Hillary, Hillary ...


                                                     Democrats need more than one candidate for '16

The Democrats must realize something that is vital for the 2016 presidential election: They need more than one candidate for president.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton herself has given Democrats a reason to rethink their one-candidate strategy. Clinton criticized Obama's foreign policy today, which means that she is now charting a path that is closer to John McCain than to Barack Obama.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/hillary-clinton-steps-away-from-obama-on-foreign-policy-20140317

Many Democrats have been clamoring for Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the race, and one reason that they favor Warren is how close Clinton is to Wall Street. Warren is a Harvard professor who has Wall Street running scared. If Hillary runs against Mitt Romney in 2016 -- or any other right-wing candidate -- will there really be any difference in terms of financial policy?

Remember one thing: Hillary was way ahead of everyone else for the 2008 election -- like she is today -- until Sen. Barack Obama called her out for her vote that gave George W. Bush the authority to wage the Iraq War. She tepidly defended that vote in the 2008 race, and that was what led to her demise. 

Unfortunately for Obama, he read "Team of Rivals" too much and brought Clinton into his cabinet, along with VP Joe Biden. Hillary will be criticized by the left on many issues, which is why the Dems need some candidates to step up and challenge Clinton. 

I think that challenging Clinton will force her to focus on the issues that have always dragged her down. This can include domestic and foreign policy. So, who could challenge her, and on what issues would she be vulnerable?

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal focuses on five of his selections: 

1. Sen Claire McCaskill (Mo.)
2. Sen. Tim Kaine
3. Russ Feingold
4. Gov. Deval Patrick
5. Gov. Jay Nixon (Mo.)

Okay, I know nothing about Jay Nixon, but with a surname like that …

I would include five of my own that include only one that he does:

1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
2. Gov. Martin O'Malley
3. Sen. Amy Klobuchar
4. Sen. Bernie Sanders
5. Sen. Russ Feingold

I list these because each of them would force Clinton to hone in on her issues. Warren has said that she will not run if Clinton does, but she could be the most devastating to her since she would carry the Dem-left and even some women who are not crazy about Hillary. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent, but he can run as a Democrat. He has said that he is considering a run, and that would be difficult for Hillary since he is also very strong on the left, while Clinton is a centrist. 

Yes, Hillary is a centrist, not a liberal as the right continually charges.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is also a rising star in the Democratic party, hailing from Minnesota. Gov. Martin O'Malley is from Maryland and has some potential, and he is currently distancing himself from the White House on immigration. 

Russ Feingold was a great senator, and he would be good too since he is a strong liberal. 

I am going to be focusing on the issues over the next month to try and see who could actually make a run at Hillary.

One last point: Joe Biden will be 73 if he runs for president, and Hillary Clinton will be 68 when running, 69 when elected. Clinton is obviously the most qualified, but age does matter. (I am also in that age group with Hillary and still teaching, doing better today that when I was in my 20s. However, I do not have the energy that I had in my younger years.)





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Chet Beres, M.D., the quarterback who gave of himself to so many people: Some Lilly Raiders who will not be with us on Saturday

Why did Tennessee-Chattanooga hire trainer Tim Bream despite his role in the alcohol-induced death of Tim Piazza at a Penn State frat?

Remembering the toughest loss I ever experienced in approximately a quarter-century of coaching football. George Pasierb was a great coaching adversary.