Top Menu

HRC “Blocking New Generation,” But Jeb Bush is Just Fine

HRC's a problem, but there's obviously no problem with Jeb Bush. No woman has ever been president and the first one to have a chance is now being seen as potentially  "blocking new generation" of Democratic leaders.Photo via Texts from Hillary, Tumblr; Original image by Diana Walker for Time.

HRC’s a problem, but there’s obviously no problem with Jeb Bush. No woman has ever been president and the first one to have a chance is now being seen as potentially “blocking new generation” of Democratic leaders.
Photo via Texts from Hillary, Tumblr; Original image by Diana Walker for Time.


HOW MANY tortured negative Hillary Clinton plot lines can members of the media drum up? Let us start a list. Count the ways that HRC is dooming a “new generation” by “blocking” their rise. Yet, funny how the consideration of Jeb Bush is never couched in the same way. How another Bush family male is dooming the next generation of Republicans.

There has yet to be one serious article written about where the female Republican bench is on the presidential level. How GOP males are blocking females at every turn from rising to the level or presidential potential.

Furthermore, the Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton hampers the development of a Democratic farm team. With Clinton expected to take up so much room in the post-Obama party, is there much room for anyone else? [National Journal]

“Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton”?

There has never been a female nominee of either national party, let alone a female considered competent to be commander in chief, but now all of a sudden the first woman to finally rise to prominence, which took 200+ years, is seen as making the Democratic Party dependent on her.

What’s worse about Alex Seitz-Wald postulating that HRC’s “inevitability masks a potential weakness within the Democratic Party” is that he can’t even carry his own preposterous theme through to the end. At the bottom of this post he negates his own theory, complete with three women and one African American male to ruin his patently false, negative narrative about Hillary Clinton.

The obvious options dwindle from there. There’s Gillibrand and Booker, along with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is rumored to be eyeing a bid. There’s Elizabeth Warren, though the Massachusetts senator repeatedly said she won’t run.

What happens beyond 2016? It’s a long way off, but building a farm team of young, compelling leaders takes time, and Democrats may want to be asking themselves that question before it’s too late.

Only an elite media outfit could list Gillibrand, Booker, Klobuchar and Warren in a column that in the next paragraph postulates there’s no “farm team” after naming a list of prominent politicians who make up that farm team.

If this is really about ageism, we could start with Julian Castro of Texas, but of course this isn’t really about worrying about a Democratic “farm team.”

It’s just the latest establishment media swing and a miss at the first potentially viable female candidate in over 200 years, which cannot be hailed as the most qualified possible candidate for the presidency in decades who will break another barrier for Democrats.

The fear of not properly being “fair and balanced” forces so-called journalists to hoist half-baked analysis they can’t even sustain instead of simply reporting the true story here. That of the very first rising female to be poised for the presidency, who not only has paid every due known to traditional America, including waiting for her husband, as well as saving his presidency, but also joined with the rival that vanquished her to serve his Administration as his secretary of state around the world.

Instead of writing horror stories about the negatives of Hillary Clinton, which are a figment of the media’s imagination, here’s a story that will also save them from writing about the negatives of Jeb Bush “blocking” a “new generation” of Republicans: How long will Republicans punish their female bench before everyone gets over Sarah Palin?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to HRC “Blocking New Generation,” But Jeb Bush is Just Fine

  1. dafederalist February 13, 2014 at 12:19 pm #

    “blocking new generation” of Democratic leaders.
    I have a real problem with these so called progressives attacking Hillary Clinton as being to “Establishment”. I’m sorry, Barack Obama was a political nobody until 2007….no major accomplishments…the perfect “Washington Outsider” and look how he took with great ease I might add at blending in to the Washington background…so easily corrupted by trinkets and fanfare with all the trappings of celebrity. Say what they will about Hillary…but she’s gonna steam roll through Washington like a Category 5 Hurricane and wont look back!

    • Taylor Marsh February 13, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

      thank you!

      there’s a post over on Hot Air with this headline: Lefties desperately searching for reasons not to nominate Hillary

      It’s also true!

    • Ga6thDem February 13, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

      What you are saying is precisely the reason that those so called pundits should not be listened to. They bought what Obama was saying lock stock and barrel and now they are unhappy and want to take it out on Hillary. At least with Hillary you know what you are getting while Obama was selling a pig in a poke.

  2. Ga6thDem February 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    Blocking their rise? There is nobody that win the presidency right now on the D team. Gillibrand needs some more time in the senate. The lack of a so called “new generation” really falls on Obama. The fact that there’s nobody else is becuase he is seriously uninterested in party building. Then you have the GOP who has a bench but they’re all vying to be the engineer of a clown car. So you could say there are worse things than not having a bench when you look at the GOP.

    • Taylor Marsh February 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm #

      Well, maybe, but I just don’t see a lack of the “new generation.”

      I disagree about Gillibrand, who I think could run if HRC doesn’t, Klobuchar, too. In fact, I’d love it if Klobuchar ran against Hillary, though she’d regret it in the long run.

      The fact that people won’t turn their gaze to Jeb Bush, but especially that GOP isn’t pushing any females is very telling.

  3. AliceP February 13, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    The problem with HRC is not her qualifications, history of real public service, or experience, personality, etc. The problem with HRC is the sexism that abounds in our political system and media that can’t envision a woman as president.

    • lynnette February 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm #

      Exactly. Well, the media is pretty stupid – always barking up the wrong tree.

  4. PeggySue February 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm #

    This is just a preview of the nauseating articles yet to be written [ Seitz-Wald's article, not yours Taylor] about the angst over Hillary Clinton, who as you point out is one of the smartest, most experienced potential candidates we’ve seen in years. And yes, she also happens to be a woman.

    Seitz-Wald’s piece is a bunch of nothing, words that fill up space. More damaging, I think, is the essay by Khyrstal Balls, a 2008 Clinton supporter, who voices the progressive complaint: HRC will only offer more of the same corporate stroking, military solutions, drone excesses, neoliberal view points, etc. etch., etc., that we’ve seen and shuddered over since the Bush and Obama years. See here:

    http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/dont-run-hillary-dont-run

    For me, where the rant goes totally off the rails, is suggesting that Hillary cede the nomination to Elizabeth Warren. Small problem with the argument. Warren has explicitly said, no. And Warren for all her merits does not have the experience. Nor would she win a presidential contest, particularly in the atmosphere where anything ‘progressive’ is immediately labeled communist. Warren would be torn to shreds and we’d lose her valuable voice in the Senate. You might as well cede the WH to the GOP [who are doing a fine job in mass, self-inflicted suicide].

    Hillary Clinton is going to have to answer the Progressive complaint. But pretending that Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders would have a shot in hell to take the WH isn’t ‘shallow thinking’ but magical thinking. I’d love to see a progressive in the primaries, pushing the conversation to the left of center. But that doesn’t mean I think a full-throated progressive could win the moment. I suspect HRC knows that, too. We can see what happens when purity becomes the only litmus test in politics–total chaos and craziness.

    And yes, when we talk about dynasty complaints, Jeb Bush gets a pass. Hillary Clinton gets the pounding.

    Infuriating!

    Btw, I think Gillibrand has a fine political future. Her work in fighting abuses within the military has been spectacular.

    • lynnette February 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

      I agree with you. The more those idiots poo poo a historical candidacy like Hillary’s, the more I want to vote for her. For 200 years we have had nothing but men occupy the office and the first viable female candidate they’re going to downplay??? Sour grapes me thinks. My fondness for Elizabeth Warren would not prevent me from voting for Hillary Clinton, that’s for sure. I Like Gillibrand as well – I think she’s fantastic. Actually, I like all three of them.

    • Lake Lady February 14, 2014 at 9:13 am #

      I agree with your comment with one hopeful exception, crystal Ball also said she would work for Hillary’,” with all my heart,”. Ball is pretty politically savvy despite her annoying speaking style. I think she is attempting to nudge Hillary to the left.

      • lynnette February 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

        Okay. I’ll admit Krystal is not an idiot. But can she predict the future? ;)
        It’s okay with me if all she is doing is nudging Hillary to the left. Actually, that could be a good thing.

        • Taylor Marsh February 15, 2014 at 7:57 am #

          Ball is not saying anything that many progressives haven’t been saying, especially in conversations beyond cable shows. It’s nothing new at all.

          Problem is that if Ball believes what she’s saying then she should join with progressives to challenge Clinton, not simply say she should bow out, which is really telling about pundits & so-called analysts like Ball.

          They don’t have the courage of their convictions, but want HRC to supply it for them! Find a candidate and back him/her. I’d have a lot more respect for people saying/writing what Ball did if they would.

          Ball’s attempting to have it both ways.

          What she & other progressives don’t get is that HRC’s foundation to smart power is about public-private partnerships that rely on big money & Wall Street to accomplish, as well as other whales to help. She’s not going to give that up, because capitalism is America, like it or not.

          As for nudging or moving HRC to the left, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. HRC doesn’t think in terms of left or right, it’s about what’s possible to help the most people, by any means necessary. She’ll make deals with anyone to manifest her intentions.

          • lynnette February 15, 2014 at 11:05 am #

            I hear you. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is going to bow out of anything based on the advice of anyone other than herself – nor should she. Hillary may not think in terms of left or right but others do. The key is to get organized and apply pressure. Politicians respond to it. Wall Street makes use of its power and so, too, should progressives, if they see fit.

          • Taylor Marsh February 16, 2014 at 10:46 am #

            What Ball and many of you are missing is that real pressure includes not showing your hand while expecting HRC to bow out, because you and your allies don’t have the guts to directly challenge Clinton with a candidate that will make her feel the heat.

            It’s patently ridiculous to cover your ass, as Ball did, by declaring your respect and ultimate support of Clinton, while asking her to not run. If you believe the Wall Street argument against Clinton, which by the way is a good one, then don’t put up a candidate like Warren who will never challenge Hillary, find someone who is serious and who will.

            Bloviating ain’t gonna get it done.

  5. newdealdem1 February 13, 2014 at 11:34 pm #

    Great post, Taylor. I agree with every person’s comment here without prejudice.

    I’ll post my thoughts about this topic tomorrow but will say this for now, the double standard doesn’t surprise me in the least vis a vie Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

    And, I am already thoroughly disgusted and have reached my limit re/the mostly know-nothing press who continue to display shameless, busy body and worthless advice to HRC as if she just recovered from her concussion in 2012 and woke up with amnesia about the last 23 years most particularly her historical run for POTUS in the Dem primary with an equally historical number of raw votes cast by the American people for a woman candidate.

    I will leave it here for now.

    http://tinyurl.com/jw7ldb5

    At the above link, this is a conference talk that took place today at NYU with HRC, Chelsea Clinton and Melinda Gates and this was the topic:

    “A conversation between Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, Melinda Gates, and Chelsea Clinton on the importance of data in charting a path towards the full participation of women and girls in the 21st Century and ways to measure progress toward that goal.

    This event took place at New York University as part of No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project, a new initiative at the Clinton Foundation whose mission is to bring together partner organizations to evaluate and share the progress women and girls have made in the 20 years since the UN Fourth World Conference in Beijing.”

    It’s truly worth your time to take a good listen. It’s about an hour.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong