Hillary Clinton: still ‘likable enough.’

Let me just summarize this video: Democrats are… OK with having Hillary Clinton as their candidate, but she’s not the candidate that they want.  Let me summarize it further: Hillary Clinton will lose the 2016 Presidential election, but the Democrats haven’t worked it out yet. Via the Washington Free Beacon:

I know that people will raise eyebrows at that statement, but let’s face it: the Democrats are trying to reproduce the 2008 Barack Obama phenomenon without a Barack Obama.  If they can’t find another candidate who reproduces the mass hysteria that we saw then, they don’t have a choice of winning.  Nobody has ever claimed that Hillary Clinton is the sort of figure that can produce mass hysteria: the reason that the ad below worked in the 2008 election cycle because it was true.

I know, I know: I keep getting told that Hillary Clinton is a formidable candidate. Some of that is prudence. Some of that is an appreciation of the value of money in a campaign. And some of that is the ingrown, overgrown, and generally ritualized pessimism that flowers over here on the Right. But very little of it is because people look at Hillary Clinton and go WOW. The WOW is not strong in this woman.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

12 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton: still ‘likable enough.’”

  1. Heh. 2008 also had eight years of strident Bush-bashing baked in .. .
    As much as I respect W as a person, I dislike his political tactics. Standing there and soaking up your enemies’ rage with no effective reply is .. not, IMO, an effective strategy *all the time*.
    .
    I .. would hazard a guess that many Dems know Hillary will lose *unless the GOP nominate another nice rotarian like Mitt or another dried-out has-been like McCain* ….
    .
    Mew

    1. I think W got the political tactics right. He stood above the fray, and Rumsfeld was his attack dog. And a fine one he was. Alas, asking them to fight a three front war was perhaps too much to ask.

      1. I understand ghosting above the fray .. it’s something pilots do, after all .. but it depends on ground troops who can win and .. Rumsfeld couldn’t, in no small part because his base assumptions were wrong.
        .
        I don’t hold Rumsfeld’s failure against W .. but I do believe W should have fired him sooner.
        .
        Mew

        1. The “base” LOVED Rumfeld. Just loved him, loved how he played the press. And who would have replaced him, and “won”? It’s hard to beat a secret conspiracy controlling the press, completely amoral, and on record saying the truth is irrelevant, and shameless enough to destroy innocent men, as Reid tried to do to Romney, with his completely baseless accusations….

          1. The “base” may have loved Rumsfeld .. so what?
            .
            Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on Iraq.
            .
            Badly.
            .
            Rumsfeld was Brownie, with a tad more competence.. but neither knew how to shiv a reporter.
            .
            Mew

  2. Well, for a certain definition of “WOW.” I look at her and all I can think of (nicely) is “WOW.”
    .
    Greg

  3. It seems you are calling the election for the Republicans now? Exactly what odds are you giving, and what are you willing to wager?

      1. Just yankin’ your chain a bit 😀 It seems to me that you have cautioned against overconfidence about elections, yourself.
        I will not be voting for the democrats any time in the foreseeable future, but the GOP is going to have to field a candidate that I can vote for… There are, I believe, more than enough people of similar persuasion to cost the GOP the presidency with the wrong nominee. *SHRUG* ‘ Course, the GOP establishment ain’t gonna believe that, so I fully expect them to waste the opportunity. I’d love to be proven wrong.

        1. If the GOP elites choose to “nominate” another moderate/liberal candidate, then they will lose. I lean to Scott Walker/Bobby Jindal out of all the candidates. I could support Rubio & Cruz, with Carly Fiorina in 5th.

  4. I got more bullish on Hillary when I realized how much she stands to lose with her Clinton foundation criminal conspiracy should she lose big politically. Then I got slightly bearish again when I realized that she had grounds to think establishment Republicans wouldn’t dare.

Comments are closed.