Scattershooting Clinton and Rubio and Christie and Carson

-- Nailed it.

What could we expect from a Hillary presidency? My guess is that it would be Wall Street–friendly, militarized and secretive — though seasoned with mostly empty rhetoric about uplift, community and inclusion. It would do little to address polarization and rot. In fact it would be a perfect embodiment of polarization and rot. There will be strenuous efforts over the next year and a half to argue otherwise, but they will convince no one but loyalists.

-- No Plan B (as in back to the Senate) for Marco.

The newly minted GOP presidential candidate made clear in Fox News and NPR interviews that he’ll leave the Senate when his term ends in January 2017, and not reserve his options to run for re-election in Florida if his White House bid doesn’t work out.

“I don’t have a Plan B to pivot back to the Senate race. I intend to be the nominee,” Rubio said Monday night on Fox News, shortly after declaring his candidacy. “And that’s why I think it’s important for us to have a strong candidate in Florida who’s out there working now. If I went around talking about how I would pivot back to the Senate race if things didn’t work out, our best candidates may not run.”

He's in for the same reason Ted Cruz is: to be the vice-presidential nominee of his party in 2016, and/or another crack at the title in 2020.  I'll take even-money odds on a Rubio-Castro VP debate in October of next year.  Two actually; one in English and one in Spanish.

-- No, Chris Christie is not bold.  He's incredibly arrogant, exceptionally devious, highly obnoxious, and still morbidly obese two years after having his stomach banded.  He remains the nation's most at-risk-of-mortal-cardiac-event politician, bar none.

-- Dr. Ben Carson will (allegedly) announce his campaign for president in his hometown of Detroit next month.  No one really knows why he is running, especially now that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA inadvertently shot down Carson's only plausible rationale.

“Eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough.”

Cruz and Rubio also thank you for your endorsement, Wayne. 

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance revels in the start of both another presidential election season and baseball season as it brings you this week's roundup of lefty blog posts.

Off the Kuff looks at the case to pass a state law that would enable "rideshare" services like Uber and Lyft to operate in Texas cities.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, cautions Latino voters to beware of slowly starving Republican wolves that are dressed in sheep's clothing. GOP woos Latino voters while punishing immigrants.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson writes that as the GOP-dominated Texas House passes its budget, taxes take center stage, in The Texas Way - the more you make the less you pay, and the less you make the more you pay.

SocraticGadfly thinks that creating a national Appomattox Day could be part of dealing with all the political problems that unreconstructed Southerners have caused for America.

To quote Emperor Palpatine: "It is inevitable." To quote the Borg: "Resistance is futile." And to quote Yogi Berra: "It ain't over 'til it's over." PDiddie at Brains and Eggs dissects the 'inexorable' meme that surrounds Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

Texas Leftist also posted about Hillary's rollout, declaring "she has no healthy competition" for the Democratic nomination.

Dos Centavos asks if Latino voter turnout is dependent on Latino candidates.  It's an open-ended question.

Nonsequiteuse says it is time to wear orange and head to Austin (or the internet) to rally against HB 723 as the Texas House of Representatives Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee considers a little word with constitutional consequences for minors who need access to safe, legal abortion services.

The Lewisville Texan Journal confirmed that a conservative group sent questionnaires to local candidates, inquiring about vital issues such as the ACLU and sharia law.

Neil at All People Have Value said that the Houston/Galveston National Weather Service offers useful instruction about life. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

=================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Spaced City celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Houston Astrodme, along with tens of thousands of others.

Texas Watch blogs about sex, drugs, and plant biology; or why Texas is covered in all of this green, brown, and yellow gunk (and why we're all dosed up on over-the-counter allergy medication).

Juanita Jean coins a new word for our culture war-infused times.

Dwight Silverman answers your burning questions about cable cord-cutting.

Free Press Houston noted that Texas Right to Life bullied Saint Arnold's Brewing after they rented out party space to a pro-choice group.

In lauding the Purple Hearts given to survivors of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, Ted Cruz glossed over his 'no' vote on the bill authorizing them, writes Trail Blazers.

The Lunch Tray explores the ethics of sneaking vegetables into school food.

Better Texas Blog calls for raising the minimum wage.

Texas Clean Air Matters points out that promoting the use of clean energy is a great strategy for conserving water.

The Texas Election Law Blog decries "indignities and tyrannies" in local elections.

And finally, Grits for Breakfast penned an ode to Rep. David Simpson (who is sponsoring the legalization of marijuana bills in the Lege) called "treat it like tomatoes".

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.