Every once in a long while, we are presented with a piece of social commentary that transcends its original trappings. Awesome really is the right word for it. I’m not a big fan of Obama’s, but I’m an anti-fan of Romney’s and this plays to my mindset pretty well.
I think it was more the mixed message i was getting from it. “Yes i’m president, and have been for one term, but you know what, what i really want to do is get back to teaching. The upcoming election? oh yeah…there is that…but well, i really want to teach.”
That comes out as code for, ‘you don’t want to vote for me, my heart is not in it’, ergo vote for the other guy (even if you don’t like him, he wants it more than me).
It just seemed a really weirdly timed statement, all things considered. Keep in mind i’m half convinced you’ll get a republican president this time (the spending).
On a slightly related topic, we don’t allow political advertising in the uk (which is not entirely true, as the parties do all have slots on TV) in the same way you do in the usa, the ‘attack adds’ etc. And David Cameron talked to Letterman about that while looking foolish (considering his education):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcdpMxkyk38
I know you’re just speaking off the cuff but Hillary is 64 today. I can’t see her running in 2016. So, here’s hoping for Elizabeth Warren.
Reagan was just shy of 70 when he was inaugurated, so I can see Hillary running in 2016.
If Warren wins this year though, all bets are off.
Papageno
1765
The powers that be won’t let Warren get anywhere near the nomination for the Presidency, unfortunately.
So if not Hillary, who do you put money on? Just curious.
Assuming of course, Hell doesn’t freeze over and Obama wins in November.
Papageno
1767
I don’t know at all. Obama’s going to be a hard act to follow, candidate-wise.
That doesn’t matter. Even if he wins, Barack Obama will no longer be the future of the Democratic Party. And it really is unclear who the next guy (or girl) will be. Normally the sitting Veep becomes the frontrunner, but Biden is 69. He’ll be 73 in the next election cycle.
Hillary is 64. She’ll be 68 in the next election cycle.
That’s why I was curious about the convention. I figured there’d be a lot of maneuvering by the second tier of possibles.
Why does everyone think Hilary will be too old in 2016? Women live longer than men on average, and she’s a good speaker, and she does have that last name going for her.
Because running for president is absolutely brutal, physically, mentally, emotionally. And it really doesn’t get any easier if you win the job. I’m not saying Hillary wouldn’t be up to it, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether you can get a plurality of the electorate to support you. And in her case, the question would be, “Do I think she could hold up and do the job well for potentially eight years?” At which point she’d be in her mid 70s.
In comparison, she’d most likely be going up against younger, more energetic competitors.
Telefrog
1771
Keeping in mind that a LOT of people hate her whether that’s based on facts or an irrational emotional thing. Hillary will not make it through the primary process.
Rightbug
1772
I’m hoping that Hillary will have matured enough during her eight years as Secretary of State because, while I was a fan of hers before the 2004 race, she ran a terrible campaign and convinced me that she would not make a good president. I would be glad to find that this has changed, especially as I don’t see any other rising stars on the horizon for the Democrats.
I also hope that enough time has now passed and Bill’s cred has risen enough with folks on both sides of the aisle that she is no longer a divisive figure. This was not her fault but there was so much venom directed at the Clintons during his second term and there was a particularly nasty strain of venom directed towards her as a strong woman, that it made me fear she was un-electable, even if she ran a good campaign. And worse, if she did get elected, seeing the opposition someone as moderate and even keeled as Obama has faced, I can’t imagine how much worse it would be for Hillary. Would she even be able to govern?
Yeah, but the majority of people that hate her live on the other side of the aisle. And I love to piss those types off.
I dunno. Being Secretary of State has really improved her standing. Last time I saw her approval rating it was in the high-60’s. That almost counts as “beloved” by today’s standards.
Scuzz
1775
Her collapse to Obama in 2008 demonstrated that a good portion of the democrats in the US don’t like her either.
Whatever, I still think she gets the nod, unless Warren really grows a pair. 2016 seems like it’s time a woman gets elected.
Clay
1778
I thought Hillary said a few years ago that she was only going to be SecSt. for 4 yrs. maybe I’m misremembering.
The mayor of Austin is an up-and-comer with the Dems and could make a run at the presidency in the future.
And isn’t W currently in the Caymans visiting Romney’s money?
This just keeps getting better!
Politico decides, in the end, Mitt’s problem is just Mitt:
It isn’t the chair or the ho-hum convention. Or the leaked video. Or Stuart Stevens. Or the improving economy. Or media bias. Or distorted polls. Or the message. Or Mormonism.
It’s Mitt.
With Republicans everywhere wondering what has happened to the Mitt Romney campaign, people who know the candidate personally and professionally offer a simple explanation: It’s the candidate himself.
Slowly and reluctantly, Republicans who love and work for Romney are concluding that for all his gifts as a leader, businessman and role model, he’s just not a good political candidate in this era.
