United States

Nov 21, 2012

Why it has to be Hillary (but it shouldn’t be)

The prospect of Hillary Clinton running for US president in 2016 is delicious to many Democrats. Which isn't to say it's the best idea for a post-Barack Obama era.

Guy Rundle — Correspondent-at-large

Guy Rundle


Hilary Clinton

No more than a fortnight since Barack Obama was re-elected, another two months until his second inauguration, and then four years during which the world will change immeasurably — and so the talk in America turns inevitably to one thing: who will be in the running for party nominations in 2016?

Yes, believe it or not, discussion has already begun as to the next presidential campaign. Shortlists are being compiled, and the long-suffering burghers and yeofolk of Iowa are already being polled on their preferences. Part of this is pure ritual of course, and a degree of mania. The campaign is so utterly consuming for so many months that even when it’s over, people simply can’t stop. The winners know they will have to turn to the business of government eventually, and the losers have, well, nothing to do — the campaigns dissolve and there is no official opposition at the presidential level. And Republicans simply went nuts, the loss prompting them to a new “find a Hispanic” strategy — Marco Rubio! Ted Cruz! Chico Marx! — like a cleaned-out gambler planning a new strategy for when he gets his pants back. Imagine if a brown guy was selling a policy that treated brown guys as little more than criminals! That’ll fix it!

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

48 thoughts on “Why it has to be Hillary (but it shouldn’t be)

  1. Daniel Young

    “rationale limits”? Did you mean rational?

  2. Diana Simmonds

    Um…Jennifer Granholm was born Canadian (Vancouver)…I think that rules her out.

  3. Gavin Moodie

    I still think it would be profligate for the Democrats to overlook such a well recognised talent as Hilary.

  4. Guy Rundle

    dang ok, scratch granholm. pity, there’s also this, from a brief time when she was a struggling actress in LA


  5. David R

    On the Republican side Jeb Bush must be one of the front runners. It seems the names Bush and Clinton may have a stranglehold on US politics for some years to come.

  6. TheFamousEccles

    Clinton Family Inc, Bush and Sons Mutual, the list – if I could be bothered to scratch the surface – would go on and on.

    It’s the family business, like Steptoe and Son.

  7. Gavin Moodie

    @ David R

    I agree on Jeb Bush, who as Governor of Texas had a reasonable position on relations with Mexico, and therefore I presume on undocumented residents.

  8. michael r james

    America loves royalty and are always on the lookout for a new Camelot, so, obviously:

    Chelsea ’24

    First gen Y prez (44y)?

  9. michael r james

    @Gavin M.

    Jeb was gov of Florida and the relevant Hispanics/Latinos are Cuban and Puerto Rican (versus Mexican and Central American in Texas, Arizona, NM, Nevada etc). But his wife is one of them, he is a fluent Spanish speaker and he (and Rubio) has already pronounced Mitt Romney’s and the GOP’s policy on minorities as braindead. Since, as Guy says, the GOP is unlikely to reform itself fundamentally on this question, it is likely to remain wary of going all the way to Marco Rubio (other than the sop of Veep) so, yes, Jeb is a distinct possibility. By then the taint of his surname will have receded.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details