Hillary Clinton (Obviously) Reads Angry Bear! Or at least she did yesterday.
Hillary Clinton will headline a fundraising dinner for Florida Democratic gubernatorial Charlie Crist next month, putting her in a key presidential state in the midterms battle, according to an invitation.
Crist, a Republican turned Democrat running for his old job, is in one of the toughest gubernatorial races in the country. He is facing incumbent Republican Rick Scott.
Clinton will headline a dinner Oct. 2 in Miami, according to an invitation.
She is holding a book-signing the same day in the state.
— Hillary Clinton to campaign for Charlie Crist, Maggie Haberman, Politico, yesterday at 7:56 p.m.
Yesterday, as all you AB readers know, I posted this rant, I mean post, that was highly critical of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. About Clinton, I noted (among other things) the unseemliness of her current banalities in her public appearances, and said that because of the media attention she garners every time she opens her mouth, she actually could win elections for certain Dem candidates for senator or governor if she filled a six-year-long public-education-and-correction-of-misinformation void by Obama and actually educated the public about such things as that healthcare costs and healthcare premium rate increases have declined rather than increased since the beginning of the year. I mentioned that in Florida, a TV ad is running claiming that the ACA has increased healthcare costs, taking money out “your” pocket, and that therefore “you” should vote to reelect Rick Scott as governor. Scott’s opponent, Charlie Crist, the ad points out repeatedly, has said the ACA is working well.
I posted that post at 3:34 p.m., about four hours before someone on Clinton’s staff—I’m not sure why she has a personal staff, other than that having a personal staff is what she does—announced that as long as Clinton was going to be in Florida for a book-signing event next month anyway, she might as well headline a fundraising dinner in the state. You never know, after all; there might be some Miami-area donors who haven’t yet bought her book. Not to mention a few members of the wait staff who will pay $30 (or whatever) to get a handwritten personal message from Hillary Clinton to show their grandkids one day.
But the idea hadn’t occurred to her until she read Angry Bear yesterday afternoon, which obviously she did, notwithstanding the very busy day she had yesterday.
The good news is that by then she will be a grandparent rather than an expectant grandparent, so, along with the giggly thinking-about-running-for-president entendres, she will regale the audience with new-grandparent stories.
The bad news is that she won’t actually correct any misinformation about the ACA and its effects, or about anything else, since that would require her to have had a staff member actually obtain statistics and such, and would necessitate her own preparation for the speech by reading a several-paragraph memo from that staffer that recites the information. Sure, she’d be preaching directly to the choir, but she’d be preaching indirectly, and virally if videotaped, to undecided voters in Florida and beyond.*
She won’t, though. Unless, of course, she reads Angry Bear again today. Nah, even if she does, she won’t. I’m tempted to say that Clinton’s fundraising and campaigning is only ostensibly for others but actually for herself. But actually I don’t think she’s planning to run for president I think she’s just milking all this for the book sales and the fawning attention. In fact, I think that one reason she’s constantly talking about her impending grandparenthood—other than that she has to talk about something at these appearances—is that she wants eventually to invoke this new, exciting chapter in her life as her reason for deciding not to run for president.
And, if I’m right that she is not planning to run, that may actually be part of her reason. In November 2016, Clinton will be 69 years old. Most people are not looking, at that age, to undertake something all-encompassing like the presidency.
But also, I think that she and her husband want most of all to not have to deal with questions about their finances. Hillary Clinton has achieved what she sought to achieve: extraordinary wealth and extraordinary fame and (in some quarters) adoration. And running for president again would require her this time around to stay overnight at hotels in Waterloo, Davenport, and (even worse) Sioux City, rather than campaigning mostly in the Des Moines area during caucus season–as, I read recently, she did in 2008 in order to have sufficiently comfortable hotel accommodations.
The article in which I read about that Iowa-hotels-in-2008 thing contained an assurance from someone in her orbit—“orbit”; what an apt journalistic euphemism—that she wouldn’t make that mistake again and open herself up to charges of unapproachability.** But that’s just too much of a compromise, I suspect, and reason enough in and of itself for her to decide not to run. Some members of her orbit may soon have to find another sun.
*This paragraph and the following one were edited slightly for clarity after posting. 9/23 at 8:22 p.m.
**Sentence edited for clarity in light of confusion by a commenter about whether this was a true anacdote or instead facetious. It was reported as a true anacdote. 9/23 at 10:29 p.m.
Sorry, but there’s a lot not to like in this post for someone who is a regular follower:
1. Who could imagine someone like Hillary Clinton would NOT have a personal staff?
2. Like it or not, the likability factor demanded of every President makes all the giggly personal stuff necessary.
3. If you are going to claim to be a progressive and a populist, you don’t insult Iowans or people in those towns.
4. What’s with the snark about the Clinton foundation? Is this a Maureen Dowd moment?
5. Would you imagine for a moment that the media would report any attempt she made to educate the public? Even in local races where she appears, reporting the celebrity sighting will overwhelm anything she actually says.
6. 69 for a woman is about 62 for a man.
7. If she doesn’t run, it will be very bad news for the Democrats in 2016. It’s the turnout that matters, and her absence will dramatically reduce turnout.
Well said for both of them (didn’t you acknowledge that antidisestablishmentarianism is supposed to be the longest word in the English language — just saying).
I did not read your original post until after I read this one. I agree that there are a lot of things not to like about Hillary Clinton including, as you point out her support for a really nasty bankruptcy “reform” law as senator as well as her support for Dumbya’s war of choice in the Middle east, her way too cozy relationship with the money men and women of Wall Street and her transparent lie about corkscrewing into Kosovo to dodge anti aircraft guns or something–that was the one in 2008 which convinced me to vote for Obama in the primary, but I am with Urban Legend–There is no need to attack her on the nonsense stuff that all politicians do and the Democrats and our cherished progressive programs like social security and medicare as well as the weak tea of the ACA, civil rights legislation, environmental regulation etc are all at significantly greater risk in 2016 if she does not run. That risk goes up exponentially if the Democrats nominate a true progressive–Bernie Sanders is interested although it is not clear whether he will enter the Democratic primaries or consider an independent run, but much as I love him and his policies I hope he is long gone from the scene by November 2016–and IMHO the Democrats best chance of winning in 2016 is to nominate a woman and if not Hillary who? As best I can determine there is about a 50-50 chance that the GOP takes the Senate in the midterms. While the contested seats will favor the Dems in the Senate in 2016, there is no way that Dems are going to get the House absent a landslide in 2016. If the GOP does take the Senate in 2014 and holds on in 2016 then Justice Gingsburg is not going to be replaced with a liberal justice under any circumstances. The best we can hope for is that the president is a Democrat so we get a middle of the roader rather than a forty year old Scalia. Lets consider what happens if the GOP wins and holds onto the Senate with President Rand Paul. There will be immigration debates all right, but they will concern U.S. citizens moving to Canada, particularly older folks who thought they had social security and medicare.. There will certainly be changes to the minimum wage–it will be eliminated as will unions. On the optimistic side we might stop the constant war, but something will have to feed the military-industrial complex and we might make a mistake with Russia or China and then it is game , set, match. I simply see no advantage to your agenda of knocking down the strongest Democratic candidate even with her multiple flaws. Based on history during my lifetime, the Democrats have squandered their 8 years with the presidency and the odds of getting even 4 more years are slim. Under the circumstances I will take Hillary over any Republican and there are some real whackos out there who could win against a “progressive” candidate. I think Goldwater would beat Johnson with the current electorate, but I suspect Goldwater would be considered a RINO by the current GOP.
Seriously, Urban Legend? I mean, seriously? You thought I was making up the anecdote about Clinton’s refusal to stay in hotels in Iowa except the two or three in the Des Moines areas that were acceptable to her?
Sorry, but while I understand your presumption that surely is not true—I was shocked when I read it a week or two ago in an article about her appearance at Harkin’s final Steak Fry—that is what the article actually said. I wanted to link to the article but couldn’t find it today when I was drafting that post.
Yeah, that’s what the article said. Really.
I do think there’s some serious disconnection between what I’m actually saying—pretty clearly, I think—and what you think I’m saying. Yesterday you commented to my earlier post something about how bad it would be to have a progressive third party candidate, suggesting that you thought that’s what I was urging. But what I actually am urging is that an economic progressive with longtime deep involvement in it—Sherrod Brown or Jeff Merkley, I hope—runs for the DEMOCRATIC nomination, not as a third party candidate in the general election. Maybe my reference to Sanders threw you off, but he’s been urging a primary challenge to Clinton by an economic progress, and says that if no one else does this, he might—that is, run in the primaries for the Dem nomination, not in the general election as a third party candidate in order to ensure a Repub victory.
As for the rest of your claims:
Who could imagine someone like Hillary Clinton would NOT have a personal staff? My point, exactly. Which is one reason why I want a nominee who is not, and is not like, Hillary Clinton.
Like it or not, the likability factor demanded of every President makes all the giggly personal stuff necessary. Yup; all giggly personal stuff all the time! That’s what the public wants! I guess it’s better than her MBA-textbook conversational manner when she’s asked policy questions in interviews, but based on the really negative comments about her cutesy speech at the Harkin Steak Fry, by pundits and ordinary folk online alike, it doesn’t seem like her incessant talk about her impending grandparenthood (the personal stuff) and that she’s, yeah, thinking about running for president (the giggly stuff) is making her very likable.
If you are going to claim to be a progressive and a populist, you don’t insult Iowans or people in those towns. As I sai above: Exactly!
What’s with the snark about the Clinton foundation? Is this a Maureen Dowd moment? No. And my snark was not directed at the Clinton foundation—which to my knowledge is not spending the year on a book tour while pretending to be also running, albeit undeclared, for president. Although I’d be happy to see the foundation get the Dem nomination for president.
Would you imagine for a moment that the media would report any attempt she made to educate the public? Yes, actually. But there would be nothing to stop Crist, or the DNC, from using a clip to put together a 60-second (or even a 30-second) TV ad and a web ad. Or just a YouTube video.
69 for a woman is about 62 for a man. Not so sure about that. Most 69-year-old women are retired, just like most 69-year-old men.
If she doesn’t run, it will be very bad news for the Democrats in 2016. It’s the turnout that matters, and her absence will dramatically reduce turnout. Yeah, that’s right! Who cares about progressive economic issues. We won’t show up unless Hillary Clinton is our standard bearer! Ted Cruz for president!
Gosh, Denis. You’d the word is spelled “anti-dis-establish-ment-arian-ism.”
Terry, no one is attacking Clinton on the nonsense stuff that all politicians do. I–and A LOT of others–are attacking her for her utter vapidness on economic-policy issues.
This is someone who has played no role in, and has had nothing of substance to say about, economic policy issues in more than five years, and who even before that, as a senator, made no waves at all on the issues at the heart of economic policy. If she wants to run for president, it’s past time for her to actually discuss specifics of economic policy, banking regulation, and the like. If she thinks that generic me-too-ism, to fill in time during a speech, is what most Dems are looking for, she’s sorely out-of-touch.
Not sure I understand the position that if H. Clinton is not on the ballot for Pres. in 2016 the Dems. go down in flames. So there is no other Democrat that is capable of besting the best of the Republicans? Better yet, look at this from the perspective of who it is that the Repubs. have to offer in 2016. Granted that it will require that the DNC actually publicizes the fact that the Repubs. have crap to offer. It is entirely possible that the DNC doesn’t know how to run a grind a bad candidate into dust with simply portraying the worst aspects of those choices in a loud, frequent and clear manner. But if the DNC should some how grow a set of balls, so to speak, before the 2016 campaign it should be well within the realm of possibilities to elect someone other than H. Clinton on a Dem. ticket. And H.C. carries a lot of heavy negative baggage into a campaign. She isn’t a whole lot better than Republican-lite. Granted that that is still far better than self described Republicans.
Some of the same things were being said about Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability in the early stages of the 2008 race.
Brown, Merkley, Patti Murray, and probably a few others would be credible candidates with a high probability of success. It says something about the potential Republican field that there has recently been a push to bring back Mitt Romney.
Mrs. Clinton brings a good deal of baggage to the race. It’s likely Democrats have learned there lesson from St. Ralph and would coalesce around Hillary but don’t underestimate the Clinton paranoia on the Right that would drive turn out.
Surely the Democrats can find a candidate who can espouse a coherent economic platform that eschews Clintonian corporatism. Maybe all politicians are narcissists but the Clintons seem to take that to a new level. We can and should do better.
Bill Clinton is genuinely very, very intelligent, has an easy manner with the public, and likes and is very good at discussing and explaining economic policy topics in more than one- or two-sentence banalities. He doesn’t demean or condescend to the public.
Hillary Clinton has none of those attributes. None of them. Either does Barack Obama, of course.
“Either does Barack Obama, of course.”
I think you mean “neither does Barack Obama”. And I would agree that he does little to make economic issues clear to the average American. He does speak in multiple word sentences. Unfortunately the words he chooses seem to be chosen to have little impact and, instead, to always be conciliatory. Also unfortunate is that his pleas for conciliation seem never to recognize that compromise and conciliation are not equal concepts, nor is conciliation effective in a one way debate.
But Obama is yesterday’s news and it’s H.C. that is the issue. Or rather it is the lack of any as yet reasonable attention to alternatives to H.C. There’s no discussion of alternatives. There’s no focus on other choices.
and H.C. is so uninteresting as a politician and certainly has not the presence on the current political stage as a statesperson in spite of having been a Secty. of State. What does she bring to the table? Her celebrity. Not very substantial when there is a need for political acumen and tough negotiation skills.
Urban Legend, in your honor, I just edited the post to make clear that that thing about Clinton and Iowa hotels during caucus season in 2008 was not facetious but instead reported as an accurate anecdote.
Yeah, it’s weird. And not something I would have thought up as a joke.
“Either does” is fine there, Jack.
“Not… either is used after a negative statement.
“I don’t speak French.
“You don’t either.
“He isn’t ready to go.
“We aren’t either”
ugh… did my comment get moderated? I did dare to refer to the Ready For Hillary mailing list as damnable… Or was it the Ready For Hillary mention that was unmentionable?
Ready for Hilarity!
Trying again, apologies if it ends up twice….
The “inevitability” of HRC’s campaign smacks strongly of one Willard “Mitt” Romney. It was great fun to watch the clown car of GOP candidates (Herman Cain come back we miss you!) continue forcing poor Rmoney to pander to the worst of the teahadists. As longtime DLC hack James Carville observed “This is like trying to feed a dog a pill. The dog keeps spitting up the pill; eventually they are going to have to take that Romney pill…”
Madame Secretary is likely to face a similarly motivated and unenthusiastic bloc of Democratic primary voters. All the while likely providing the best attack ad fodder for the general. Anybody else remember “Corporations are people, my friend!”?
As I observed in another thread, on any substantive policy matter you’re essentially talking about Joe Lieberman in a pantsuit. With exactly the same marketing appeal.
The Daily Show writers must be thanking their lucky stars.
And Madame Secretary if you really are reading us (or one of your loyal staffers is) could you please fix the unsubscribe links in your endless fundraising emails? It’s the list you can never leave!
Not swallowing that pill, I doubt it will cure my Bogama indigestion honestly.
Re: the list of reasonable alternatives to Madame Secretary. I like Sherrod Brown okay but I have a couple other names I like better. Alan Grayson is articulate and knows how to ridicule the worst of the GOP idiocy.
And I still have a serious campaign contribution waiting for the candidacy of Senator Russ Feingold.
I was thinking Grayson also, but I also view him as a need in the house as Warren is a need in the senate. Feingold, possibly.
Here are 5 promises Feingold wrote on his garage door in the form of a contract during his first campaign. Afaik he managed to keep them all during both of his Senate terms. He contributed all his pay raises to charity.
I will rely on Wisconsin citizens for most of my contributions.
I will live in Middleton, Wisconsin. My children will go to school here and I will spend most of my time here in Wisconsin.
I will accept no pay raise during my six-year term in office.
I will hold a “Listening Session” in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties each year of my six-year term in office.
I will hire the majority of my Senate staff from individuals who are from Wisconsin or have Wisconsin backgrounds.
Sorry I got his reelection stuff wrong – He was actually elected to 3 terms by the voters of Wisconsin. He was criticized by other democrats for limiting his campaign budget to $3.8M (one dollar for every citizen of WI) and requested lobby groups including the AFL-CIO and League of Conservation Voters refrain from spending soft money on his behalf.
(courtesy his wikipedia page)
Senator Russ Feingold your party and your country need you. My check is ready to be mailed all you have to do is announce.