According to a recent report, Mary Matalin believes that, at crunch time closer to 2016, Hillary Clinton won’t even throw her hat in the ring.

That’s my bet, too. Who will take her place, fill in the void? Al Franken?

I hope not. (Though it would be funny to see him run. Funny in a not-plotted-for-primetime kind of way.)

But what of the Republicans? Grover Norquist thinks that “six candidates have the names, staff and ability to raise money to run: Christie, Walker, Bobby Jindal, Perry, Bush, and Paul.” Note the problems of each:

  • Chris Christie: corrupt (or, “sure looks corrupt” — won’t pick up independent votes)
  • Scott Walker: hated by Democrats more than any other candidate (will have to endure horrible push-back from union folks, teachers)
  • Bobby Jindal: lackluster spokesman (yawn)
  • Rick Perry: nincompoop (Bush III, minus the dynasty)
  • Jeb Bush: Dynastic centrist (won’t pick up many independent votes)
  • Rand Paul: Sub rosa libertarian? (may scare off centrists and even independents-not-leaning libertarian)

At present (and to come full circle), Rand Paul seems to be obsessed with the Clintons. And, though that bizarre power couple may be a worthy subject for censure, worry or derision, it probably won’t play very well in modern society. Americans have forgiven Bill his philandering, and Hillary her wifely defensiveness.

Should that be the case? I am not sure. But it does seem to be the case. I don’t see Rand pushing ahead with the Clinton-bashing.

I suspect that the way ahead for a libertarian-conservative candidate is simple: bash progressives for being arrogant meddlers, puffed up with pride and pseudo-knowledge, and heedless of the common sense of the people. Destroy Obamacare. Cut down the NSA.

Would that a more straightforward libertarian candidate could become viable, but this is America, a deeply polarized country. Baby steps or none at all, it seems.

Pages: 1 2