Are liberals having buyer’s remorse even before opening their wallets and forking over the cash? A sampling of unease among liberals, starting with Salon (!!!):
Hillary Clinton Just Doesn’t Get It: She’s Already Running a Losing Campaign
. . . Clinton seems as disconnected from the public mood now as she did in 2008. I think it’s a crisis. If she doesn’t right the ship it will be a disaster. In politics it’s always later than you think. Advisors who told her voters would forget the email scandals probably say this too will pass. If so, she should fire them. . .
The Democrats’ third problem is policy. They don’t really have clear policies to deal with our biggest problems. It’s why Hillary won’t have the answers those Iowa families seek and why so few Democrats do. It’s why we need a real debate. It is Clinton’s misfortune to find herself master of a dying system.
If she raises all that money it will ruin her. Fundraising nearly ruined her husband in 1996. He didn’t need all the money he raised then and God knows she doesn’t need all the money she wants to raise now. Even if raising the money doesn’t land her in hot water, if she spends it the way most Democrats do, that will ruin her.
The New Republic:
Why Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Frightens Democrats
. . . But it’s also the source of genuine anxiety among liberals, who worry she’ll enter the general election rusty and untested unless someone formidable dares to challenge her in the primary. . .
Her campaign has become a single point of failure for Democratic politics. If she wins in 2016, she won’t ride into office with big congressional supermajorities poised to pass progressive legislation. But if she loses, it will be absolutely devastating for liberalism.
This Harper’s article is a few months old, but the argument still works:
Stop Hillary! Vote No To a Clinton Dynasty
What is the case for Hillary (whose quasi-official website identifies her, in bold blue letters, by her first name only, as do millions upon millions of voters)? It boils down to this: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor. . . Eight years of Hill? Four, even? To borrow her anti-McCain jab from the 2008 Democratic convention: No way, no how!
The National Interest:
[T]here’s a certain bloodless quality in Mrs. Clinton’s political persona these days. There doesn’t seem to be much natural political passion, little in the way of a visceral impetus to her candidacy. She seems to be saying, “Vote for me because I will tinker with the problems facing our nation far better than anyone else possibly could.” The Times reports that she sought guidance from 200 policy experts in crafting her economic agenda “and still has not settled on the details.” With America stuck in a slow-growth zone for nearly 15 years and struggling to improve the economic lot of its citizens, voters are starved for a William Jennings Bryan, who didn’t have to consult 200 experts to determine what he wanted to say to the American people. Mrs. Clinton offers instead a dusted-off version of Michael Dukakis—devoid of vision, fixated on her gifts of “competence.”
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.