armour made of an awe-inspiring crystal”), as much as any specific political strategy, helped keep dissolution from the empire’s door.
I don’t agree that Clinton has that special of a role within the Democratic Party, as opposed to having a particularly special status as presumed frontrunner and presumed nominee that seems likely to result in a small field of candidates; but if you do vest her with being the magical glue that will keep the Democratic coalition together it makes sense to start trying to tear her down – and to do so early.
I should also note that there’s nothing surprising about a party that carries a majority in a national election to be “sprawling, ramshackle and heterogeneous”, as that’s one of the consequences of having a two party system. You put together the coalition you need to win. The Republicans had a fantasy not so many years ago about establishing a permanent Republican majority, but as it turned out their majority was sprawling, ramshackle and heteregeneous and as they turned toward the Tea Party in the pursuit of short-term victories they lost moderate votes. Holding that winning coalition together can be very hard work. Does Douthat truly believe, in the face of history, that the Republican Party is united behind a clear, coherent political philosophy?
Dementia and other mental infirmity does not have to have Alzheimer’s as its cause.
And I’ll also note that the cause of Alzheimer’s itself is not fully understood anyway.