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

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.)

By a GOP that didn’t have its head up its a$$, and wasn’t hell-bent of self-immolation, perhaps.

Midas on April 27, 2014 at 3:35 PM

The media have proven they can carry a full blown SCOAMF across the finish line. All they need to do is demonize the Rep. nominee and the empty pantsuit will win by default.

trubble on April 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Cankles is as serious a statesman as Jeb is. Both want the job, neither is worthy, and even if they got the nom, it would prove that America’s political class is in fact now an undeniable hereditary aristocracy.

abobo on April 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Your last paragraph sums it up: Will is right in that sense. And will American want to vote for another affirmative action candidate anyway, immediately after the Obama debacle? I’m betting that behind the scenes the Democrats are indeed desperately scrambling for a better candidate to “come out of nowhere”. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll come up with one, or overcome Hillary’s entrenched lead.

Fenris on April 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM

It’s not so much that she is formidable, it’s all in comparison to who we put up against her.

Dash on April 27, 2014 at 3:39 PM

I hope they run Ted Kennedy…………….

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM

But will that matter to the voters? A lack of accomplishments didn’t stop them from voting for Barack Obama in droves. (Twice!)

Totally agree Jazz. It won’t matter at all that even Hillary herself can’t name her “accomplishments”. The MSM will be falling all over themselves fawning over the first female POTUS candidate.

She will win easily, and that is regardless of who the R candidate ends up being.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 3:48 PM

She is very cold and not very likable.

jmtham156 on April 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM

It’s not so much that she is formidable, it’s all in comparison to who we put up against her.

Dash on April 27, 2014 at 3:39 PM

The GOP will do what they always do. There will be two white men on the ticket, at least one of whom will be a RINO.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM

I hope they run Ted Kennedy…………….

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Mel Carnahan.

slickwillie2001 on April 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM

The GOP will do what they always do. There will be two white men on the ticket, at least one of whom will be a RINO.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM

I’m thinking they will put Rubio or Cruz as VP to try for the Latino vote. Plus it will make shillary look that much older.

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:53 PM

If Hillary gets upwards of 60% of the female vote because of the sisterhood factor, she’ll win. The low information crowd is alive and well, as witnessed by Obama winning twice now.

Special Forces Grunt on April 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM

You know who else wasn’t a “formidable candidate,” George? Yeah, that’s right. Barack Obama. *spit*

gryphon202 on April 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM

So you don’t see the parallel between “inevitable Hillary! 2008″ and “inevitable Hillary 2016″ yet? Let me remind you it is 2014.

In April of 2006, Hillary was just as inevitable as she is viewed today. It is in fact almost exactly the same, except she has a useless and ineffective tour as Secretary of State which raises more questions about her leadership than it adds in experience points, and her vaunted Clinton Campaign Machine (you remember them, the ones who blew it in 2008) are all ten years older now.

In all of 2006, Barack Obama wasn’t even included on any polls of Democratic presidential preferences. It wasn’t until the very end of that year, when he first said he “might run,” that his name began to be added.

♦◊♦◊

Don’t see the parallel?

“It’s like deja vu all over again.” ~ Lawrence Peter Berra

“I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.” ~ Ed Koch

Adjoran on April 27, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Anybody who thinks experience, accomplishment, and competence matters for electoral success has been asleep for the past six years.

Mark1971 on April 27, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Mel Carnahan.

slickwillie2001 on April 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Teddy would get all the dead and brain dead votes!

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Hillary is the first to visit…Togo.

Schadenfreude on April 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM

The fact is that Hillary is not a good candidate. She only won the Senate seat in NY by running while still in the White House, and having the field cleared for her by the state party in a very blue state.

She was crowned, not elected. She does the coronation thing fine, she stands where she is supposed to, smiles and nods appropriately, gives the little queen wave.

With opposition, she is neither good on the stump nor much of a strategist.

Adjoran on April 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM

The fact is that Hillary is not a good candidate. She only won the Senate seat in NY by running while still in the White House, and having the field cleared for her by the state party in a very blue state.

She was crowned, not elected. She does the coronation thing fine, she stands where she is supposed to, smiles and nods appropriately, gives the little queen wave.

With opposition, she is neither good on the stump nor much of a strategist.

Adjoran on April 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM

In politics, you don’t need a good candidate if you can get a sufficiently corrupt machine behind the candidate you have.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Ugggh. i am so not ready for this battle. If someone sanctioned by the GOPe runs, WTH is the point?

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 4:04 PM

The fact is that Hillary is not a good candidate. She only won the Senate seat in NY by running while still in the White House, and having the field cleared for her by the state party in a very blue state.

She was crowned, not elected. She does the coronation thing fine, she stands where she is supposed to, smiles and nods appropriately, gives the little queen wave.

With opposition, she is neither good on the stump nor much of a strategist.

Adjoran on April 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM

And that’s different than Obama, how? So Hillary isn’t a good candidate. So what? At this point, what difference does it make?

gryphon202 on April 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM

“At this point, what difference does it make?”

Should be repeated over and over and over………………

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 4:07 PM

If Hillary gets upwards of 60% of the female vote because of the sisterhood factor, she’ll win. The low information crowd is alive and well, as witnessed by Obama winning twice now.

Special Forces Grunt on April 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM

That’s the Democrats’ game plan all the way to the middle of the 21st Century — play the race card with Obama, then the gender card with Hillary, than in 2024 (they hope) back to the race card with a Latino nominee like Julian Castro (it’s also why they go hyper-ballistic over people like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin — they can’t have one of their special interest ‘cards’ taken away by the Republicans). Throw in an Asian or LBGT candidate in 2032 and 2040, and you get the Democrats’ basic plan to live off the idea of ‘historic first’ presidents, who like Obama, they would proclaim have Absolute Moral Authority because of their history-making position.

The potential potholes for both candidates include their records — Obama was deliberately kept as a cypher by his Democratic handlers in the run-up to 2008, so he could be all things to all people; Hillary and Warren’s records and statements are out there for all to see. The other problem is whomever gets the nomination would have to run as Obama’s third term or repute his actions for the past eight year. Doing that could easily depress turnout among the party’s African-American base (and Hillary would probably have it a little easier here, since she could at least try to run as her husband’s third term. Warren’s whole message would be if there’s any critique of Obama, it was that he wasn’t liberal enough. Even a lot of female voters may balk at going down that road).

jon1979 on April 27, 2014 at 4:07 PM

” A lack of accomplishments didn’t stop them from voting for Barack Obama in droves. (Twice!) ”

Yes, but President Obama is charming, and I don’t think even her most ardent supporters would use that adjective to describe Hillary — at least, on the stump. Don’t know what she’s like in person.

So far as I can tell, running for President is a species of salesmanship. You’re selling yourself. That means you must be likeable , someone other people can project their hopes and dreams onto. Hope is the big thing that sells presidential candidates. Hope and a vision of the future is what Reagan offered against Carter, and won. Hope is NOT what Bush 41 offered against Clinton ,and he lost. Bush and Gore gave essentially the same message, and it was a tie. Kerry ran on attacking George Bush and on being a war veteran, and lost. Obama ran his entire campaign on hope and change — and pretty much nothing else at all — and won. Twice. Against people who were many times more qualified than he, both Democrat AND Republican.

“I am the inevitable nominee” is not a message of hope. It’s already failed Hillary once. Being the frontrunner in an empty field does not mean inevitability. It only invites other people who ARE charming and hopeful and better salespeople to jump in.

See, that , I think, is the real problem with any Hillary candidacy. She’s not a salesperson. She didn’t make any “sales” as Sec State, which in this case would be meaningful policy, and she never made a “sale” outside of her Senate seat which was practically gift-wrapped for her.

Given this track record, I would expect her to “sell” her way into the presidency only if there is a complete dearth of young, hopeful, charming salespeople to run against her in the Democrat or Republican party, and if she DID make it in I would expect her to essentially be a placeholder President, for the same reason.

So it seems to me that the Republicans can win if we run somebody young, charming, hopeful and competent for people to pin their hopes on. Maybe Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Definitely NOT Jeb Bush. Family dynasties aren’t a message of hope either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell2 on April 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM

May I point out that Barack Obama was never a “formidable candidate” either.

ElectricPhase on April 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM

She got beaten like a drum by a know-nothing BS’er in 2008.

PD Quig on April 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell2 on April 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Good post! +100

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 4:11 PM

If you guys think the established Big gov loving gop is going to let a Ted Cruz or Palin or a Limited government type get the nomination YOU ARE NUTS.

This whole Rick Perry 2016 thing is nothing more than the same old boatload of crap they do ALL THE TIME!!!

They put a bunch of self-branded “Conservatives” out there that throw the base a few bones about the flag and Liberty and Individual freedom and then it splits the vote and voila…..they get McCain or Romney or Ford or the Bushes to be the nominee and we get stuck with ever growing Federal power over our lives……because the gop is owned by the Progressives just like the Dems are.

#ughbacktahogsloppin

#atleastyoucanturnthehogsintasausagewhenyagetstiredofum

PappyD61 on April 27, 2014 at 4:11 PM

She got beaten like a drum by a know-nothing BS’er in 2008.

PD Quig on April 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Who, absent the most grotesque violation of the constitution we have yet to see, can not run again. So don’t be too quick to think that Hillary will or should give up.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2014 at 4:12 PM

The Clinton-obsessed are having a very hard time dealing with the reality that HC won’t be the nom in 2016.

It doesn’t matter if she runs. Her window has passed.

Moesart on April 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM

The Clinton-obsessed are having a very hard time dealing with the reality that HC won’t be the nom in 2016.

It doesn’t matter if she runs. Her window has passed.

Moesart on April 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM

She’ll try. She’ll be right in there. The way she ended up losing to Obama in ’08, even I think she’d be foolish not to try.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I’m thinking they will put Rubio or Cruz as VP to try for the Latino vote. Plus it will make shillary look that much older.

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:53 PM

That’s possible, although not sure that either one would be interested in being on the bottom of a ticket. Plus, Rubio is up for reelection in 2016. Don’t know if he could run for that simultaneously along with being the VP nominee.

There are a few women that might be considered too. Martinez, Haley, Fallon and Ayotte are good examples.

But I still think in the end the ticket will be two white men.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

As I watch Hillary waddle across the stage in those clips, for some reason she increasingly reminds my of androgynous Pat from those old SNL clips. Especially when she’s answering questions.

BuckeyeSam on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

She lost to Obama in 2008 because the base in the Democrats hate the Clintons. They will just come at her with another historic candidate in 2016. The media will swoon all over again.

Because, the base run the Democrats (and the media). Unlike, in the Republicans. Where the base runs nothing, and elect Democrats more than anything else.

Moesart on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

If Hillary gets upwards of 60% of the female vote because of the sisterhood factor, she’ll win. The low information crowd is alive and well, as witnessed by Obama winning twice now.

Special Forces Grunt on April 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Yep. The GOP already has a big gender gap. It will be even worse with Hillary on the ticket, likely with Booker or Castro.

I’m embarrassed to admit the majority of women vote for liberals, and particularly because one of the reasons is abortion. Not a lot of true conservative women like myself I’m afraid.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 4:30 PM

I’m embarrassed to admit the majority of women vote for liberals, and particularly because one of the reasons is abortion. Not a lot of true conservative women like myself I’m afraid.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 4:30 PM

There are plenty here who are staunchly opposed to abortion…

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

pendell2 on April 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Hillary is neither charming nor inspiring.

One attack ad should mesh (1) her 3:00 am call to dump on Obama; (2) her remarks at Andrews near the four coffins, blaming the video; and (3) her infamous whining remarks at the committee hearing.

It might close with the line, “Hillary was right about Obama, he was resting up for a trip to Las Vegas. But as Secretary of State, where was she that night?”

BuckeyeSam on April 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Will is dreaming. They’re gonna run a pathetic “girl power” campaign and the women folk will fall right in line and vote for the vicious old bat. It’s terribly sad, but also terribly true.

Rational Thought on April 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

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.)

Obama was beatable, too. Ever vigilant.

NY2SC on April 27, 2014 at 4:35 PM

She lost to Obama in 2008 because the base in the Democrats hate the Clintons. They will just come at her with another historic candidate in 2016. The media will swoon all over again.

Because, the base run the Democrats (and the media). Unlike, in the Republicans. Where the base runs nothing, and elect Democrats more than anything else.

Moesart on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

The left side of the Democratic Party would love to come at Hillary with another historic candidate … but other than using the same gender card with Fauxahontas, they don’t have one. There’s no Latino or Asian pol in the party with a high enough position to put forward as a credible candidate following what pushing an untested Senator like Barack Obama ended up producing (the only other Senator who checks the special interest group bill aside from Warren is Corey Booker, and Obama eliminated his ability to be ‘historic’).

I suppose they could have some high-profile liberal Democratic pol out themselves as an attempt to bully people into voting for them for president as some sort of gay rights test, but I would guess only a Democrat in the Bluest of Blue States would be willing to use that gambit as a stepping stone to challenging Hillary in 2016, since if they fail, their chances for advancement outside of their own specific state and/or liberal Congressional District would be extremely limited.

jon1979 on April 27, 2014 at 4:37 PM

She’s a very formidable candidate in today’s America. Girl power will get her into the WH.

DisneyFan on April 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Is Hillary Clinton a great candidate, in the sense that she would be able to present a record of accomplishment, or that her speeches will present a compelling vision for the future? No.

Does she have to be a great candidate to win? Not at all. The Democratic Party has pretty much united behind Hillary already, while the Republican candidate, whoever he or she is, will have to struggle to unite the party’s factions. The states that the Democrats have won in the last six presidential elections in a row have something like 247 electoral votes (don’t hold me to that, I haven’t looked it up), giving the Democratic candidate a fairly easy ride to victory.

Meanwhile, Hillary is going to have the media more-or-less openly campaigning for her, covering up any of her past failures (such as Benghazi) and misstatements, while the media will eagerly publicize the failures and misstatements of the Republican candidate.

Having a female candidate also ensures that the Democrats will be able to keep promoting the “war on women” message. If a week goes by without some Republican saying something that could be interpreted as sexist, then liberal web sites will just make up such a claim (or find a fake sexist statement on a “humor” web site) and promote it as the truth anyway.

This country has moved to the left within the last generation. Considering that liberals and/or leftists dominate in the news media, the entertainment media, higher education, and elementary/high school education, it’s hard for me to see a victory for anyone other than Hillary in 2016. Conservatives are barely able to exercise influence over the Republican Party, for heaven’s sake.

J.S.K. on April 27, 2014 at 4:40 PM

4 died on her Sec of State watch.
Russia is utter disaster.
Brain-injured.
Wife of a perjurer.

Hell yeah she is our candidate!

/lib

hillsoftx on April 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

On the bright side she will be able to visit the Ukraine while ducking from gunfire.

But seriously… why are we still pretending that competence has anything to do with anything? It has been proven that all you need is good writers and the discipline to stick to the script. “Dirty air and dirty water dirty air and dirty water dirty air and dirty water” say it with me kids.

demotheses on April 27, 2014 at 4:46 PM

I think Hillary will run, win the coronation, er, nomination, in a walk, and then quite likely win the election and serve two terms unless her health is an issue. I also think she’ll probably choose Kerry as her running mate for the “experience” factor. I can’t think of anybody on her side who could beat her. I mean, Elizabeth Warren-really?

WestVirginiaRebel on April 27, 2014 at 4:47 PM

If the Affordable Care Act is seen as either a success or a necessary evil by the people in 2016, she will win. If it is a screwed up, hyper expensive mess, she will lose.

CL on April 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Get back to me when he has dinner with Hillary, Krauthammer and Brooks. Then they will all tell us how brilliant she is and Brooks will wax enthusiastically about her Chairman Mao line of pants suits.

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

hillsoftx on April 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

That stuff only matters if the candidate is a Republican.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM

4 died on her Sec of State watch.
Russia is utter disaster.
Brain-injured.
Wife of a perjurer.

Hell yeah she is our candidate!

/lib

hillsoftx on April 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

“Maybe she could get a couple of abortions before the election! Oh…Wait..Umm…Ahh… Lets go for the gay vote!”

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Obama’s blackness is way more powerful than Hillary’s lady parts. Fact is, to much of the liberal base, there is no difference between a man and a woman… and a trans, gay, lesbian, straight, gender-neutral, and a whole host of other “genders” that make up the thoroughly unscientific, party of science. Black and brownness, however; these things matter.

What can bring Hillary down in the primaries are two of the bigger egos in the democratic party: Biden and Kerry. They know the scoop about Benghazi and they both have tried and failed at presidential runs. They also know that a loss in 2016 for the dems could mean 2024 before either of these two codgers have another real shot at ascending to the throne. They could easily drop enough negativity on her to make her seem exactly what she is: an incompetent boob counting on it finally being her time.

No, I think she won’t run. And I think all this pac money will be funnelled to Chelsea for a Senate run in NY when Chucky finally calls it quits.

BKeyser on April 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM

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.

Exactly right. The low-IQ, low-info voters have set the bar so low any moron with money can now run and probably win. Just so long as they have a salable “story”.

GarandFan on April 27, 2014 at 4:58 PM

They put a bunch of self-branded “Conservatives” out there that throw the base a few bones about the flag and Liberty and Individual freedom and then it splits the vote and voila…..they get McCain or Romney or Ford or the Bushes to be the nominee and we get stuck with ever growing Federal power over our lives……because the gop is owned by the Progressives just like the Dems are.

This!

JLyons on April 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Hillary is the first to visit…Togo.

Schadenfreude on April 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM

How did the entire State Department miss this obvious answer when they were asked about her signature accomplishments? They should have hired you…

Jazz Shaw on April 27, 2014 at 5:00 PM

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.

Oh yeah? There is a certain former vice presidential nominee in the great northwest who can deliver much more bang for the buck than Hillary.

miConsevative on April 27, 2014 at 5:00 PM

If she runs, (and I believe she will because she thinks it’s hers for the taking)…she’ll be a formidable candidate only because of her name. Democrats don’t care about substance, they care about winning. Look where that got us.

scalleywag on April 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM

…unscientific, party of science.

BKeyser on April 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Such a perfect thought, I can’t even believe it…

miConsevative on April 27, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Then they will all tell us how brilliant she is and Brooks will wax enthusiastically about her Chairman Mao line of pants suits.

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

LOL!

bazil9 on April 27, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Hispanic voters love Hillary.She will do better with this group than any previous candidate.So, unless a new scandal, so devastating that not even the US sycophantic press can cover it up, Hillary is in. So imagine this scenario, viz:

1 A RINO charge lead by Boehner enables Amnesty to pass.
2 Hillary is the Dem candidate. Thus despite Boehner’s treachery, the GOP’s Hispanic vote percentage drops from 27% to 15%.
3 With Amnesty now a “law of the land”, Obama, by executive fiat, transforms Amnesty from a 13 year wait and strings to instant citizenship and no conditions.
4 Hillary wins in a landslide and the Dems retake Boehner’s House (but, quite frankly, Boehner is such a treasonous jackal, what difference doe it make?)

MaiDee on April 27, 2014 at 5:06 PM

There are plenty here who are staunchly opposed to abortion…

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Yes, of course, if you mean Hot Air. I was referring to women in general. And I am one of them who is staunchly opposed to abortion.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM

I think for those on the left and their obsession with Hillary is a dangerous game…. but then I have underestimated the American voter before.

CW on April 27, 2014 at 5:10 PM

The missus Clinton remains the front runner only because of the weakness of the progressive/Marxist bench. And while she again has a campaign staff in place, she faces the same problem she faced in seeking the 2008 nomination. She is clueless about policy but believes her sitting to pee will be enough to put her in the oval office

tuttle from tacoma on April 27, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Jeb-Jindal

20 years from now conservatives will be saying this was the team that brought the Reagan years back after 24 years in the wilderness.
An obscure group of octogenarians at HA will still be saying “squish, amnnesty, dynasty” and bemoaning the imminent fall of America…
Fellow octogenarian but moderate Bradky will irritate everyone with suggestion that it might be “time” for Preston Bush.

Hillary-Kerry
20 years from now history will note that the failed campaign in 2016 was the last major push from the 60′s liberals. Abortion policies will have depleted the number of liberal voters and the widespread legalization of marijuana will make the liberals the party of “Meh, what’s in the fridge”

Bradky on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

MaiDee on April 27, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Your scenario is entirely plausible, although I think the GOP will keep the House for at least two more cycles, if for no other reason than gerrymandering.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

bazil9 on April 27, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Who dress that woman?

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Yes, of course, if you mean Hot Air.

I was referring to women in general

. And I am one of them who is staunchly opposed to abortion.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Yeah, I know you are sadly correct. It really should be the opposite, IMO…

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

oops, dresses.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Check your email…

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 5:13 PM

She is clueless about policy but believes her sitting to pee will be enough to put her in the oval office

tuttle from tacoma on April 27, 2014 at 5:10 PM

And it probably will be. Remember more people watched Honey Boo Boo than the GOP convention in 2012. I never again will underestimate the stupidity of many voters.

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 5:15 PM

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 5:12 PM

I’m encouraged by polls that show a majority at least favor a ban after the first trimester. The Ds are way, way out of the mainstream on abortion. However, they still are managing to win the “war on women” message. Unfortunately, there still are many pro abortion women who are single issue voters, and who believe the demagoguery from leftists.

It’s one of the reasons why I’d love the GOP to nominate a conservative, pro life woman to run against Hillary. Will never happen though. :(

cat_owner on April 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Teddy would get all the dead and brain dead votes!

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I can guarantee you that he’d get some votes. Some of the Dem electorate are really just that stoopid.

Not sure if this has been posted…….haven’t them all, yet. The thought just overcame me.

avagreen on April 27, 2014 at 5:19 PM

4 died on her Sec of State watch.
Russia is utter disaster.
Brain-injured.
Wife of a perjurer.

Hell yeah she is our candidate!

/lib

hillsoftx on April 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Nothing says party of diversity like a fat old white woman that has led a life of privilege!

slickwillie2001 on April 27, 2014 at 5:24 PM

OmahaConservative on April 27, 2014 at 5:13 PM

I got your answer and his.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I don’t think there is any reason to think she’ll get 60% of the women vote. The new Quinnipiac poll in Colorado — which shows her trailing Rand — shows her leading Huckabee among women by only 52-38. If she can’t get more than 52 — before a shot is even fired — against Huckabee, she’s not hitting 60.

She’s not likable and that will come across….

EastofEden on April 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Teddy would get all the dead and brain dead votes!
VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM

They are the Dems most reliable demographic.

Another Drew on April 27, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Another negative for Hill, and the Dems in general:

The 18-34 demographic is becoming more Independent, and less Dem/Progressive – and not for a small part because of BarryCare:
They just don’t want to have to subsidize the Nation.

Another Drew on April 27, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Did he say anything about the crease in her pantsuit?

SouthernGent on April 27, 2014 at 5:45 PM

But will that matter to the voters? A lack of accomplishments didn’t stop them from voting for Barack Obama in droves. (Twice!)

No, that won’t matter, but her screeching on the campaign trail for a year will. Obama is a lot more likeable than Hillary.

Will is right for once. She really isn’t a formidable candidate,and she “should” lose. Having said that, what difference at this point does it make? A republican win will be just as bad. Heads they win, tails we lose.

xblade on April 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Here’s a thought. She was supposed to win in 2008. She would have had the government media and anyone else if they wanted to. Doesn’t it seem odd that Obungle came out of nowhere to win? I’m wondering if the PTB’s just didn’t like her and sandbagged her. She has made a lot of enemies.

crankyoldlady on April 27, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Hillary is smart, experienced, and aggressive. She is also a lying, ugly, fat slob of a woman. I cannot visualize the Dems running an oversized, empty pant-suit.

koolbob on April 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM

And btw, I mentioned it earlier today, but I’ll say it again….McCain has dropped the charade and is basically campaigning for Hillary.

xblade on April 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM

“Unlike, in the Republicans. Where the base runs nothing,”

Moesart on April 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

+1

Take that one step further. The Republican establishment hates the base and would like nothing better than to get rid of all those pesky conservatives.

Franklin100 on April 27, 2014 at 6:04 PM

I go back and forth. Part of me is afraid the “first female president” thing is going to be very powerful and hard to overcome. Another part of me thinks that she will not come across as young and hip like Obama did; she will be old and shrill. I don’t think qualifications have much to do with who wins the presidency anymore; it all comes down to who is the most likable. So, I guess I will wait to see who we will nominate before I concede that she is inevitable.

GinaC on April 27, 2014 at 6:12 PM

And btw, I mentioned it earlier today, but I’ll say it again….McCain has dropped the charade and is basically campaigning for Hillary.

xblade on April 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Mr. SuckUp must know something. This will certainly lose any creds he may have had with anyone with any remaining doubts in the Republican conservative movement about where he stands. Guess we didn’t lose too much when he lost his run for Prezzy.

It’s sad to think that Veterans of the VN war have turned out so terribly bad for the freedoms of U.S. populace.

avagreen on April 27, 2014 at 6:21 PM

…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.

I’m telling you, Michelle 2016.

This country was stupid enough to elect Obama twice. Don’t you think they would be stupid enough to go for the shallow BLACK WOMAN historic election? Bet on it!

NavyMustang on April 27, 2014 at 6:23 PM

*these two

avagreen on April 27, 2014 at 6:23 PM

I am unable to recall a time when I cared what George Will did — or did not — say.

LaserBeam on April 27, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I’ve got to agree with the sentiment that no progressive ever lost power by underestimating the stupidity of the Low Information Voter or by overestimating the power of the progressive media.

Hilary is not “inevitable”, but I fear beating her will not be easy.

MidniteRambler on April 27, 2014 at 6:29 PM

4 died on her Sec of State watch.
Russia is utter disaster.
Brain-injured.
Wife of a perjurer.

Hell yeah she is our candidate!

/lib

hillsoftx on April 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

And a doormat to her lech of a husband.

Or are we not supposed to have noticed?

A champion for women? Seriously?

lynncgb on April 27, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Likeability polls are meaningless until you have an opponent for comparison purposes.

80% of GOP women could despise Hillary. But, some of them would vote for her against an Aiken or Murdock depicted GOP candidate.

I actually spoke with self-identified GOP women who voted for Obama vs. Romney because they thought he would outlaw contraception!

Never be surprised by the power of propaganda.

LaserBeam on April 27, 2014 at 6:40 PM

She was declared inevitable in 2008. Har. Now she has 6 years of incompetence and “fainting spells” to fall back on. She looks tired now. I doubt she will look better in 2 years.

She’ll still be extolling the virtues of “passing the baton” at State because everything she did there turned to crap. Flying a million miles isn’t that impressive.

Philly on April 27, 2014 at 6:40 PM

If demagoguery didn’t work, Democrats would stop doing it.

LaserBeam on April 27, 2014 at 6:42 PM

LaserBeam on April 27, 2014 at 6:42 PM

I can see us ignoring it but I don’t hold out much hope for the press.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM

I really don’t know if we can survive another historic candidate.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM

I’m thinking they will put Rubio or Cruz as VP to try for the Latino vote. Plus it will make shillary look that much older.

VegasRick on April 27, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Let the democrats practice the racial quota nonsense.

keep that stuff from the republican party.

weedisgood on April 27, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Easy to make an effective anti-hrc advert:

Scene #1: Burning compound with gun fire and gunfire.

“We need an EVAC”

Cut-to-Scene #2: clock shows 0300 on nightstand, phone rings, hillary look-a-like slowly arsies from bed to take call.

“Hello?”

backgound noise from the phone: gunfire, screams, cries for help

HRC: “It’s 3 am, i was sleeping why are you bothering me – what difference does it make?”

Scene 3:

Pictures of four bullet ridden bodies burned to a crisp

“Hillary Clinton – asleep at 3am”

uatu1878 on April 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Not impressed with Killary. How about your impress with Boehner, McConnell? These two fools will cost us the presidency. Finished with the RINOS. Adios.

philoise65 on April 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

uatu1878 on April 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

You could also show her passed out face down on a table with an empty bottle of Jim Beam nearby, and the clock showing 3am.

slickwillie2001 on April 27, 2014 at 7:24 PM

I continue to be mystified by the Legend of Hillary. How can a woman who was her husband’s enabler of skirt chasing inevitable? I do not get it. Are the American people so dense? Sure, it is great to hope for the first female president, but look what we got with the first black president, when we totally ignored qualifications or competence.

Techster64 on April 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM

I really don’t know if we can survive another historic candidate.

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM

That goes for any progressive from the Uniparty.

Franklin100 on April 27, 2014 at 7:34 PM

I don’t care if I’m censored or not, but I NEED to ask this question once again:

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

Comment pages: 1 2