Press "Enter" to skip to content

Clinton: The Bland We’ve Been Waiting For?

The Republicans have We Democrats have one declared presidential candidate. The Daily Beast‘s Liz Mair finds Hillary Clinton’s new campaign “so dull, so bland, so scripted, so planned, so typically political,” and a perfect fit for a flaccid electorate:

Just as people like the semblance of getting a “real” glimpse into the Real Housewives of Wherever’s lives, we like the semblance of a genuinely approachable, relatable, human, real-keeping presidential candidate. But when the candidate says something a little too raw or real or sarcastic or even eccentric (as real people might) about abortion, or entitlements, or cronyism, or civil liberties, or foreign policy, we freak out.

When we have a choice between the more open, straight-talking candidate or the one that does everything through self-managed media so that they can control the message to the maximum conceivable degree, we go for the latter.

When we have a choice between uncomfortable substance and truth on the one hand, and reality or feel-good talking points and make-believe on the other, we reject the former [Liz Mair, “You Deserve Hillary’s Bloodless, Condescending Campaign,” The Daily Beast, 2015.04.15]

Mair catches me in my own handicapping of the Presidential race: I’ve thrilled to the declarations of Cruz, Paul, and Rubio, contending that the wacky things they say will get them steamrolled by sane, centrist Team Clinton.

But me? I’m still waiting for Dennis Kucinich to jump in.


  1. mike from iowa 2015-04-17 07:13

    Blank Hill and her unrelenting support for and approval of Israel. I’m writing in either Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warreh or my hairdresser/barber Taunia Faust.

  2. Roger Elgersma 2015-04-17 09:01

    Reagan played both sides of this like a true actor. He started with ‘we have big problems and there is no free lunch’. Then he switched to ‘this is the greatest country in the world and we will have great prosperity’. People thought he was realistic from the first phase and then with no proof that prosperity would come they were ecstatic that it could get so good with nothing other than attitude. So when he said that cutting taxes could balance the budget, which should have shown that he was not realistic, people loved it.
    In the last year I have heard both Bill and Hillary state that she should run if she is the right person for the situation at the time. That was a correct statement. I hope she does not stray from that and just want to be a champion. She has to show what type of champion she is and for who. She does have experience and knows the system. Most of those she would be a champion for already know because of her past.
    We need someone who has the honesty about the problems, like Sanders and Warren, and sticks with the goal in an honest way which always seems hard to find in politics. To do this without driving all the big money to the other side may not be easy. With the gridlock that bipartisanship has caused the last ten years we need someone who can stay very honest.
    The Republicans learned to well that attitude with no logic worked so well for Reagan that they keep trying that method. Last time they had a whole series of candidates shoot themselves in the foot. That is typical of people who have a difference between their attitude and their reality.

  3. Bill Fleming 2015-04-17 09:35

    Newland for President
    ‘Because what the Hill.’


  4. Rorschach 2015-04-17 11:33

    On the one hand I’d like to see a female President. On the other hand, I think Wall Street has plenty of politicians on the payroll already.

  5. larry kurtz 2015-04-17 11:46

    Someone care to name an electable Democratic presidential contender with no negatives?

  6. Roger Cornelius 2015-04-17 11:54

    The bad news is that Rand Paul is running for President.
    The worse news is that his father Ron Paul has endorsed Ted Cruz.

  7. Roger Cornelius 2015-04-17 11:54

    How about a Clinton/Warren team?

  8. Craig 2015-04-17 12:43

    With a campaign less than a week old, I’d say it is a bit premature to start tossing labels such as “dull”, “bland”, or “condescending” at it. However we know this much – the GOP is afraid of Hillary Clinton which is precisely why they launched preemptive attacks towards her at least two years before she entered the race.

    That said, I’d love to see Elizabeth Warren enter the race, but I’m not sure she is ready. I’m not saying she isn’t capable, I’m merely saying I don’t think she feels she is ready. She has a lot to accomplish, and she has plenty of time to make it happen. I wouldn’t fault her at all for wanting to sit this one out while establishing her reputation as a true Democrat for the people.

    As to the Republicans, I’m still waiting for someone to enter the race who hasn’t said enough things to make them unelectable by anyone other than those sitting on the extreme edges of their party. Rubio is probably the best chance they have thus far, and his entering the race could complicate the Florida support that Jeb Bush was banking on – which could knock both of them towards the bottom.

  9. Porter Lansing 2015-04-17 13:36

    My official April 2015 barbershop poll finds: more angry old white men are going to stay home and not vote for Jeb than are going to stay home and not vote for Hillary.

  10. Don Coyote 2015-04-17 14:43

    @Craig “With a campaign less than a week old….” Really? She’s been running for two years in fits and starts as she has made gaffe after gaffe attempting to finesse this “new look” of hers. Even the mainstream USA Today commented, “Clinton’s declaration that she’s in the race ends two years of less-than-subtle preparation”. What’s so mind numbingly painful is watching Hill trying to rub elbows with the Great Unwashed yet only able to demonstrate that she is, in the words of the President, “likeable enough”.

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-04-18 09:37

    Any indication yet of which party’s avocados Newland plans to squeeze?

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-04-18 09:42

    Roger, would Clinton and Warren be able to work together as a team? Or is Team Clinton simply writing love letters and making hiring gestures to tamp down a possible challenge and raid the talent pool before Warren declares?

    And does the team matter? If you have a strong President, does the VP bend the agenda in any way? Does Biden change the Obama Administration? Did Gore change Clinton’s? Did Bush change Cheney’s? ;-)

  13. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-04-18 09:43

    Craig, despite the strong argument that primaries waste resources, I’ll say we always need a race. The Democratic Party should have a hard conversation, led by at least two strong candidates, as to what sort of nominee we want and what issues that nominee should focus on as she campaigns to lead the free world.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-04-18 09:44

    Porter, the anrgy white men don’t like Jeb? Why not?

  15. Bob Newland 2015-04-18 17:47

    One of the purposes of squeezing avocados is to determine whether one wants to proceed in the natural course of consummation of desire to taste the fruit of the avocado. That most succulent of avocados in the marketplace will gain the favor of my talents (LeBron James said something like that, didn’t he?).

  16. mike from iowa 2015-04-18 19:18

    Yo Deb,where you at,Girl? Why don’t you run for Potus and I’ll vote for you. Let’s keep the war of Northern aggression on the slackers in the South going.

  17. Les 2015-04-19 21:10

    Yoke Warren with the Indie and I’ll hop on for the ride.

  18. Craig 2015-04-20 09:00

    “If you have a strong President, does the VP bend the agenda in any way?”

    Cory, although the VP doesn’t really have a significant impact upon the agenda, they do have a significant impact upon the race. I dare say if it were not for Al Gore picking Joe Lieberman, we would now be referring to him as former President Al Gore. (Gore surely regrets his pick and probably wishes he would have selected VP Daschle).

    I also don’t think it is a huge stretch to say that McCain may have pulled out a victory had he taken the time to properly vet Sarah Palin. That woman was a nightmare for the GOP and instead of attracting woman voters as was the goal, she instead turned them away in droves. Then again she also drove away anyone with above average intelligence, those with a passing interest in the English language, animal lovers, and sexist, white, males… which unfortunately for them are the core demographic of the GOP.

    I know he can’t admit it publicly since Palin is still the prom queen of the GOP (when you only have six women with name recognition in the entire party you need to use caution), but I’d put money on the fact that if McCain had one political do-over in his entire career it would most certainly be Sarah Palin. How they felt she was a better choice than Rudy Giuliani I’ll never know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.