As Hillary continues moving toward a likely campaign announcement in July, there has been little opposition offered among her democratic peers. Sure, there are factions rallying behind Elizabeth Warren, but that has proved fruitless since Warren has unequivocally stated she’s not running in 2016. Jim Webb, former Democratic Senator from Virginia, has announced an exploratory committee and intention to run yet he hasn’t so much garnered a yawn in most democratic primary polls.

Report from NBC News:

And here’s what we learned about Hillary Clinton this week: She looks more like an incumbent president running for re-election than your traditional presidential candidate. Think about it: She’s brought on key parts of President Obama’s 2012 team, and is now grabbing Obama’s White House communications director. And right now, it looks like she will face little to no real primary challenge.

In his National Journal column, Charlie Cook writes that what Hillary Clinton is doing is pretty unprecedented. “History suggests that in open presidential nomination contests, front-runners rarely go from the starting line to the finish without losing a few primaries or caucuses along the way. Usually the leader stumbles, or a protest vote develops somewhere in the process, or another candidate catches a bit of luck or sparks a bit of interest.” And even in the case of Al Gore, who didn’t stumble in the 2000 primaries, he received a legitimate challenge from Bill Bradley. But here’s the deal about Hillary: It doesn’t look like she will receive a legitimate primary challenge, making her look more like an incumbent president running for president.

I’m betting this is a topic the Clinton campaign is considering behind closed doors. Do they try to push forward, eliminating all opposition and avoid a primary fight, or do they let the process to unfold, allow for token opposition, and assume Hillary will prevail at the end?

The prospect looms larger given the Democratic National Committee is uncertain about scheduling primary debates. Typically venues and dates are set months in advance yet the DNC is still waiting to see what the field will look like.

This election cycle is shaping up to be a truly fascinating one to watch.


  1. Very interesting article. It would explain why no one else is getting traction.

    But I think it’s overstated. I don’t think she’s seen as “incumbent president,” but I think she’s seen as (1) representative of the incumbent presidency–as if she were vice president–AND (2) as “loyal opposition,” since she is seen as having disagreed with Obama both on the campaign trail, and as Secretary of State within the administration.

    In addition, Hillary has a high sympathy quotient (except with Surfisher). First, (3) she has sympathy as having gone through the “Blue Dress” soap opera. In that role, she earns sympathy from some conservative married women (a weak Dem consituency), who think wives should “stand by your man.” PLUS, (4) many feel she was robbed in 2008, a woman who worked so hard, and then lost (once again) to a man. And, of course, for those who feel that Obama has not done anything for the Dem base, they think Hillary would have done better over the past six years for the middle class.

    And, of course, she has (5) “second last time” cred, which used to be automatic in the GOP, but has now gained ground among Dems.

    Biden could shake things up if he jumps in. That would undercut her claim to be Obama’s natural heir.

    • Wrong again:

      1) Biden is semi-retarded…so poses no challenge.

      2) Hillary is perhaps the most hated woman in America (after Michelle Obama?). Her legacy is one of a do-nothing Senator and as Sec of State one that gave us four Americans dead in Benghazi with her infamous later quote: “Who cares…”

      Goethe — your are staging what the MSM will tout, but forgetting that more and more Americans are awaking now, and spotting these Mainstream Media lies.

      All are correct that Hillary will face no challenge WHATSOEVER, thus forever exposing that the Dems are nothing else, but true Commies trying to hide their pernicious aganda by declaring themselves :”American” Democrats. The proof is in the puddin’ — Hiltlery Clinton will be their Chosen uncontested Leader.

      • Dude, you are so hateful. Perhaps the people you hang out with hate Hillary, but most people don’t. Her favorability ranges from 43 to 59% in the polls, with an unfavorability ranging from 38 to 48%. That’s not great, of course, but it shows she’s more liked than disliked.

        Also, Biden is not stupid. If he ran, he would be seen funny ol’ Uncle Joe,” with most people seeing his gaffes as acceptable to charming, with a real possibility of appealing to many older white males, who left the party in the 80s.

        Your problem, Surfy, is you refuse to consider what is or might be, in favor of only what you want to be. You lie to yourself, and you know it.

        • Goethe — nonsense.

          Unlike you, who dwells in La-la Land,
          I talk to Real Americans, and all say they cannot stand the ugliness that is Hillary, nor the travesty that is Michelle Obama (with her $$$$$ gowns to go to functions).


          • Surf: And, again, you and your twelve “real American” friends do not represent the nation, as is shown in the polls, cited above.

            • LOL, and once again when I mention Real Americans…you get your panties in a bunch.

              Polls are MSM propaganda designed to fool the people. And you, use such nonsense as “proof”…? How gullible.

              If you poll Hollywood, Hillary will get near 100% positive rating. If you poll America’s Heartland, where Real Americans dwell, also known as the Silent Majority (for they have no voice in the media), you’ll get a near 100% disapproval rating for the Killer-Bitch-of-Benghazi.

              So yeah, combining the Few Hollywooders (who are the loudest and thus perceived as a majority voice courtesy of our Zionist owned media) with the Silent Majority (Real Americans who outnumber the Hollywood Trash by the millions…but whose voices are never heard) — you get your near 50% “approval” rating.

              Again, kid, if you ever exit the La-la Land you live in, and cross-cross real America, you won’t post such idiocies.

            • Pffft. No, I dislike the term “Real American,” because who are you to decide who’s real and who is not? As I noted elsewhere, if you had been around in the 18th century, you’d be saying that Washington is a tyrant, and none of the Founding Fathers are “REAL Americans.”

              If there were more than twelve people who think as you do, the country would be in real danger–because you lie to yourself and don’t even know the truth–since you celebrate “distancing yourself from the truth,” as you say.

            • You lack reading comprehension skills, kid.
              Real Americans are the patriots that built our nation, and whose progeny wants to save our Republic — while your likes, and the parasites you espouse, are trying to destroy it.

            • BS. If you were around at the beginning, you’d say Washington betrayed the revolution and should be shot. You’re not a patriot, you’re just a malcontent.

            • Pffft.

              Since you cannot comprehend: “Real Americans are the people that built our nation, and whose progeny are the Patriots that want to save our Republic — while you, your
              likes, and the parasites you espouse, are trying to destroy it.”

              That makes you a fence-sitter and nothing else, since you stand for nothing of merit — but, just blather here on whatever strikes your silly fancy.

  2. The people who built America were immigrants. From the beginning America has been the world’s chief receiving nation for immigrants and refugees. The first wave came in the 1600’s. Some sought adventure, others fled religious persecution, many were convicts transported from English jails, many came as indentured servants, they all sought better economic opportunities. They came from France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Wales, Denmark, Finland, and what is now Ukraine. In 1700 they numbered 250,000. An additional 450,000 immigrants arrived between 1700 and the start of the Revolutionary War. And these immigrants had children who became our g,g,g,g,g, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, etc.

    The Revolutionary War split the people of the American colonies into two groups. The group that wanted to remain under British rule called themselves Loyalists and the group that wanted be free of British rule called themselves Patriots. At that time, the word patriot was simply used to describe someone that took pride in being a citizen of America.

Comments are closed.