The Media Has Soured on Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Odds Haven't.

[DonViejo]

In the last several weeks, people have started to question the supposed inevitability of Hillary Clinton as the next Democratic presidential nominee. First, Bill de Blasio won the New York mayoral primary, which appeared to signal rising anxiety about income inequality. Peter Beinart, in a widely read essay, wrote that de Blasio's victory heralded the rise of a type of progressivism that marks "a challenge Hillary Clinton should start worrying about now." Larry Summers also bowed out of consideration for Fed chairman amid rising liberal displeasure with his perceived closeness to Wall Street. With the exceptions of Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin, no figure more clearly represented Bill Clinton's economic policies, and yet here was the Democratic Party shunning him.

Then, on Monday, two magazine stories were released that only spurred more questions about Clinton. Alec MacGillis's superb cover story in our current issue uncovered the goings-on at the Clinton Foundation, and raised all sorts of worries about the people the Clintons surround themselves with. Meanwhile, New York magazine reporter Joe Hagan, in an interview with Clinton, was unable to elicit any interesting answers from the potential candidate. This was entirely not Hagan's fault, but it did highlight something odd: namely, that the impetus behind a Clinton candidacy seems to be inertia, as well as a feeling of, "It's her time." Hagan did get one wonderful quote, which, for me, was the most crucial part of the story:

"She's running, but she doesn't know it yet," one [close confidant] put it to me. "It's just like a force of history. It's inexorable, it's gravitational. I think she actually believes she has more say in it than she actually does."

Inspiring stuff, you must admit. And another good reason to wonder about 2016. But while all of these potential problems might register in the minds of elites, they are unlikely to make much difference to voters. Indeed, some commentators seem to be confusing the desirability of a Hillary Clinton candidacy with the political pitfalls a candidacy might face from average Americans.

full article:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114856/hillary-clinton-2016-primary-media-has-soured-her-odds-havent

[JoePhilly]

1. The Media is fickle.

And all they need is a plausible story line. They can create the surrounding narrative from there.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. She campaigned far to the right of Obama

She's most definitely NOT what we need.