Wouldn't it be funny if Hillary Clinton announced today that she wasn't running for president? The number one topic that dominated today's program, despite a responsible addressing of all the week's news, was the presumed candidacy of Hillary Clinton; keyword being 'presumed.'
However, to our own mild surprise, we're going to trust NBC News because it's "Meet The Press." (We write a blog on it as you know.) And Mr. Todd mentioned that the campaign is launching with the title - Hillary for America. However, we're going to start with a point of discussion that the panel had at the end, which was the Atlantic Monthly's Jonathan Ruuch and his politician expiration date equation. Mr. Todd explained that Mr. Rauch determined that the optimal time for a winning politician is if the person has been in the public eye for less than fourteen years. As an elected official, Hillary Clinton has accrued fifteen years, but if you factor in her time as first lady then it jumps up to a quarter of a century. There were two lists of the prospective candidates outlining their over-under the fourteen-year threshold.
NPR's Maria Hinojosa commented that terms like 'stale' and 'expiration date' are very poor choices when describing any woman let alone Mrs. Clinton, and we obviously agree. But here's the key - all all the people on that list there is only one woman and that is where the equation breaks. Think about all that Mrs. Clinton has had to accomplish and go through to be in this very position. As First Lady, she took a pummeling from Republicans over healthcare reform; then she had to win a New York Senate race, followed by losing a difficult presidential bid to relative newcomer Barack Obama; then serve under him as Secretary of State. Comparatively, no other male candidate has a comparable resume so she's had to be in the public eye longer by necessity . You understand the disparity here.
Mrs. Clinton certainly does have trust issues, which are two-pronged. There are Republicans who simply hate the Clintons and would never vote for them and then there is the more significant dissents, which come from Democrats who can not trust the Mrs. Clinton will do what she says she will. For example, if Mrs. Clinton talks about the wealth gap in the United States and helping the middle class in a significant way, will she make good on that rhetoric? This will be hashed out during the campaign and an examination of her vision, which is critical.
And given that, we wouldn't endorse Mrs. Clinton at this time either, not before we heard what she has to say so we agree with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake that it is not significant that Bill de Blasio who served as he Senate-race campaign manager didn't endorse her today during his interview. The dynamics of such an endorsement have significantly changed, starting with the fact that Mr. de Blasio is now the mayor of America's largest city, New York. Also, we wouldn't suggest what she should or should not do on the campaign trail. We're here to observer and assess as everyone else will do before casting a vote. And what we'll assess is indeed Mrs. Clinton's vision for the country, and whether or not we think she'll actually carry it out, to earn an endorsement.
Hugh Hewlitt said he found it surreal that one of the talking points for Mrs. Clinton, uttered multiple times by Mr. de Blasio, is that she has been thoroughly vetted - obviously, he disagrees. If you're a conservative as Mr. Hewlitt is, you're going to find it surreal as well because there are 'so many questions.' Conversely, if you're a progressive, one would ask, 'what more do you need to know?' For every politician, there is a sliding scale between the two. As Mr. Todd pointed out, we know very little of Rand Paul's personal background, nor will he answer any questions about it. Yet, we know that Mrs. Clinton's husband had an affair, with whom and what was done. To use the word 'surreal' is a bit too conspiracy oriented than is called for, as is saying that the Clintons think they are above the law, like Senator Paul did.
Then there is the ultimate wild-card, alluded to in the last paragraph, which is President Bill Clinton. Strange that one's spouse would be a wild card, but when one's already been the president of the United States and it's Bill Clinton, then strange is what to expect. Having said that, in more honest campaigning terms, we think Mr. Clinton will stay on the right page more, in line with Mrs. Clinton's wishes this time round, but the variable is how it comes off and how it's perceived by the electorate.
David Brooks mentioned that for Mrs. Clinton it will be all about authenticity and integrity, but as David Axelrod said (in a clip), humility is the order of the day, and though we wouldn't call it humility per se, it's smart that Mrs. Clinton is announcing today because tomorrow, she'll only be a side note at the water cooler, which will be dominated by "Game of Thrones." So here's to starting our own, the race for presidency of the United States.
Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore (D); Hugh Hewlitt, conservative radio host.
On another note: We'd be negligent if we didn't mention the police shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina, but there isn't much to add except that 1) the alternative hypothetical report that "Meet The Press" put together was a better example of something truly surreal, 2) the policeman, Michael Slager should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and 3) most importantly, the public trust of the police force, across the entire country, has eroded to a crisis level, and something needs to be done. Body cameras, as discussed, is a good start, and demilitarizing the force would be a solid second step.
No comments:
Post a Comment