Of inevitability and Hillary Clinton

Above all, however, Hillary Clinton will struggle against the inevitability of her own campaign, the messianic pull of an office that has long eluded her and could once again be out of reach.

“Inevitability as a message is a bad message, especially when it becomes clear you’re not as inevitable as you thought you were,” says Democratic strategist Anita Dunn and former senior campaign advisor to President Obama. Clinton, however, “has learned that nothing in politics is inevitable.”

Compared with other nominees in the Democratic field, Clinton certainly looks inevitable. O’Malley is polling at 1% and Bernie Sanders is at 4% compared with Clinton’s 66%. She also holds a remarkable lead over her likely GOP opponents, beating out former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 54% to 40% in a match-up, and with even larger margins over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Though her favorability dropped over the last month after the controversy over her private email account, she still commands a solid approval rating among voters. No candidate in recent memory has faced such a wide-open field on the opposing side.

Resistance is futile.

But in the immortal words of Yogi Berra: It ain't over 'til it's over.

Though there are some who have been ready for Hillary since 1992, Democrats usually aren't the party that nominates the person whose turn it is.  Look what happened the last time they did: 2000, and Al Gore.  The old saw that 'Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line' appears to be reversed for 2016.  Ominous?  Maybe.  There's about an equal number of Americans that want, and don't want, to see her in the White House.

My own feeling is that 2016 represents -- assuming Hillary and Jeb Bush are the major party standard-bearers -- a breakout possibility for the minor party nominees: Jill Stein of the Green Party, Gary Johnson of the Libertarians, perhaps others.  Progressive Democrats (an oxymoron, but also a digression) already seem scared shitless about that.  The most likely scenario that turns an apathetic electorate more so is the torrent of money flowing into the candidates' coffers.  Even the completely unelectable Ted Cruz, whose bid this year is really just to set him up for 2020, is awash in cash already from the richest of the very, very rich.

There are a few things Hillary needs to explain better, as we know.  Benghazi is not one of them, no matter how much of that incessant whining we are forced to endure from the right.

And if you don't want to go there, maybe you should go here.  Or here.  On a more encouraging tack, by far the most cogent thought about a transformative Clinton candidacy comes from here.

(My son) said that the amount of money that is being reported as about what Ms. Clinton’s campaign will cost presents a unique opportunity for both her and the Democratic Party. He is aware of the massive sums that the Republican party will be spending, both on the presidential and other races (congressional, state, and local). He noted that the Koch brothers and their ilk will be attempting to channel their millions into a coordinated, saturation campaign of lies. Hillary Clinton, he noted, has the opportunity to change the process; by using a method similar to judo, he said, she could use the current “corporations are people” mega-money madness to bring a higher level of awareness to the public.

Could you imagine, my son asked me, if rather than enriching advertising agencies et. al., she went to various communities -- cities and towns -- and used a large portion of her campaign funds to invest in them? If she said, “The American people have donated money to me, because they believe that I can institute change. It starts now: I am re-investing this much-needed money in your community. And that is exactly the approach that I will take as your President.”

He said some funds should go to charities, which would allow her to address specific social problems -- and solutions. It’s true that some problems can’t be “solved,” they must be dealt with on an ongoing manner. (He was quoting his father.) Other funds could go to specific community needs, again allowing her to highlight problems and solutions. He said that large segments of the country have accepted the problems that the bankrupt Bush-Cheney policies inflicted on our country. A great leader must change the way that people think -- about themselves, their value, and their relationship to community and country -- before those people can be expected to behave differently. And no single person, not even the President of the United States, can “solve” our nation’s problems: they require an ongoing effort upon all of our parts. 

I know, I won't hold my breath.  Still, that kind of candidate could be the progressive populist leader that millions of disaffected Democratic voters might take themselves to the polls to vote for.  We'll watch and see if some semblance of her shows up over the course of the next year-and-a-half.

Sunday Funnies

The Turner-Whitmire dynamic

It's the key to the runoff, and perhaps the mayor's office itself.  Not the most recent news development for observant watchers, but it's been busy blogging around here for the past couple of weeks.

The mayor, the senator, and the representative 

announcing the firefighters pension agreement last month.

"My name is John Whitmire, and I'm Sylvester Turner's state senator," he said, a go-to laugh-line that landed in a sea of donors. "Everyone in my district is important, but Sylvester Turner kind of stands out."

Kind words like those -- exchanged again and again over the past 12 months in both directions -- have gone a shade past the standard "good friend" lavished by nearly every politician on their predecessors at a dais. The alliance between Turner, a powerful Democratic state representative, and Whitmire, the most senior Democrat in the Senate, say people familiar with their ties, is genuine yet politically potent and already is sculpting the local Democratic landscape.

"The moon, the sun and all the planets have come together in the Sylvester-John orbit," said Carl Whitmarsh, a longtime Democratic activist close to both men.

This is the primary reason -- beyond all the other good reasons -- why Sylvester Turner is and has long been the front-runner in the race for mayor of Houston.  It's why Noah has already picked him as his favorite, why Kuff has taken note, and why the stars seem to be aligning, as Carl Whitmarsh pointed out above.  They're both not only senior legislators in powerful chairs in the Lege (in a dominated minority party), they're also personal friends.

Earlier (in March), Turner and Whitmire claimed credit for brokering a deal between an equally dug-in City Hall and fire pension board to modify the city's pension payments. And Whitmire is expected to co-chair Turner's mayoral campaign, formalizing what has been an aggressive courting of the local political establishment by the senior senator on Turner's behalf.

To see how their long and strong partnership is shaping the race, just look at a couple of the other contenders' reactions.

"They've been allies for a long time. It doesn't surprise me that they support each other," said Turner opponent Oliver Pennington, a city councilman who is critical of the pension deal struck by the Democratic pair.

Pennington is one of two Republicans most likely to be in a mayoral runoff with Turner.  (The other is Steve Costello.)  The Democrat most likely to join Turner in the second round is Chris Bell, and Turner and Whitmire know it.

When Jim Jard, a politically connected developer, planned to align with Chris Bell, one of Turner's opponents, Whitmire "called in a chit," according to a person with direct knowledge of the interaction.

Jard is now supporting Turner.

"  'Hey Jim, Sylvester has a self-interest in fixing a lot of these problems that everyone's worried about,' " Jard recalled Whitmire saying. " 'If he's going to be mayor, who has more of an interest in getting it fixed?' "

Seems a little redundant, Whitmire's rationale.  Jard's probably not telling us everything he knows.

It's still too early to rank Pennington, Costello, and/or Bell after the odds-on favorite, and if Adrian Garcia ever busts a move, things get scrambled... but only for second place.  I remain of the opinion that Garcia is wise to stay out because he has by far the most to lose.

I just don't think Sylvester Turner is going to let himself get Laniered a second time.

Update:  This kiddie pool-depth "Where's Waldo" article -- meant to update us on Garcia's status but not telling us anything new -- from Groogan at Fox26 (who usually does a better job) contains yet another odious fundraising importance meme from a political consultant, and the most ridiculous Mark Jones quote to date.

As for the threat of losing support among influential Hispanics, Jones says rivalry driven defection among Latino leaders has become the norm.

"I think there are quite a large number of Hispanic political elites in Houston who believe if they can't be mayor or someone in their faction can't be mayor I think they would prefer that a non-Latino be mayor," said Jones.

Remind me what you think their options are again, Dr. Jones?  Latino, non-Latino and what else?

K-Pax draws grand jury scrutiny

Our lazy-eyed unlicensed financial adviser/attorney general might be in trouble... but is probably not.  RG Ratcliffe (who is really doing a great job in taking over Paul Burka's blog):

The Houston Chronicle’s Lauren McGaughy got the break on reporting that the Collin County grand jury had asked the Travis County district attorney for its files in the Paxton securities case. District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had previously decided the proper venue for the case was Collin County and referred it to Collin District Attorney Greg Willis. Paxton is from Collin County and any possible crimes occurred there. Willis, who is a Paxton friend and former business partner, has refused to act.

[...]

Paxton admitted to the Texas State Securities Board that on multiple occasions he sold securities without registering as a securities dealer. The board issued a reprimand and fined him $1,000.

To review, this is stuff we all knew a year ago, when Paxton was in the process of being nominated by the TXGOP to replace Greg Abbott in the OAG, and the bad news kept breaking all through the election season, and into this year.  Here's more on this week's worm-turn from Chris Hooks at the TO.  (Be sure and read from the start to understand his premise that Paxton is in deep doo-doo.  Let's scroll to the bottom, excerpt, and disagree.)

Once the grand jury hears the evidence in Paxton’s case, an indictment seems more likely than not.

“This case is absurd because Paxton has already admitted to a crime with Texas regulators,” says )Texans for Public Justice head Craig) McDonald (who has called for a special prosecutor). His admission of guilt, passed off by his consultants during the election as the end of the matter, “in no way adjudicates his potential felony criminal behavior.” As a reminder of the surreal nature of the fact that he may not be prosecuted for a crime which he has apparently admitted to committing, McDonald says, he keeps Paxton’s “signed confession” on his desk.

"Once the grand jury hears the evidence in Paxton’s case, an indictment seems more likely than not."

I doubt it.  It's just as easy to no-bill a ham sandwich when your pal is the DA.

*coughDavidMedinaArsonChuckRosenthalcough*

And I would surmise that more than a few of Willis' and Paxton's supporters sit on that GJ.  I smell a whitewash, but then I'm a skeptical sort when it comes to Republicans and ethics.

Update: DallasMorningViews reveals the big stall.