(AP Photo/Kevin Lamarque, Pool)
Hillary Clinton launched her “official” campaign for President Sunday in the 2016 election with a polished online video about the needs of the middle class.
At the moment, she is the only Democrat who has announced.
Two Republicans — Ted Cruz and Rand Paul — have announced and a third — Marco Rubio — will join the fray Monday.
Cruz, Paul and Rubio are first term Senators. That is their only political claims to fame.
Clinton is a former First Lady, a former Senator and was Secretary of State for Barack Obama.
At the moment, that makes her the “most experienced” candidate who has announced for 2016.
Of course, all are seeking to follow a two-term President who was just a first term Senator when he decided to run for President in 2008.
Those who find Obama wanting because of perceived inexperience or his many stumbles and failures might wonder is a first term in the Senate — or any elected office for that matter — is enough experience to be the big boss who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Clinton was actually in her second term as a Senator before she ran for office and she lost in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary to a one-term senator — Barrack Obama.
Does experience matter for a President? The last President with an extensive resume was George H.W. Bush, who served in Congress, was ambassador to the United Nations, Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People’s Republic of China, Director of the CIA and Vice President for two terms under Ronald Reagan before he was elected in 1988 as the 41st President and only lasted one term.
Even Bush’s son, George W. Bush, whose resume was a questionable tour as governor of Texas and a failed professional baseball owner, managed two terms.
In 2008, John McCain was a Congressman and then a Senator after being a prisoner of war but his advisers felt he needed a “celebrity” on the Republican Presidential ticket to challenge Obama, so they picked — God forbid — Sarah Palin. Even worse, there are still people who think a ditz like Palin should be President.
Let’s look at the current crop of announced candidates:
TED CRUZ — Loud mouth, troglodyte, tea party favorite: The list of bad news goes on and on. Yet among the brain dead ultra-right wing — with a collective IQ of, maybe, 10 — he is considered “their candidate.”
RAND PAUL — Son of Ron Paul, which should be reason enough to dismiss him, but will add fuel to an unfavorable fire with his off-the-wall temper, his tantrums against mostly female reporters and his lack of knowledge on any real issues that matter to the nation.
HILLARY CLINTON — Arguably the most qualified of the current slate but already tainted by too many unanswered questions on the failed Benghazi raid and her incredible stupid use of private email accounts for official business as Secretary of State. Plus, the woman who claimed she was not perceptive enough to realize that her constantly horny husband — and President — Bill Clinton was screwing around? Oh, come on.
And, today’s add on, MARCO RUBIO: If Hillary can run as the first woman to be President, Rubio can claim to be the first Cuban-American. When you look at his record — or lack therof — that is all he has.
On the Republican side, there are many still in the wings in what will be a mob of candidates: Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Chis Christie, Rick Perry, Scott Walker and others.
For Democrats, there is Bernie Sanders, who could run as a “Democrat Socialist”, One-term Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, and more.
So far, there isn’t a candidate out there worthy of consideration or support.
8 thoughts on “So many candidates, so little to offer”
“would it be interesting”, perhaps. I’ve lost my ‘preview’ button. Anyhow, here’s a somewhat more pessimistic outlook:
“It doesn’t matter. Whoever gets elected will merely perpetuate the status quo, discarding 99.5% of us while the 0.5% remaining argue over which 0.1% fraction gets either 80% or 90% of the benefits society has to provide. Naturally, they fight over it, but there’s really only one loser – You and I.”
J.
Heh, Danny. Can you dig up a YouTube link to that? I’m sure it would amuse some.
Still, even with Benghazi exempted, I think Hillary Clinton is unelectable, but that she hasn’t figured that out yet. Too many people loathe the very idea of electing her on both sides. Including myself.
I’m hoping someone like Al Franken will throw his hat into the ring. At the moment it is a bit like 2008 – A free-for-all of rat poison on one side, and a ‘presumed elected’ on the other. Ideal for someone (not unlike Barack Obama) to shake things up a little.
Finally, would be interesting to anyone to look at how executive experience has made for good presidents? Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were both governors of their state (California) and one went insane while driving the USA towards a military-industrial dystopia while the other eventually resigned… Abraham Lincoln had enough trouble being elected to Congress at all. George H.W. Bush may have used his experience as Director of the CIA (incidentally, the only President to ever have been) in all kinds of interesting ways during his son’s administration.
Kettle o’ fish, this. Care to open it? Pick a President with or without experience, and slam or praise them as you see fit for their lack or quality of experience. Have fun!
J.
Now I’m having flashbacks to the 2008 campaign, when Republicans ran a commercial showing an empty chair in the Oval Office with the words “NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE” flashing across the screen. Apparently they’ve since decided this is no longer a problem.
The Rand Paul description is so dead-on!…Saw Savannah Guthrie from the NBC show — Today — interview him last week….He constantly interrupted her, talked over her, seemed overall a very defensive man. He did not make a favorable impression….Maybe he thinks touchy and grouchy are appealing to folks???
Doug, is there anybody else who you would vote for if they ran?
Now that is a good response. It’s very easy to call names, point fingers, denigrate everyone out there – anyone can do that. But the mark of a good journalist (among which I cannot count Doug) is to put forth a viable alternative or solution to the problem he or she exposes in the article. Instead, all we got was loud mouth, tantrum, stupid – exactly what Doug was ranting about. If you can’t rise above ’em, join ’em, eh Doug? To coin a phrase, there’s nothing in there worthy of consideration or support. You asked the right question, Eddie.
Nor is there one who has made the case for their candidacy for president. Hillary came close with her video, but who saw it? Not many, I would imagine. The rest are just against everything. The Party of “No” and “Stupid” has no case to make.
So, Doug, we know who you DON’T think is “qualified”.
How about sharing your thoughts on who (or what qualities in a candidate) might be?
Comments are closed.