1st term Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren - What are the Odds? - image from fanpop.com
In the hoopla leading up to 2008, Hillary Clinton was seen as the predominant front-runner for the Presidency - one could hear only accolades from the left, and derision from the right regarding the former First Lady – New York State Senator. The theme was “inevitable” – until one Barack Obama came out of the blue, and the Democrats found they had a division in their party – those centric Democrats who felt comfortable with the Hillary Clinton, and those Progressive Democrats who wanted more spreading of the wealth, so to speak. The rest, as they say, is history.
Fast forward eight years, and the season of Presidential candidates is once again, beginning. According to the logic of Washington politics within the major parties, the nod, or nomination, normally goes to one of the political class who was an “also-ran” – as if that individual had to wait a turn to become the top candidate. The Republican’s featured John McCain, who ran against George W. Bush, in the 2000 campaign, as the top dog in the 2008 campaign, and in 2012, Mitt Romney (who ran in 2008), got “his turn”. The Democrats varied from this theme in 2008, but, again, there were the growing divisions in the party as to the Progressives and the Moderates (which in the grander scheme of things are more modern-day Republicans.)
Today, Hillary Clinton is target number one, the anointed predecessor to President Obama, the war of words is on – from the right, and the left. The right (or the RNC) is complaining, loudly and in video, about two major networks who are making “Hillary Clinton films”, prior to the 2016 elections (Bloomberg), and the New York Times ran a surprising piece regarding “unease at Clinton Foundation or Finances and Ambitions” delving into the mix of politics and philanthropy. What one has yet to hear, but should any day, is the obvious fashion critique of the not-yet announced candidate Clinton.
Howe ever, it may be fair to point out that the schematics of both parties have changed radically over the past ten years, and it is in no way a given that Hillary Clinton will be the candidate of choice. It is a better bet that someone who is more in the line of the Occupy Wall Street ideology will emerge as the token woman – thinks new MA Senator, Elizabeth Warren.
On the right, the also rans from 2012 should be the focus, as the Republican Party is less likely to break the mold, rather preferring to go down in flames rather than accept what might be considered a strong candidate. In Iowa, one finds Rand Paul, and the second place 2012 primary opponent, Rick Santorum. Santorum is more in the mold of the standard Republican, although he does go right of center with his Catholicism, and would, under no circumstances make for a solid national candidate. Yet, there is a nagging persistence, looking at the field that also includes Rick Perry, (another candidate that, love him or hate him, will not fly out of Texas), and God forbid, New Gingrich – there’s little to write home about. There has also been speculation that a Bush, as in Jeb, may enter the fray – back to the political dynasty that would have, decades ago, been acceptable.
Not unlike the split within the Democrat Party, there is also a split between the Republican standard GOP and those fiscal conservatives, either Tea Party or Libertarian that have risen prominently in the past few years. Ted Cruz comes to mind, which may be why the sudden interest in his eligibility to run for President in the first place (See Ted Cruz Speculation on 2016). One might wonder why that all matters, when in the grander scheme of things, Hillary Clinton is the anointed one?
Not having the proverbial crystal ball, one might be safer suggesting that the individuals who will run, may include the aforementioned, yet, there are those who are sitting quietly with advisors, and financiers, contemplating the logistics of a run for the U.S. Presidency, and those on the right and the left have no idea of who “they” might be.
The biggest question one should be asking – who in their right mind would want the job in the first place? The national debt is out of control, foreign policy is a minefield, and the ratio of those on the dole versus those who are employed is somewhat blurred. The entire nation needs a “revival”, fiscally, educationally, and yes, morally – (as in how much waste and fraud can what is left of the working class be acceptable?) – Who’s up to the task of fixing the nation? That’s the first question; the second question is who are the major parties going to allow to be President. – That’s the question that has yet to be answered.
Listening to a pundit suggest that the White House is the key to all power, one might suggest that control of the Senate and the Congress would be more important, where there is more of an opportunity to employ a real public servant, one with no dynastic ties, or family who profits from K-Street.
As to Hillary the odds are tenuous at best.
See, Huffington Post - Elizabeth Warren Vs. Hillary Clinton
No comments:
Post a Comment