New York Times editorial board calls on Biden to leave race
Saturday, 29 Jun 2024 7:32 AM MYT
NEW YORK, June 29 — America’s most influential newspaper, The New York Times, called in an editorial yesterday for President Joe Biden to step aside and allow another Democrat to challenge Donald Trump for the White House in November.
Describing Biden as “the shadow of a great public servant,” the newspaper’s editorial board — which is separate from its newsroom — said Thursday’s debate between the president and Trump proved the 81-year-old “failed his own test.”
His determination to run again is a “reckless gamble,” it said, adding: “the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.” — AFP
Once again Thanks 'MF':
Via Telegraph provided by 'MF':
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 10:21 AM EDT, Tue June 28, 2022
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s monumental decision to overturn Roe v Wade, conservative writer John Ellis took to the internet to make a provocative case: It was time for Hillary Clinton to make a(nother) political comeback.
“Now is her moment,” he wrote. “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.”
Ellis’ argument is centered on the ideas that 1) President Joe Biden, who will be 82 shortly after the 2024 election, is simply too old to run again (Ellis is far from the only person making that case) and 2) The Democratic bench is not terribly strong
He’s not the only person eyeing a Clinton re-emergence.
Writing in The Hill newspaper, Democratic pundit Juan Williams makes the case that Clinton should become a major figure on the campaign trail this year.
“Clinton is exactly the right person to put steel in the Democrats’ spine and bring attention to the reality that ‘ultra-MAGA’ Republicans, as President Biden calls them, are tearing apart the nation,” Williams writes, adding: “Keep talking and talk louder, Hillary!”
So, just how far-fetched is a Clinton candidacy?
Well, start here: That a conservative writer is leading the charge – at least at the moment – for another presidential bid by Clinton should be looked at with some healthy skepticism. No candidate unites the Republican party – even with Donald Trump as the GOP’s likely nominee – like Clinton does. So, this may be a bit of wishful thinking by Ellis. Keep that in mind.
Then go to this: Biden is giving every indication that, even at his advance age, he is planning to run again. The New York Times posted a piece Monday night headlined “Biden Irked by Democrats Who Won’t Take ‘Yes’ for an Answer on 2024” that included these lines:
“Facing intensifying skepticism about his capacity to run for re-election when he will be nearly 82, the president and his top aides have been stung by the questions about his plans, irritated at what they see as a lack of respect from their party and the press, and determined to tamp down suggestions that he’s effectively a lame duck a year and a half into his administration.”
And finish here: Clinton has been pretty close to Shermanesque in her denials about even considering another bid.
“No, out of the question,” Clinton said of another presidential candidacy in an interview with the Financial Times earlier this month. “First of all, I expect Biden to run. He certainly intends to run. It would be very disruptive to challenge that.”
In an interview with CBS Tuesday morning, Clinton said she couldn’t “imagine” running again. Host Gayle King rightly noted that Clinton’s answer wasn’t a definitive “no.”
So, if you are a betting person – and, of course, there are odds on Hillary running – the smart gamble is that Clinton doesn’t run again.
With all of that said, we know that circumstances change. And that changed circumstances can lead to changed minds.
While I find it utterly implausible that Clinton would run against Biden in a primary in 2024, I also think that an open nomination – if Biden takes a pass on running – would be something that would be hard for Clinton to not at least look at. That’s not to say she would run. It’s only to say that her name would get bandied about if the seat was open. That’s a lock.
Then there’s the Roe decision to consider. Clinton’s comments about not running again came before Roe was decided. As someone who has fought for women’s rights throughout her career as first lady, US senator and secretary of state, might the Supreme Court’s ruling have changed her calculus somewhat as she looks to her own future?
Again, the chances are very slim that Clinton runs again. But they aren’t zero.
kt comments:
Hilary Clinton has been probably the MOST qualified presidential candidate in recent times on the US Presidential scene by virtue of her political experiences*. Compared to Trump, to whom she lost in the 58th US Presidential Elections (2016) in probably one of the major election upsets in US history, she was 'presidentially' a diamond compared to the Republican poo-ish demagogue. Indeed,Hilary Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by 2.87 million (the largest popular vote margin of any losing presidential candidate in U.S. history, according to the AP) but unfortunately lost in the Electoral College where it mattered (Clinton 227 vs Trump 304) - for more on the US Electoral College read this.
Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton? The story goes far back
A sense of untrustworthiness has haunted the Democrat this election, but the roots of hostility against her are much deeper
There is – and perhaps there always will be – a dedicated group of people who don’t know Hillary Clinton personally, but nonetheless hate her.
Whether they are truly a “vast rightwing conspiracy” (as Clinton called them in 1998) or just many in number and conservative in outlook, there’s no arguing that they exist or that they continue to try to influence public opinion on the Democratic nominee.
But even if people consider themselves savvy enough to reject the strangest conspiracy theories (sample claims include that she is a mass-murderer, a closeted lesbian faking her 40-year marriage, a member of the Illuminati and/or an agent of the devil himself), there seems little doubt that an undercurrent of hostility spanning decades has had an impact upon how she is viewed.
Clinton’s unfavorability rating may not be as low as Donald Trump’s, but in an election year which has frequently degenerated into name-calling, she has attracted invective from both the left and the right. Polls have frequently cited the public view that she is not trusted, while Trump has rallied his supporters with the “Crooked Hillary” epithet.
Her links to Wall Street, her missing emails and her supposed responsibility for the security failures that contributed to the attack on the Benghazi consulate are the ostensible reasons for some deeply personal attacks in 2016. But the roots of hostility towards her go much deeper.
Craig Shirley, a Ronald Reagan biographer and historian who spent decades as a conservative political consultant, said that, when Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington DC as first lady, “she came from Little Rock with a reputation already established” as “such a militant feminist, difficult to deal with”.
He noted that she faced hostility in Arkansas politics and media when Bill Clinton was first elected governor, because she kept her maiden name.“Here she comes, the feminist from Wellesley and Yale,” Shirley explained of the supposedly prevailing attitude of the time, “down to Little Rock and brings her attitudes with her”.
So by the time she arrived on the national stage in 1991, during Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, the then-still-mostly-male press corps already had an idea of who they understood Hillary Clinton to be – a potential liability to her husband’s political career whose feminism and ambition were a bit unseemly.
And, as she noted in her first autobiography, she gave them plenty of material with which to support that narrative. First, there was her much-maligned “I’m not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette” comment in response to a reporter’s assertion that she and her husband had “some sort of understanding and arrangement” about his infidelity.
Then, her out-of-context “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies” comment, which came in response to attacks, which the Clintons denied, by now-California governor Jerry Brown that she had only been a successful lawyer because her husband had steered business to her firm, implying that she should have confined herself to being a ceremonial first lady.
~~~~~
ReplyDeletehttps://t.me/bioclandestine/3510
The MSM have been given the green light to abandon Biden, but the Biden campaign are acting like they didn’t get the memo. 🤔
It’s fascinating to watch them eat their own, but the Deep State don’t normally operate like this. They are almost always unified.
Something is up.
2016 revisited
ReplyDeleteOne of the last major 2016 presidential campaign stop, at an east coast establishment elite function. I am only familiar with the Don's half of the speech.
One of those most telling speech that were repeatedly repeated amongst the anonymous circles.
In the interest of fairness, the full clip of both candidates speech were in the video, and appended here for revost, if HRC gets to be on the ballot box for a 2016 rematch in 2024.
For info.
https://youtu.be/VRFvVVco5Og?si=px02m-x6QxKDsOKt
A much much better choice.
ReplyDeleteGretchen Esther Whitmer (born August 23, 1971) is an American lawyer and politician serving as the 49th governor of Michigan since 2019. A member of the Democratic Party, she served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2001 to 2006 and in the Michigan Senate from 2006 to 2015.
Hilary ran up against the culture of resentment and distaste, never far from the surface, that still exists against women who appear overly ambitious and competent, and don't "know their proper place".
ReplyDeleteEven many women carry that resentment.