After wasting a bunch of money on a futile investigation, the Feds admit Christie is without any culpability in Bridgegate. Score one for the good guys.
Jersey democrats seem to have an Ahab-esque obsession with nailing Christie for something. The guy has to be clean as a whistle if this is the best route they have to take.
Maybe, but only because he is the tallest midget. "Bridgegate" has really taken a lot of wind from his once billowing Presidential sails. It's helpful that he was exonerated, but ultimately, and by-and-large, Americans won't trouble themselves with figuring that out. That stain will linger, rightfully or wrong. And every moment he is forced to spend talking about it, will be both wasted (because he's not talking about his platform) and futile (because most won't know (or care?) that he was exonerated). And if some were concerned that the Christie Camp's "responses" were too-often cryptic / flat-out refusing to the Romney Camp's inquiries, when vetting him as a possible VP candidate, then I can't imagine they'll do anything but continue to loom, and likely grow, the closer the election becomes. The tough spot for Christie is that simply continuing to refuse to answer questions about the inner workings of his camp, and his political dealings to this point, may actually be his best - his only, really - course of action. If the GOP insiders were too afraid of putting him as VP before, even at the height of his national upswing, how they could justify putting his name on the top of the ticket is baffling, for any reason other than sheer desperation, and the lack of any other remotely electable candidate. The man gives a great speech, and that may be enough (see: Obama, Barrack), but I highly doubt that it would be, for him. The next politician who could be so necessarily down-and-dirty as to rise to the office of Mayor of Chicago, NYC or Governor of New Jersey, and yet still remain so "clean" as to be a viable candidate through both the primary and general elections of a national campaign - will be the first one. IMO.
It is the one candidate she would have the hardest time with, in terms of distancing herself from Obama.
The WildCard in the 16 race is not going to be about how many people "like" the GOP candidate, or even how many "like" Hillary, but "hate" her, instead. Obama, Romney, McCain, Bush, etc. had their supporters, opponents and detractors - but they had few who "hated" them, or at least with sufficient fervor to turn out in substantial enough numbers to vote "against" someone. While the depth and fervor may not yet be fully known, there is absolutely a demographic of those who simply and fervently hate (immensely dislike, would prefer anyone to her, if you prefer) Hillary Clinton, right or wrong. In fact, I can't think of a more strikingly polarizing national candidate (not running for re-election) than Hillary will be. But that being said, she is undoubtedly the front-runner for the job, and it's hers to lose. I'm curious to see her personal / camp's reaction when she fails to enjoy the same sort of love affair with the media that President Obama did, and continues, to receive. And she won't, because they've already begun to draw some hard lines on her, and even this early, when most aren't paying attention. I'm curious to see if she can somehow manage to walk the line with sufficient deftness so as to soften / humanize her image...but without sacrificing the authoritative persona she'll have to cast (as any candidate must) of appearing "presidential". Nixon did it, and that's about how skillful she'll have to be. Frankly, I'll congratulate her if she can, because I simply do not see her being able to do it, now. I think that there's a much greater chance that she comes off as being phony - and that may very well be her undoing, as it will simply reenforce the sense that she is a "win/do/say anything to be President" - typical of all candidates, for sure, but particularly troubling for her. I'll go on record as predicting that 90% of her campaign stops will involve hard hats, beer, children and generally trying to appeal to the "typical" middle-class female (hint: of which she shares absolutely nothing in common). While conventional wisdom says that she should be dominant in that demographic (you know, because she is a woman. Allegedly), so much so as to make it an after-thought, she's going to have to fight to keep it. All of this being said - if someone here now knows of a GOP contender who can beat Hillary on her/his own merits, and simply won't be the lucky schmuck on the other side of the ballot when she implodes, I'd love to know who it is.
Do you want to quintuple the Tea Party's membership? Because that's how you quintuple the Tea Party's membership.
Personally, I'd prefer that we amend the Constitution so as to allow President Obama to seek a third term, and I'd vote for him to win it, if it prevented Hillary from doing so.
