Will Hillary Clinton be the first female US President?

720px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop After years of teasing and speculation, Hillary Clinton yesterday announced her bid for the White House. Barack Obama was the first black president, will Hillary be the first female?

On the face of it the omens look good. Demographic changes of an increasing Hispanic vote mean many Republicans fear they may never reclaim the White House. Hillary has an impressive CV – from First Lady to New York Senator, to Secretary of State.

On the negative side it really does seem like the US Presidency is turning into some kind of Monarchy. With Jeb Bush also tipped to run, the choice might be between a second Clinton in the White House or a third Bush. Roll On Chelsea Clinton for 2024…

It is a damning indictment of the US electoral system that with a country of over 300 million you get so little choice of Presidential candidates.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio

Also a factor is age. Hillary will be 69 next year. At a time when most people are retired is she capable of the most demanding job in the World? You can see how the job has aged Obama – his  hair is now a shock of grey. Hillary has been in the public eye for 25 years. Might the electorate want a new face? The photogenic Senator Marco Rubio is expected to run for the Republican nomination. Might the Hispanic vote jump from the Democrats to the son of Cuban immigrants?

The cynical may argue that is does not matter who gets in. It costs over a billion dollars to run for President, so whoever gets elected will serve the needs of their wealthy donors first. It is the best democracy money can buy…

,

  • Sergiogiorgio

    Yes – nailed on.

  • Granni Trixie

    Omg Brian! Although I personally would rule myself out of the running for demanding positions were I 69, I greatly admire ‘Seniors’ who have the appetite and health to consider it. Also, have there not been oldish male Presidents? (Some infirm with memory conditions?).
    So, if we park the age consideration, I do agree that it is disheartening to see dynasties in operation. Associated with this sense of entitlement is the question of the obscene amounts of money people seem to have to raise to produce a bigger and bigger campaign. There has to be a better way surely – like putting a legal limit on how much a party can spend.

    Don’t mean to get at you Brian but as I get older it seems ageism is the new sexism.
    You can’t win.

  • Granni Trixie

    O and may I add that I simply hate it when the former First Lady brings up her story of Joyce McCartan and the battered teapot – I note that already she is weavng it into her refreshed narrative today in the Newspapers so it’s not going away anytime soon.

    it’s bad enough as a women to be represented by a cupcake or “killer heels” …but a teapot?

  • Barneyt

    She has an uphill struggle. Many might like to see how a woman, and a strong woman at that, can shape America. That is worth a few votes. On the beeb this morning she was described as the marmite candidate, so she has no cross-divide appeal.

    A Clinton dynasty has yet to emerge in the same flavour as that of the Kennedys or indeed the Bush family. Dynasties don’t move horizontally.

    There will be extensive muck raking by the republicans. I can see her character being assassinated in the campaign i.e. how can you take difficult decisions for the country when you can take them at home? Perhaps she held on to Bill (cigars n’all) as a calculated move? Whatever angle they take, they cannot acuse her of lacking ambition.

    She is already being touted as “the 3rd Obama term”. Its not clear yet if this will have an entirely negative impact on her campaign.

    The better relationships with Iran and Cuba will falter at some point, she the “do goodering”, as the republicans will see it, will be promoted as an inherent Democrat weakness and therefore a threat to the US. I just think the republicans have far too many negatives to exploit and combined with their control of both houses they can frustrate and “lame duck” the current administration, which could deprive the US of its first female progressive president.

  • Brian O’Neill

    My own view is she is more than capable for the job. At 67 I would wager she has more energy than me. I mentioned the age as it will be a factor for some voters just as it was for John McCain.

  • Brian O’Neill

    After 25 years of muck raking I really doubt there are any skeletons left in the Clinton closet.

  • Turgon

    On the dynasty thing I hope she wins and then after a couple of terms we have Jeb Bush (who hopefully will not be tool old by then). Then we could have Chelsea Clinton and then some more Bushes.

    Hopefully we can achieve a dual monarchy for the USA with a Clinton for eight years followed by a Bush and so on. Eventually a Clinton could marry a Bush and the need for those dreadfully expensive American elections could be eliminated.

  • Catcher in the Rye

    Clinton has not even won the nomination yet, and we have not yet seen who the other runners are, yet people are calling it. Very early days folks. It’s the best part of two years until the election actually takes place.

    FWIW I think Elizabeth Warren would hands down be a far better candidate.

  • tmitch57

    Whether she is elected president or not will come down largely to the state of the economy in the spring and early summer of 2016 and the identity of the Republican nominee. Jeb Bush, the real royal heir (third generation) in the race, is probably the most electable of the likely Republican candidates provided that he can get through the primaries and win the nomination. He will have a problem with the Tea Party who regard him as too establishment, much as how Warren supporters perceive Clinton. The American media doesn’t seem to be aware yet that the Democratic dynasty is not the Clintons–a power couple–but the Kennedys, who seem to have considerably weakened between the second and third generations.

  • Brian O’Neill

    Elizabeth Warren is a dream candidate but I don’t think she has a hope in hell. The banks and finance companies will block her bid.

  • Turgon

    Tin foil hats available here. Considering the amount of money many groups have including assorted liberals that is very close to a conspiracy theory. Next you will be telling us that the fact she is not a 12 foot tall blood drinking shape shifting lizard alien is the reason she has no chance.

  • John Collins

    Jeb Bush is not third generation. His father and brother were Presidents. This still only makes him second generation.

  • tmitch57

    Jeb Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator from Connecticut, which makes him a third generation member of a political dynasty.

  • John Collins

    Well that is true but Prescott was not a president.

  • tmitch57

    Neither was Charles F. Adams, the ambassador to Britain during the Civil War and vice-presidential nominee of the Free Soil Party in 1848, yet he is considered by historians to have been part of the Adams family political dynasty.

  • John Collins

    Well I suppose the same can be said of so many families. The Salisburys and the Balflours in Engalnd, The Dillons in Ireland and the Kennedys and Fitzgeralds in the USA. Churchill also came from a long line of powerful politicians.

  • tmitch57

    Yes, but at present there are only two dynastic families at the national level in American politics: the Kennedy’s in the Democratic Party and the Bushes in the Republican Party. But if you wanted a good example of reigning elected dynasties, you should have gone to Ireland where there are many examples in both FF and FG or to Israel.