Why Is No One Running Against Hillary?

by Dish Staff

Beinart blames the Clintons’ tendency to hold grudges:

The winning-by-losing strategy works best when it gains you some influence over the person who defeats you for the nomination. Sometimes that means earning a place alongside them on the presidential ticket, as Edwards did in 2004. Sometimes it simply means convincing their supporters that you have a bright future and may be worth supporting down the line. The strategy works less well if the person who defeats you becomes your sworn enemy, committed to doing you political harm. It’s the fear that the Clintons may do exactly that that is limiting the pool of willing challengers.

And for good reason. Throughout their careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have shown a willingness to remember, and punish, political betrayals.

Pivoting off Beinart, Carpenter worries about Hillary’s “self-formulated bubble”:

Histories of her healthcare fiasco are fraught with tales of insider paranoia and Gothic intrigue; her Iraq war vote was cast in willing ignorance of contrary or at least questioning national-security briefs; and her 2008 campaign was a superlative study in managerial cluelessness–all this, in large part, because aides were afraid to tell “her early and bluntly enough that things were veering badly off course.”

Well, that is indeed history; a rather harmless history of when Hillary was just a candidate, or First Lady, or merely one of 100 senators. Which is to say, she wasn’t president of the United States, with countless executive agencies and all of America’s firepower at her bubbled disposal. Yikes.