WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Hillary Clinton repeating the same mistakes as for her 2008 Presidential bid?

Considering the mid-term elections still lie ahead, the 2016 Presidential race remains far, far away, and so many things could change the essential dynamics.

For example, who could have predicted - as Chris Christie cruised to an easy re-election as New Jersey's Governor - that he would be on the ropes just three months later?

Still, it is revealing that some top Democratic strategists think the former Secretary of State, senator, and First Lady "is repeating the mistakes she made in 2008, building a machine in lieu of a message and lumbering toward the Democratic nomination with the same deep vulnerabilities that cost her the nomination eight years earlier."

Ironic, considering the great political gifts of her husband, but Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be politically tonedeaf at times (continued defense of the Iraq war), and seems to struggle with the "vision thing" (just like President George Herbert Walker Bush). Other than making history with the election of the nation's first female president, what would be Hillary Rodham Clinton's overriding message? To be sure, HRC has shown a passion for the plight of women in the developing world; she received a thunderous ovation, for example, for her 2013 address to the Women in the World Summit. There, she declared equal rights & opportunities for women remain "the unfinished business of the 21st century." But how does she translate that passion in the context of U.S. domestic politics? Well... she has a lot of time to work on that.

Still, a rather persuasive argument can be made that this sense of inevitability about HRC as the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee could end up being her Achilles' Heel.

Find out the reasons from this analysis from Buzz Feed...


Posted at 6:14am on February 5, 2014 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 8:53am
I think the Democrat to watch is Elizabeth Warren. Hillary has way too much baggage. Warren is very outspoken and well-spoken on her views. She is 64. She was previously a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law.

She has an interesting proposal that Mrpizza might find of interest, as a way to help revitalize the U.S.P.S. and help poor folks with their banking needs. Sounds like she may be one of those who thinks outside the box.


Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 9:09am
Here's more about Elizabeth Warren from her website.


Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 9:59am
Interesting commentary by a conservative Republican who spanks George H. W. Bush [Papa Bush] for destroying the G.O.P.


Wed, Feb 5, 2014 10:48am
Karl Rove has also done an excellent job of destroying the G.O.P.

I think that Warren will indeed run and take part in the 2016 debates, but she is going to appear too progressive to most, and Hillary is going to "appear" moderate when compared to Warren.

Wed, Feb 5, 2014 11:51am
Hillary is on thin ice. She is doing too much kow-towing to Wall Street, and if it is her v.s Rand Paul, the swing vote would go to Rand Paul.

I've been saying this for years. The NYT just printed it...

"90 percent of the overall increase in inflation-adjusted consumption between 2009 and 2012 was generated by the top 20 percent of households in terms of income."


Being seen as the darling of the rich will not go down well in Peoria.

Wed, Feb 5, 2014 12:35pm
This is for Mr. Pizza, who loves Ronald Reagan so much.....

The average Dow gain per year: Reagan, 11.81%; Obama, 11.72%

The average Unemployment Rate: Reagan, 8.58%; Obama, 8.69%

The average jobs (thousands) created per year: Reagan, 1638; Obama, 1645

Poverty Rate (3 years only): Reagan, from 14% - 14.4%; Obama, from 14.3% - 15%

By these measures, both Presidents are remarkably similar.

But then there is the Gross Domestic Product, debt, and spending. Combining G.D.P. relative to debt is the most common measure for these two.

Average yearly debt to G.D.P. increase: Reagan: 7.83%; Obama, 4.84%

Average Federal government spending increase using Total Expenditure data from BEA:

Reagan: 8.89%; Obama 1.02%

Subtracting inflation: Reagan: 4.21%; Obama, -1.08%

So..lol, just using the fiscal conservatives' determination of what makes a good president, Obama BEATS their hero, Ronald Reagan... So if you hate Obama, you have to hate Reagan too. And you have to hate both of them, if only because they were just so much better than everyone else....

Pizza, be careful on your next slice. We don't want you to choke... You probably need some calming music right now... Here.


Wed, Feb 5, 2014 12:50pm
Allan ... you might want to do something with this on your evening show....

CNN's poll showing 60% want the government, not private sector, to do something about the growing inequality.


Wed, Feb 5, 2014 12:53pm
That was just the link I got off their raw feed. Found the story they published that flushes it out...


Wed, Feb 5, 2014 1:39pm
The CNN survey was conducted by ORC International from January 31 to February 2, with 1,010 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

So, 60% of 1,010 people who (1). Still have a land-line, and (2). Actually talked to a pollster, want the government to reduce the income gap between rich and the poor. That is the majority of Americans?

Wed, Feb 5, 2014 5:03pm
Earl.. you brag about polls when they support ignorance then question them when they actually tell the truth. Don't you know how polls are conducted?

Point is, most people think government is good. Now that this experiment with the Tea Party is almost over, they know a strong government is better than the alternative..

Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:48pm
Kavips: I'm not impressed by your numbers. Whether they're true or not, the fact is that unlike Barack Chavez-Castro-Stalin-Obama, Ronald Reagan was a man of integrity.

God help us if Ethel Rosenberg gets elected in 2016. Wasn't 8 years of Julius enough?

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 10:19am
Here is the apt interpretation (with a twist) of what Pizza states above...

"kavips, I' don't care if all evidence points to there being no Santa Claus. I don't know if what you are saying is true. All I know is that presents appear under my tree on Christmas, so there has to be a Santa Claus. No other possibility exists, because if it does, I will steadfastly refuse to see it.. Santa Claus is real because only he can go around the world in one night and visit every little girl and boy."

Ok, Pizza, if you say so..............

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 11:42am
kavips: I really don't trust most telephone polling these days for the reasons I posted... Very few people still have land-lines in their homes and even fewer people want to talk to a pollster on their phone.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 6, 2014 3:20pm
EarlGrey and Kavips: that is a valid point. I still have a land line, but none of my adult children do, and neither do any of their adult friends.

It's probably a generational thing, but frankly I've considered getting rid of the land line too, as my wife and both have the throw away cell phones that we paid $30.00 for each with 10 cents per minute in an account we add to when we need to, no monthly payment. Neither of us are big talkers on the phone. Most of the calls we actually get on our land line is robot telemarketers even though we're on the do not call list.

My guess is, just like with AM radio, the Babyboomers and the Geezers are pretty much the majority of the folks who still have land lines [really how many people under 50 listen to AM radio on a regular basis if at all?].

So that would skew the polling results towards the 50+ crowd, leaving out the Gen X, Gen Y, and Millenial demos.

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 3:37pm
Exactly my point. Thanks Mike.

I haven't had a land-line for a few years...when I did we would receive non-stop pollsters when elections approached. Who really has time to answer a 5-10 minute poll by someone you neither know nor trust?

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 3:39pm
I would certainly agree with all polling being untrustworthy.

One would think however that the Geezers finally coming around to wanting Government to intervene, would complement that overwhelming majority of all other groups that would like that same policy.

Aren't those old geezers the only Republican hold-outs these days? So if they want big government, who's left?

No one.

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 5:09pm
Those "old geezers" of which you speak are the establishment G.O.P. Republicans and the G.O.P. is fading away... You have bought into the myth that the Tea Party is just a bunch of old grumpy white men complainin' about the gov't. and hatin' on 0bama because he's not "one of them".

Now that Boehner has retreated on pushing immigration... things are looking much brighter for 2014 and the Tea Party.

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 7:55pm
We still have a land line at my house only because the Mrs. works inbound calls for AAA from home, so it's required along with the maximum high-speed internet available. Other than that, same as Mike - we get robo calls.

Thu, Feb 6, 2014 7:56pm
Kavips: It's a matter of principle for me. Regardless of the stats, for me it's the difference between righteous rule and wicked rule. Currently, the wicked rule with an iron fist.

Fri, Feb 7, 2014 7:50am
Hillary tries to present herself as a feminazi icon but she owes her entire career to being somebody's wife.

Interesting if the tea baggers control the Republican nomination and put in one of their own (Rubio, Cruz, Paul ...) and progressives manage to get control of the Democratic nomination put in Warren - neither party has an establishment candidate, somebody "electable" to appeal to the great middle.

Pizza: What you fail to get is progressives offer "righteous rule" and tea baggers and Christofascists offer wicked rule with an iron fist - for the benefit of corporations and to make Jesus jumpers happy by persecuting anybody who thinks differently and who doesn't follow their approved ways of living. It's amazing how easy it is for them to get you to screw yourself.

Fri, Feb 7, 2014 11:30am
bill: I think that you have confused Christians and the Tea Party with the old guard G.O.P. Republicans and the "Religious Right" of years past.

And, could you please clarify on the "righteous rule" offered by Progressives?

Progressives use Government to persecute any who dare think differently than official party lines... look at how this current administration has used the I.R.S., the F.B.I., and the E.P.A. to "enforce proper thinking" on those who have disagreed with them.

2016 would definitely be a very interesting presidential competition if it were Warren vs. Cruz (or Rand Paul).

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach