Monday, July 8, 2013

The inevitability of Hillary

Althouse write: "If Secretary Clinton runs, she’ll be the nominee — the first female nominee of either party."

The article Althouse links to goes to a Politico piece that quotes Stephanie Cutter, former Obama advisor, who provides the quote Althouse uses for the title of the post. The more extended Cutter quote follows:
“If Secretary Clinton runs, she’ll be the nominee — the first female nominee of either party,” said Stephanie Cutter, a former top adviser to the Obama White House and campaign. “That breaks through the ‘old’ tagline that the Republican geniuses are cooking up because, if handled correctly, women of all ages will absolutely be inspired by that. I don’t recommend that be the totality of her message or platform, but there’s no way to hide that fact and it certainly shouldn’t be discounted. “ 
So apparently the most important reason for nominating Hillary is because people will vote for a woman just because it is something new to try - and that's it. (This has worked out beautifully when voting for someone who is black, or rather half-black, rather than actually using any other reason whatsoever.)

First, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I do not think Hillary will be the nominee because Dems historically worship youth above all. Forget that Obama was the magical half-Negro, he was also young. Dems have loved youth since 1864, and I see no reason why they will stop now. So rule out Hillary and Joe Braindead as the nominees. (A list of Dem nominees and their ages here.) Repubs like stolid old candidates, not Dems.

Second, Hillary can't run from her record for forever. Eventually someone is going to point out that her most successful political achievement thus far is providing cover for her husband's philandering. Or maybe she thinks she'll get to do a reset on THAT, too.

And third, what makes anyone think that someone named Obama won't be on the ballot again in 2016? If Barry doesn't run again himself (why should he care about following the XXII amendment any more than he has the rest of the constitution?), what makes you think he won't put Michelle on the ballot. I'm already seeing bumper stickers around town proclaiming that that Michelle is going to be the next President. They've got the same look as Obama's stickers from 2008 and 2012. Clearly someone is getting excited about establishing a true royal dynasty in the USA.

2 comments:

Lem said...

Dems have loved youth since 1864

Don't you mean 1964?

Icepick said...

No, 1864, when they nominated George McClellan, who would have been all of 37 on election day. After that they did nominate Hporace Greeley,who would have been 60 at the election (but that was a strange year, because no one wanted to run against Grant) and Tilden, age 64, in 1876. And after that there's a long run all the way until 2004 when the Dems nominated a 61 year-old John Kerry before they got back into the 60s for a first time nominee. (Truman was over 60 for his first and only campaign for the Presidency in 1948, but he was already President.)

And the youngest Dem nominee was a 36 year-old William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Even McClellan and Bobby Kennedy (who would have been 38 in 1968 had he lived to win the nomination) were older than that!