Okay, I've been assessing the odds of Hillary mounting a challenge to Obama for the 2012 nomination for awhile. I even have a whole category devoted to the posts, HillaryBuzz.
Now Bob Shrum explains the three main reasons he thinks Hillary will not challenge Obama, but will bide her time to 2016. His three reasons are:
First, she already lost to Obama once; why do it again? ...Well, wait and see. I think Shrum's reasons are well considered, but overall not decisive:
Second, there are the inescapable realities of cost and the political calendar. To raise the money and put an effective structure in place, Clinton would have to resign early next year and go into all-out campaign mode. ...
Third, even if she somehow won the nomination, it wouldn't be worth having. If Hillary Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, overthrew Barack Obama inside the Democratic Party, many African-Americans would "vote with their feet," refusing to walk to the polls. If the Republicans had the improbably good sense to put forward a mainstream conservative, they could even capture an unprecedented share of the minority vote.
First, that she already lost once to Obama, is pretty weak. She wouldn't be the first contender to lose a primary and come back to win a nomination. Reagan did it in 1980 after losing two primary attempts. True, the incumbent that year was of the other party, which does put a cerain wrinkle on a Hillary challenge. If there is any strength to Shrum's first objection, it's linked closely to his third objection, that challenging the first black president would alienate African-Americans so much that they would never vote for her if she won the nomination.
As for Shrum's second objection, that she'd have to get a campaign gojng very soon (even if at a low elvel), I don't think that's an obstacle at all. I explained that in my Right Network column, "The Once and Future Hillary," which also explains some reasons in Hillary's favor for making a run in 2012.
Posts
