They can be just as important as cognition tests.
The political scene is agog (“No, really?” “Shut up, you.”) over two things: the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and the prospect of Joe Biden resigning from the Democrat ticket. Of course, the former of those things is an actual fact, despite the attempts of some to claim that it was staged. The latter is a possibility that’s had watchers alternately snickering and speculating.
Time is drawing short on the possibility that Biden will end his campaign for a second term. The Democrats plan a “virtual” nomination farce to ensure that the Vegetable-in-Chief qualifies for the ticket in Ohio and a few other states with rigid ballot access laws. Once that’s done, there’s no going back: Biden will be their nominee unless something should strike him dead. (No, I’m not wishing for that.)
But there are several days remaining in the drama, during which watchers can speculate about whether Biden will nod out and by whom he’d be replaced. And – surprise! Surprise! – the replacement I’ve wondered about ever since the curtain went up on this drama is now being “floated:”
Social media users were surprised by a new column from “The Hill” floating former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as the replacement for President Biden’s 2024 candidacy.
The outlet’s opinion contributor, Pablo O’Hana authored a piece on Saturday titled, “Ready for Round 2: Why we Need Hillary more than ever.” It argued that the former U.S. Secretary of State, who already lost the presidency to former President Trump in 2016, is the most suitable person to replace Biden as calls for him to suspend his re-election camp grow.
A few choice phrases from the rest of O’Hana’s piece:
- “one of the most qualified people ever to run for the office”
- “perhaps the mightiest of all”
- “an unmatched depth of experience”
- “for children’s rights and health care”
- “a seasoned, savvy and adaptable candidate”
Yes, Gentle Reader: Someone really, truly wrote those things about the Corpse of Chappaqua.
I suppose it isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility. After all, Trump is running again after having been “defeated.” But Clinton has been out of the public eye for quite some time now, has been linked to the Russian interference hoax, and has put no personal effort into re-establishing herself as a political participant since the 2016 election. If she’s had agents attempting to promote her, they’ve had little visibility. And beside that: where’s the money to come from?
Well, we’ll know more in due course. It may be just one of those trial balloons that are floated during a contentious campaign, even if this one was launched far later than is usual. But I must admit that O’Hana’s suggestion has tickled me. If I were in Hillary Clinton’s place, with all the memories of her defeat festering along with the millions of “Hillary!” bumper stickers (NB: To prospective political aspirants: The one-name schtick is only workable for pop stars.), I think the last thing I’d want is to relive the ignominy in a fresh contest against the most popular figure in the U.S. – and who’s just narrowly dodged death, as well. An expressed desire to do so would not speak well of the balance of Mrs. Clinton’s mind. Besides, What would Kamala Harris say?
2 comments
Almost certainly this was prompted by the candidate herself. As can be inferred from your title of today, there’s nobody sane wants her in control.
One week ago a news story appeared that prompted several good minds on FB to agree with the following opinion regarding that piece.
My best guess is that the puppet masters retain faith in their two past victories:
For Hillary to attain the nomination, let alone the Presidency, is a HUGE stretch.
Those that were “With HER!” are old – really old, and have largely retired from influential positions. Those that remain are largely coasting on their previous reputations (Pelosi, Warren, even the much younger AOC). Their names bring up “Who’s that!” from the Gen Z crowd, or – even worse – “Isn’t she DEAD?”
In short, they are past their Sell-By Date.
As for Michelle, she strikes me as too lazy to bother with the actual job (which may not disqualify her from running – her husband may see this as a last chance to go done in Official History as The Savior of the United States). But, I don’t see her managing to put the time in on the campaign trail, or having that much clout with the state-level and local politicians.
This may be a last-minute plan – a Hail Mary, so to speak. We should remember what happens to MOST of those plays. I checked – https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2012/09/hail-mary-probabilities.html
Further out than 20+ yards, there’s a more than 90% chance of failure. We tend to remember those plays that unexpectedly change the outcome. But, the odds don’t favor them.
This is the campaign equivalent of a Hail Mary, no matter WHO the eventual nominee is.
And, don’t forget, this is not something that can wait until November to score. Here are the stats in the 2020 election – https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/early-vote-totals-point-toward-record-breaking-turnout-for-midterm-elections
“The United States Elections Project reveals that around 43% of votes cast so far were made in person, while around 57% have come in the mail. In 2020, ultimately, 43% of final votes were by mail, and 26% were cast in person before Election Day. Several states expanded access to these methods in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to any “new normal,” the majority of voters in the 2018 midterms did so in person, on Election Day.”
Once people get used to the ease of voting early or by mail, they will likely be unable to go back. Now, for the Dems, the late uncertainty about the nominee, and the softness of ANY potential Dem nominee’s support, make it less likely for them to nail down those voters.
Is there ANY Dem candidate/would-be candidate that gets the kind of enthusiasm that Obama did? Or, even, that of Hillary?
No.
Gavin Newsome projects the aura of a smarmy, slick con-man.
Warren reminds people of their know-it-all grandmother. And this is NOT the election to boost an already elderly, hectoring scold.
Hillary? Same negatives as above, plus I don’t believe she has the stamina for the long haul – even for the relatively short distance till November.
Michelle? Except for those who see her at the Next Coming of the Black Jesus – but FEMALE! – she offers too much baggage. She would be running as Obama II. Not New and Improved, but Tired and, frankly, dragging around too much weight. She always had a tendency to put on weight, but had been able to keep it under control during the White House years (although her stylists’ choices for clothing emphasized all her worst features, and those boob belts made her hips and a$$ appear to be gigantic).
Once her husband left the Presidency, all indications were that she had stopped that discipline, and moved to relaxed waistlines. Have you noticed that there are hardly any pictures of her that are full-length?
There’s a reason for that.
Why do I pick on her weight?
Because that is a very good indicator of whether a person is thinking about running for office – think of all the MALE candidates who start dressing better, take charge of their comb-over, and slim down in preparation for the race.
Not only does looking good give a person an ego boost, it also serves as an indicator of their stamina. Michelle is very good at carefully crafted appearances, where the fact that the message is repetitive doesn’t detract from the audience’s excitement about seeing her.
I just don’t think she would be capable of enthusing about factories, cattle, or long days of standing on her feet. She doesn’t have the ability to fake excitement when tired.