It's presumptuous to speculate about the next presidential cycle before this one wraps up. That hasn't stopped the rumor mill from grinding. Two names that Democrats are already murmuring - Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren - may be setting the stage for 2016 to be the year of the woman.
There has always been speculation that Secretary Clinton would consider a 2016 return to presidential politics. She's indicated she'll step down from the State Department after the 2012 election, but nobody thinks a person of her stature will retire. She'll have countless opportunities -- and why shouldn't a run at the White House be one of them?
She's more popular than ever - including popularity among Republicans who loathed her in the '90s and among Democrats who passed over her four years ago. As America's envoy to the world, she has cemented her credentials as a world leader who acts with strength, diplomacy and intelligence. At the same time, she's become a new media star - pulling off "cool" and "hip" in a way that eluded her in her last campaign. Add in her husband's star turn at the Democratic Convention and you have a compelling candidate CV.
While Secretary Clinton has stayed off the campaign trail this time around and focused on her Cabinet position, it's common to search for meaning in all her public statements. At this morning's opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative, she came to the stage alongside her husband to the strains of the Jurassic Park theme music (it felt like the mid-'90s all over again) and delivered a relatively straight-forward speech about global development. When she discussed wealth around the world, though, it was easy to hear resonance for our domestic debates.
"I'm out of American politics," she managed to deliver without smiling, "but it's a fact that around the world the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere. Yet they don't invest in the growth of their own countries."
The statement is relevant for her role today… and maybe for a role in four years.
This possible course is a vexation to the plans of New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the Times reported this weekend, and other presumptive Democratic hopefuls - many of whom would clear out of her way, but know she can take her time deciding. Cuomo kept a lower profile at the Convention to tamp down speculation. Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley was less resigned, delivering a DNC address perhaps as part of his introduction to a national audience.
Then there was also President Clinton's opening act, Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. Her speech may not have electrified the nation the way Barack Obama's did when he was a Senate candidate in 2004. Yet fans are imagining the same path for her that the White House's current candidate took: keynote speaker, Senator and, within one-term, compelling national candidate. While this may not be the stated plan, this week's New Yorker indicates it may be the dream.
Warren may embody a more explicitly progressive vision than Clinton, whose association with the policies of '90s has to include the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the tenure of Robert Rubin and other conserva-dem facets of her husband's administration. But many liberals have learned to forgive and forget when it comes to President Clinton, and after her commanding role at State, liberals may extend Secretary Clinton the same absolution.
Hillary Clinton has now been a very good soldier for two presidents. If there are "turns" in politics, it's hers.
If Warren wins this year, the new Senator will need to prove what Clinton faced twelve years ago: That she's a workhorse, not a showhorse. If she can keep up her work ethic, prove herself a problem solver and continue to rile up a liberal base - and if Clinton passes - then Warren might find herself as the progressive champ in the national spotlight. That won't make her a sure thing if she finds herself facing Cuomo in the primary, but an energizing first-time Senator has faced down a well-funded, well-prepared member of a Democratic dynasty before. And we have President Obama to show for it.
Comments [7]
http://www.cafepress.com/clintonwarren2016
"While Secretary Clinton has stayed off the campaign trail this time around and focused on her Cabinet position"
Yeah, that's because she's the United States' head diplomat & it's basically considered protocol that campaigning is a no-no. It's not because of some extraordinary focus & work ethic that Hillary has that others don't.
Also, Warren hasn't won yet, & even if she does she'll have to prove herself popular & effective in the Senate. And somehow I don't think the country will be voting for someone who only has 4 years in the Senate on their resume for President again.
@listener -
"Warren is foundering..." More bizarroland tales from the winger-verse...
Try facts -
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/16/warren-leads-brown-six-points-springfield-poll/55SVmNz7hyWbHFiPOuQ31K/story.html
Or is this poll skewed, too, in GOP world?
A Warren candidacy works only if the electorate is prepared to go EVEN MORE Left than they have already. IMO, that depends on how much the middle earners are willing to recognize that their earning power has been robbed by thirty years of wages moving with the cost of living while the economy has basically twice that. Since the moon landing, average wages have gone up 7 times but the general economy has gone up by a factor of 15. If wages had grown at the same rate of the economy, average wage would be $112,000. It's $70K below that. Into whose pocket is the difference going?
The good news is that Clinton's rhetoric - "There are rich people everywhere. Yet they don't invest in the growth of their own countries." shows that her heart is in the right place, too. So we can't go too far wrong picking either one. How about eight years of Clinton/Warren followed by a Warren/Castro administration?? I can dream, can't I?
"As America's envoy to the world, she has cemented her credentials as a world leader who acts with strength, diplomacy and intelligence.
Based on what exactly?
Have we not noticed the carnage taking place at sovereign US property around the world lately and soured relations with allies like Israel that Sec. Clinton is in charge of at the moment? Clinton being a "media star" only means getting good press for getting good press.
Warren is floundering even in a deep blue state and has become more of a distraction to progressive politics than a champion of it.
It seems if some don't like political reality they simply make up a new one as if writing a script for The West Wing or The Newsroom and hope others will suspend their disbelief long long enough to be fooled by it.
Warren is everybodys darling on the progressiv side of the country. Hillary on the other side got her elefant part of her caracter under controll. So it's hard to see who is more attractiv.
Nonverbal Intelligence:
Bill Clinton on whether or not Hillary will run for
President in 2016?
http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2012/09/nonverbal-communication-analysis-2126.html
If Ryan had been the nominee they could have upset Obama this time. I see a Ryan run in 2016 because quite frankly he is the only good candidate the GOP has. However, after being in office for a full 8 years, the Democrats will have a tremendous tactical advantage, and the Secretary of State is no slouch, with some formidable resources at her command.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.