Clintonphobia: Why No Democrat Wants to Run Against Hillary

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-no-democrat-wants-to-run-against-hillary-fear-of-retaliation/378914/

?nanyyj

The mystery of the 2016 Democratic presidential race isn’t why Hillary Clinton seems likely to run. She’s ambitious, qualified, too old to wait another four years and well positioned to win. Why wouldn’t she run?

The mystery is why she has no real competition. So far, none of the Democrats who could seriously challenge Clinton—Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo, Deval Patrick—have shown any interest. The candidates who have—Brian Schweitzer, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders—are too weak to arouse much media attention or donor support.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake ran through the reasons various potential challengers seemed disinclined to run: Warren has praised Clinton too much; Joe Biden’s approval ratings are low; O’Malley would have trouble raising money. But these individual factors don’t entirely explain why no one has emerged.

After all, presidential primaries have seen strong frontrunners before—think of Walter Mondale in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1992, or Al Gore in 2000—but they’ve all faced real challengers. An essentially uncontested race by a non-incumbent for a party’s presidential nomination would be unprecedented in recent American history.

[Laelth]

1. Interesting. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Pholus]

2. No mystery: Bill's biography made it plain to me...

Not every politician gets what they want by running. In fact the choice of a credible candidate to NOT run has a lot of value.

[IDemo]

3. The biggest mystery to me

is why anyone would want that job.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. So, what this article says is that the Clintons are willing

to practice hard core politics. Is that a surprise? It, in no way, makes them unique, just more successful than some.

[oberliner]

5. Weren't people saying this in 2008?

I don't think anybody announced until November of 2006. Let's see where things stand in November of this year.

[pipoman]

7. Yep, why would anyone wish to start their candidacy before

It is absolutely necessary? Hilary is one stupid corpratist statement away from irrelevance. I would sit back as long as possible and hope she implodes.

[Welibs]

12. HRC Architect of the TPP, the Clinton 'Global' Intiative, Bilderberger! NO THANKS!

Why would anyone vote for people like this? They're not Democrats, their rich, corporate Bilderbergers.

DON'T LET THE BILDERBERG'S CHOOSE ANOTHER WALL ST. SUPPORTING PHONY.

[pipoman]

13. sounds a little Bortzy...

TPP, I'm not wealthy, I support going back to Iraq, these types of anti-Democratic positions and more will lead to her demise early imo...

[davidpdx]

6. Mondale, Bush, and Gore

All three ended up losing in the years mentioned.

[oberliner]

9. Only 2 out of 3

But that's another story, I guess.

[PADemD]

8. I didn't vote for Hillary in the 2008 primary and won't in the 2016 primary.

[dsc]

10. This article is sexist crap

You could look for a thousand years and not find such a piece written about a male politician. And let's look at their evidence. One is that Clinton didn't staff his administration with Carter's inner circle because Carter had helped cause his defeat (due to incompetent governance it should be noted). First while a site is given, no quote is so I have no idea what the evidence of this charge is, Hillary didn't do it in any case, and it might well have been defensible on governance grounds in any case. The second piece of evidence is that Bill Clinton rewarded those who endorsed his wife by campaigning for them, the horror of it all. How dare that bastard reward his friends, no politician in the history of the universe has ever done this. And her last piece of evidence, and the only that directly implicates Hillary, is from the man who ran her health care task force, and the site for that, is the same as the one for Bill. So you have two sites from a Carl Bernstein book. I will grant that the book seems to be well respected but frankly the use of one book for most of the sites is worrisome. Bottom line, this is a perfect example of the Clinton standard that the mainstream press has embraced for over 20 years with a cherry of sexism to sit atop the shit sundae.

[FSogol]

11. And yet both Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb were campaigning in Iowa last week.

The media likes to pretend that no other candidates besides Clinton exist and if they admit they do exist, then they label them as "weak." Pure hogwash of an article.