Tag: Hillary Clinton

Nate Cohn notes that Hillary Clinton currently “commands a staggering 60 percent of the primary vote, an unprecedented figure for a non–vice presidential candidate and one of the highest levels of support of all time”:

Yes, Clinton lost in 2008. But it’s important to note how much stronger her numbers are today than they were in 2007. Back then, only 35-40 percent of Democratic voters offered their support. With a few additional gains, Clinton was able to expand to nearly 50 percent of the vote, despite getting only a sliver of the African American vote. Polls indicate that Clinton has won back much of their support, giving her the broad coalition she possess today.

The true Clinton skill is survival. How those two ever got through the primaries in 1992 still amazes me. Lying very well helped. But it’s clear to me that Clinton has changed, as we all have over the years. There was, for me anyway, a real issue with her path to power – through her husband. But once she had won a Senate seat, and then exhibited remarkable magnanimity at the 2008 Convention, and gained real government experience as secretary of state, she became her own politician. My reservations on that score have evaporated.

Still: did she really make a big impact as secretary of state? Foreign policy was guarded by the president by and large. Maybe some pro-Clinton readers can make the case and persuade me I’m wrong to downplay her substantive record.

Molly Redden surveys other politicians who have been pressured on marriage equality by their children:

The three eldest Huntsman sisters—Mary Anne, Liddy, and Abby—all publicly supported same-sex marriage before their father, Jon Huntsman. But they seized on the fact that he endorsed civil unions for gay couples in 2009, Abby told me, and pushed him to go further. “We had conversations about it with my dad all the time,” she said. “He was more than ready to go there.” When he finally wrote an op-ed for the American Conservative in mid-February saying that he supported gay marriage, Abby helped him write it.

Barbara Pierce Bush, one of George W. Bush’s twin daughters, filmed a short spot in favor of a 2011 marriage equality bill in New York State. Her mother, faced with the opportunity to do the same, chickened out, asking that supportive statements she’d made about same-sex marriage be pulled from a pro-marriage-equality ad. (Meanwhile, George W. Bush has given no signals that he’s moving on the issue.) And while being a Republican and marriage equality advocate can be a real bitch—her words—Meghan McCain has pushed the issue tirelessly as a writer and speaker. She apparently won over her mother, who appeared in a pro-same sex marriage photo shoot in 2010; John McCain, however, remains opposed.

For the record, I don’t think this means that these people are somehow only moved by an issue when their own family is affected. Any generational change like this requires parents to be persuaded by children. Portman is not to be criticized for this. He’s a human being. And the most powerful advocate of any idea is another human being you know and love.

The forces for marriage equality now include one entire political party and a big chunk of another:

This embed is invalid

Kornacki wonders:

I would say there’s a decent chance Clinton actually could clear the field and face no serious opposition for the nomination. Not a good chance, but a decent one. This has never happened for a non-incumbent in the modern era, but then again, it’s not like we’re dealing with a huge data set here. And Clinton really is approaching the ’16 race with a set of advantages we’ve never before seen for a non-incumbent. Yes, there’s plenty of time between now and Iowa – time for Clinton to stumble or take a pass on the race, time for Obama to really step in it, time for a real split to open up within the Democratic Party. I’m not calling Clinton a shoo-in for the nomination, or even predicting she’ll run. I’m just arguing that if she does, she could break the mold for non-incumbent candidates of the modern era.

Ambers reads 2016 tea leaves:

If I had to bet, I'd bet that she decides to run, if only because she will feel that destiny and circumstance have put her in the right place at the right time. She may feel that she owes it to young women and those who supported her to finish the marathon of American politics. But she might well decide that her legacy is secure, her popularity is intact, her financial prospects are bright, and her future lies with advocacy from the outside and grand-mothering.

Anyone who says they KNOW what she'll do is lying, either to you, or to themselves.

It's a strange and amorphous country, according to Michelle Cottle in the Beast today:

[Obama] was scornful enough that, during the midst of the matchup, Hillaryland insiders were circulating amongst themselves a twit pic featuring that kick-ass photo of Hillary in her shades, captioned by Obama’s infamous put-down from one of their ’08 debates: “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

And who might these insiders be? Michelle must know – but she won't tell. In fact, the only named quotes in the piece are from Republicans. Oh, wait, there's this:

One veteran strategist notes disapprovingly that “there was some attitude there” and muses: “The question is whether a sense of irony is really a qualification for national leadership?” (Quipped the strategist, “That is itself an ironic question.”)

On what grounds does such a person require anonymity? Since this person is the only quoted Democratic source behind the entire story, I'd love to know his or her motives for such a quote at this point in the game. Wouldn't you?

Secretary Clinton told CNN last night that she takes responsibility for the Benghazi attack, saying that the "president and the vice-president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals":

How Sean Sullivan understands the statement: 

Her decision does two things. One, it takes some pressure (but not all; Obama is still the president, and national security starts and ends with him) off the president and shifts it over to Foggy Bottom. Second, when Republicans attack the administration now, they also will have to go after Clinton more directly, which is a dicier political proposition than taking on Obama. Clinton is arguably the most popular member of the president’s cabinet. Earlier this spring, her approval rating stood at a remarkable 65 percent in a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

In response to Clinton's admission, Jennifer Rubin tweeted: "First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat."  Erin Gloria Ryan pushes back:

What we're seeing now is Hillary Clinton once again being made into the female caricatured that best fits the bullshit narrative conservatives ar trying to push. When Hillary Clinton disagrees with men around her, she's a bitch, a harpie, a Lady MacBeth overstepping her bounds. But when she agrees, she's a doormat, a patsy, a fall girl. Which is it? Barring a severe undiagnosed personality disorder, she can't be all of these things at once. There is no such thing as a pushy bitch doormat.

Jay Newton-Small suspects the statement will damage Clinton in future elections, should she run:

Clinton’s admission tarnishes her legacy as one of the most successful and persuasive secretaries of state in recent history. And it would become a political liability for her should she decide to run for President in 2016.

Apparently, Romney is prepared to talk tonight about about her acceptance of responsibility.

A reader highlights a comment I made over the weekend:

I never, ever, ever thought I'd say this: but Hillary Clinton's composure and competence and humility over the past four years as secretary of state make me want to see her president one day.

As a long-time reader, I was surprised to read that.  It made me think a bit.  When Hillary ran for president, I initially assumed I would support her, but I ended up volunteering and voting for Obama.  Part of the reason stemmed from my opinion that Hillary's campaign was poorly run.  For me, her campaign raised questions of competence now clearly overshadowed by her performance at State. 

Is there something about the process of choosing the US president that disadvantages some individuals who have the potential for greatness – or at least for great competence and great effectiveness? Is this something that has changed over time?  The skill sets of good campaigners and good presidents bear some striking differences, but have the implications of these differences become more significant?  I wonder if the evolution of campaigning largely conditioned by the development of the media environment has altered the system in more ways than we fully comprehend.

Another writes:

The turning point for me on Hillary Clinton was her performance at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. 

In it, she demonstrated the kind of leadership and team loyalty that I had not really seen in her before that point.  Many folks have remarked that the conventions are anachronistic and boring, but I will never forget the way the Democrats unified during that 2008 convention, and Clinton was absolutely instrumental to making that happen. 

By contrast, look at this year's Republican convention.  It was every man and woman for herself.  This is one reason the conventions still matter, for me.  It's theater, but theater is a necessary part of the game.

Of course since then, Clinton has shown herself to be all of those things you said.  Her gravitas has grown tremendously in her role as Secretary of State, and I fail to see how anyone on the right or the left can have any doubt that she could step into the Oval Office and do the job.  Bill Clinton has always claimed Hillary is the most capable politician he has ever met, and it turns out that maybe Bill wasn't just blowing smoke here.  It seems to me that Hillary Clinton has completely stepped out of Bill's considerable shadow, and become a true political force in her own right.  If she runs for president again, she has my vote all but locked up.

Another:

Wow, to read that you would support Hillary Clinton for President. I was a big Obama supporter in 2008,  believing so strongly that the US needed a clean break from the Clinton years.  It shames me to say I did demonize Hillary a bit during that divisive primary.  In the past few months, I have come to the same conclusion you have – Hillary has proven her competence, grace, and humility over the past four years in ways I would never have imagined in 2008. Plus the people who work for her genuinely like her, which says something about true character. Isn't it invigorating to realize in middle age that people can still surprise us, and we can even surprise ourselves by changing our minds?

(Photo: US President Barack Obama and State Secretary Hillary Clinton return to their seats after speaking during the ceremony marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed in an attack this week in Benghazi, Libya, at the Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on September 14, 2012. By Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Because that would be illegal:

Federal law — the Hatch Act of 1939, amended by Congress in 1993 — specifically prohibits secretaries of state from attending political conventions, and the State Department's own ethics guidelines also rule out political activity. A senior administration official, speaking on background because the official is not authorized to speak on the record, told CNN, "The law carved out the State Department as having a unique position in the government in that foreign policy, by its nature, must remain nonpartisan/apolitical."

Clinton, who is on an eleven-day trip to Asia, will miss the Democratic convention for the first time in four decades.