George Will: Hillary “not a formidable candidate”

posted at 3:31 pm on April 27, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Captured over at The Corner, George Will was on Fox this morning and asked (for, I assume, the 3 millionth time) about a possible Hillary Clinton run and her inevitable victory. As you’ll see in this video, Will was not impressed.

“It’s reminiscent of when Roger Mudd of CBS asked Ted Kennedy a not unexpected questionin 1980: ‘Why are you running for president?’” Will said. “By the time Ted Kennedy quit stammering he was handicapped.”

I just finished a radio interview this afternoon where the same subject came up. For my part, I think George is being a bit optimistic. As far as the Democratic nomination goes – which wasn’t what Will was talking about, I know – the only person who can stop Hillary is Hillary, and that’s if she decides not to run or some aspect of her personal life makes her think better of it. Yes, I realize that she was “inevitable” in 2008 also, but I don’t see a parallel between the two. In that campaign, Hillary was inevitable until the Democrats found somebody more inevitable and with an equally, if not more compelling narrative. The First Woman President storyline was able to be trumped by the First Black President storyline. There is nobody waiting in the wings right now who can deliver that kind of bang for the buck as far as the Democrats are concerned. And if she decides to bail out, they’ll manufacture another one to match, likely in the form of Elizabeth Warren. (Or so I hope. She’s completely beatable.)

In the general election, it’s another story, but that inevitability narrative is still probably stronger than Will is giving credit. Her numbers have sunk a bit since her time at State, but she can still muster favorability near or above 50 and that’s a fairly golden ticket. She’s also got more experience in running under her belt and a fully formed team waiting to leap into action. (Not to mention a mountain of funding ready to shower down on her from numerous PACs and other resources.)

Perhaps Will – given his Kennedy comparison – means she won’t be formidable on the stump and in debates. That’s possible, I suppose. Even she was unable to name a significant achievement of her own as Secretary of State and neither can her supporters. But will that matter to the voters? A lack of accomplishments didn’t stop them from voting for Barack Obama in droves. (Twice!) We might be expecting a lot out of the national electorate to be that discerning. Still, at least Will isn’t throwing in the towel, which would be a pretty bad omen at this early stage.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…Bmore!

KOOLAID2 on April 27, 2014 at 8:09 PM

I heard the last reporter who called Killary a “heavy favorite” for senate got the deluxe cement footwear.

viking01 on April 27, 2014 at 8:10 PM

OTHER THAN ENABLING A SEXUAL PREDATOR FOR DECADES, WHAT THE HELL HAS THIS WOMAN EVER DONE IN HER SORRY A$$ LIFE???

conservative hispanic on April 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Senator 2001-2009
Secretary of State 2009-2013.

Did I miss something?

Louey on April 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Senator 2001-2009
Secretary of State 2009-2013.

Did I miss something?

Louey on April 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

So, she got herself elected and appointed. Again, what did she accomplish with that, or is that too hard to answer, for the second time?

HiJack on April 27, 2014 at 8:43 PM

That rapist’s spouse? The heifer?

Murphy9 on April 27, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Damn…I guess I won’t be able to sell all them vintage polyester pant suits on ebay now.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on April 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Hillary is awesome. So is Obama.

What do you mean “What has she done?” I’ll tell you what she did, she…..

You’re stupid and shut up.

TypicalLib on April 27, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Mondale redux.

John the Libertarian on April 27, 2014 at 10:48 PM

I can’t seem to make heads or tails out of how she thinks she can run again and win. She was all but a locked in choice last time around and her party Rejected her in favor of someone with zero experience. Why would they reject her then but accept her now? If I were her, I would be insulted by this and all these political analysts that says she is running without asking this critical question doesn’t have a clue.

tdavisjr on April 27, 2014 at 11:08 PM

I don’t know. I can tell you I saw two motor vehicles with “I am ready for Hillary” bumperstickers two days ago in the Detroit metropolitan area, so Someone Is gearing up her electoral machine.

ClownsToTheLeftOfMe on April 27, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Hillary is a lousy campaigner. She looks good on paper, but once she gets out on the stump and opens her mouth people are reminded of why they can’t stand her.

There’s a reason why such an empty suit like Obama was able to beat the “inevitable” Clinton.

SupplyGuy on April 27, 2014 at 11:53 PM

I suspect that part of the attraction of a theoretical “president Hillary” is having Bill Clinton back in DC to run interference.

Here’s the game plan, as I see it:

All Hillary would have to do to make any scandal of hers disappear from the news, would be to tell Bill, “Go out and play.” The media would dutifully yell Squirrel, the clock would run out, and the scandal would be averted.

Rinse and repeat for eight years, collectivizing as much of America as possible along the way.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Archangel Nation on April 28, 2014 at 12:50 AM

Cherokee Warren will beat Hillary like a drum. Then she’ll stomp Bush III flat.

Voters get the government they deserve, and, for the life of me, I can’t figure out how this electorate doesn’t deserve her.

fadetogray on April 28, 2014 at 1:34 AM

Will’s right. But he understates it. She’s a lousy politician. She was widely considered far more inevitable in 2008 — and we all know how that worked out.

She’s a far less attractive candidate now.

I hope she runs. I hope the Dems push her hard. Unless we’re dumb enough to nominate a McCain or Romney all over again, she’s not winning.

(Unfortunately, I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupidity of the GOP)

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 28, 2014 at 2:21 AM

So old George gives Hillary the same exact treatment that he used on Sarah Palin on behalf of the Rovian GOP. Gotta make room for his buddy Jeb to continue destroying the country.

Don L on April 28, 2014 at 6:23 AM

(Unfortunately, I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupidity of the GOP)

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 28, 2014 at 2:21 AM

They’re not stupid–complicit, yes, but not stupid. That’s reserved for the fools that keep voting for them, believing they are on the citizen’s side, when everything they do is “accidentally” stupid and ignoring their open warfare on conservative people.

Don L on April 28, 2014 at 6:30 AM

I expect a lot of Hillarys interest in running for various political offices wasn’t that she was necessarily interested in governing herself. Sure to some degree because she does have some ambitions but I think it was much more for her husbands sake. I think Bill would love to be back in the White House.

tangoecho5 on April 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM

As everyone knows Bill Clinton has been permanently disbarred. He is no longer allowed to hold any political-office. When Hillary is sworn in as President she will give Bill Clinton one important assignment. He will seek out a contract with someone like James Riady. This will give the Clinton’s unlimited access to direct bribes from totally illegal foreign campaign-contributors. He will also seek out another very wealthy patron like Marc Rich. If the “contribution” from a “supporter” like this is in the right price range I am sure another full-pardon could be issued by the Clinton’s. This monetary reward could be deposited in a numbered account in a bank in Switzerland.

Bugdust172 on April 28, 2014 at 8:23 AM

It is time for a second Soros president.

Viator on April 28, 2014 at 8:29 AM

When was the last time George Will was right?

libfreeordie on April 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

I’m hoping the democrats take her out in their primary because I don’t honestly see any GOP candidate winning against her.

weedisgood on April 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

The MSM will polish up some star in an attempt to make it shine brighter than Mrs Clinton.
Possibly someone like Elizabeth Warren.
Or Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel.

TimBuk3 on April 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

When was the last time George Will was right?

libfreeordie on April 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Generally every time he opens his mouth about liberals.

Tater Salad on April 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I’m hoping the democrats take her out in their primary because I don’t honestly see any GOP candidate winning against her.

weedisgood on April 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Despite all of the talk of her “winning the women’s vote”, I just don’t see it. The aren’t enough 60 year old divorced lesbian voters to make a difference.

Tater Salad on April 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Despite all of the talk of her “winning the women’s vote”, I just don’t see it. The aren’t enough 60 year old divorced lesbian voters to make a difference.

Tater Salad on April 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM

You underestimate the American people being fooled into voting for someone just for the sake of it being historic.
I have seen that movie before.
I have no doubt in my mind many GOP women will vote for her. They may not say it but who is watching when they get into the booth?

weedisgood on April 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM

her Chairman Mao line of pants suits.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Good line there.

HonestLib on April 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

People didn’t vote for Hillary last time because she is not formidable. Period. She’s the default candidate into who every Democrats projects their hopes. She is simply another empty vessel with a marketing campaign who does not have the skill or experience to bring our country back to greatness.

In 2008, Barack Obama was not elected based on skill or experience- but also on a marketing campaign. He had accomplished nothing of significance that merited his election. But his dearth of capability was covered up by a fawning media and party faithful that rallies mindlessly around wherever the flag is planted. Sound familiar?

Now, eight years later Hillary has a record that is more horrendous than last time. Her mismanagement (both financial and on policy) at DoS led to the deaths of our countrymen in Benghazi and the world is a much more dangerous place for Americans.

Hillary does not have any of the skill we need to get out from under the substantial economic collapse Barack Obama has put us in. So collectively- what does she have to provide us with confidence in her abilities? Rhetorically- nothing.

Hillary is more a vestige of the past that we should at best recall as a terrible, destructive lesson learned. We simply cannot continue to elect people based on some particular demographic that is cleverly market to the voters. We need someone who has the skill necessary to navigate a bipartisan Congress, make sound economic policy for our country and to restore the strength of our nation. IT is not her.

There is no mystery as to whether Hillary is running. She is traveling around the country trying to whitewash all the incidents on her record that tell us quite loudly she is not the right person for the job. Hillary is a vestige of the past that has led us to a dangerous precipice.

Marcus Traianus on April 28, 2014 at 11:24 AM

I admire George’s confidence in the American public.

To that I say Barack Obama got elected…twice. With zero experience, zero accomplishments in a first term other than his signature legislation which the majority of the public dislikes.

Absolutely Hillary can be President. Nothing surprises me any more.

Maybe she can use her skills in commodity trading to help with the deficit?

jjjdad on April 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Longtime liberal friend and Hillary admirer was visiting over the weekend so I popped the question to her: In twelve years of holding high public office, what were one or two of her biggest accomplishments? My friend thought about it, scrinched her nose and shrugged.

Yes, I know the public elected O twice but, unlike him, Hillary has the ongoing reputation of supreme competence. It can’t hold up. Can it?

wbcoleman on April 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM

I think it comes down to whether or not Hillary can inspired the base. I just don’t see it. Politically, she’s a garden variety liberal, and not a very inspiring one, at that. Can she get a D +9 turnout like Obama did? I just don’t see it. Can she appeal to independents? Again, I don’t see it. She has no charisma, no great charm, and lacks intensity — a hat trick that conned the public into electing our current Oval Office dude. If she were an electable candidate, I suspect she wouldn’t have failed to win the nomination in 2008. But the media think she’s great, just like at one time they felt the same about Ted Kennedy, John Glenn, and even — going waaayyyy back — John Lindsay. But we’ll see.

NevadaD on April 28, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Can she get a D+9 turnout like Obama did? I just don’t see it.

If a President were elected based upon popular vote, this argument would have merit.

The reality is, if the Ds can get the ballots “stuffed” and “control” counted in a couple key electoral states, then D+? matters not.

Significantly more votes were counted in NE Ohio (aka Cleveland) than there were registed voters.

Those are the only numbers that matter, the Ds know it, and they will play that game as blatant as need be given their control of the DOJ and the media.

Once they get control of Texas the full court press towards one party government will be complete.

Carnac on April 28, 2014 at 1:25 PM

It wasn’t so much the first this or that in ’08 as it was that she just wasn’t likeable.

Kissmygrits on April 28, 2014 at 2:34 PM

You mean Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife?

Galtian on April 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM

But the media think she’s{Hillary)great, just like at one time they felt the same about Ted Kennedy, John Glenn, and even — going waaayyyy back — John Lindsay.

Don’t forget to mention their all time favorite, John McCain.

Don L on April 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I think this link sums up GW’s prognostication abilities:

george will predicts romney wins big:321-217

Tlaloc on April 29, 2014 at 1:23 AM

Now, eight years later Hillary has a record that is more horrendous than last time. Her mismanagement (both financial and on policy) at DoS led to the deaths of our countrymen in Benghazi and the world is a much more dangerous place for Americans.

Marcus Traianus on April 28, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Great point. She’s also older, and more unpleasant. America may not be ready for 8 years of Hillary’s cackling.

virgo on April 29, 2014 at 2:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2