Clintonphobia: Why No Democrat Wants to Run Against Hillary

[Purveyor]

Strong frontrunners have drawn challengers before. But given the Clintons' reputation for retaliating for betrayals, it's just not worth it in 2016.

Peter Beinart Aug 21 2014, 10:51 AM ET


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.

more...

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

[oldandhappy]

1. I did not expect her to be any thing except a professional politician, and

this is seriously nasty information. Mean. Learned some not nice stuff today about our local politicians and am in a 'dash it all -- don't like anyone' mood. I think I have heard this previously about the Clintons but it was at the edge in my awareness. Well. Hope I live to 2020!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Hillary is qualified, has the strength to take stands, has the smarts to negotiate,

Has foreign experience and is known world wide. She has a great field from which to select a great running mate. As a Democrat I get great pleasure there are many qualified candidates now and in the future.

[DonCoquixote]

3. yup she is known

for supporting Bibi no matter what even as he kills kills and kills. She is also known to be nasty to leftists.

[Phlem]

4. "She is also known to be nasty to leftists"

yes, she makes my skin crawl.

[elzenmahn]

9. That's the part that really scares me...

...if you thought the treatment of the Occupy protesters and the increase in the National Security State was bad under Obama, I can only imagine how much worse it would have been under a Clinton II administration.

Hippie punching? How bout a Hippie pummeling?

[littlemissmartypants]

5. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[JaydenD]

6. It's far too early for anyone to declare for 2016

Hillary thinks she has one up by doing that book tour, 'who me, I have not decided yet' fakery is just that, fakery and it's evident. Her early campaigning has proven her worth as a contender, and its apparent she hasn't learned much from 2008 and keeps on stumbling in her clumsy way to her personal objective for all to see and cares little about the needs of the rabble.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. No choices for you, dammit!

Clinton/Cuomo 2016

[davidpdx]

8. The "there's no other choice" meme is getting old

In fact no one, including Clinton, has declared.

[karynnj]

10. This article does bring up an interesting question - does it pay to be seen as possibly vindictive

if you win. Ignoring that this is not an unbiased article and it shows a nasty side of the Clintons - ignoring any possible counter examples. It does lead to thought on whether being seen that way is an asset once you are in power, the nominee or the rather inevitable frontrunner for the nomination.

Even assuming that this is a pretty heavy handed assessment, it is true that - even among many Democrats - there is the common wisdom that the Clintons, especially HRC, have LONG memories of those who they think not totally loyal. There are accounts from insiders in the 1990s, even ones clearly very pro Clinton, that they had a real problem accepting anyone who suggested that they were wrong - even privately - on how they were doing things - and it negatively impacted those relationships.

The question is whether once they have power (or incipient power) whether that actually makes Democratic politicians MORE lock step behind them and certainly not doing anything the Clintons would see as not 100% behind them.

I wonder - for instances - if some of the Democrats might have been more helpful to Barack Obama, Al Gore or John Kerry if they worried about whether less than 100% support could have cost them or their state. (In particular would Bill Clinton have thought twice before the nasty swipes at Obama or releasing his book in summer 2004 and then saying in interviews that the "left" and others should not question the war or how it was conducted. ) Could it be that because none of these three were ever identified as "vindictive" and all would have seen the need to rise above this, that Clinton and others saw no risk in getting on the nominee's "bad list"?