"Hillary Clinton’s new website keeps speculators guessing about 2016 plans."

Oh, really?

I went to it. Here. Doesn't look ambiguous at all to me. Game on!

Hillary: "I do want to see more women compete for the highest positions in their countries."

"... and I will do what I can, whether or not it is up to me to make a decision on my own future. I right now am not inclined to do that, but I will do everything I can to make sure that women compete at the highest levels not only in the United States but around the world."

Assess the degree of bullshit.
	0%
	1-40%
	41-75%
	76-95%
	96-99%
	100%
pollcode.com free polls

"Senators keep 2016 in focus as Hillary Clinton grilled on Benghazi."

"You will be sorely missed, but I, for one, hope not for too long," said the Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, and "I wish you the best in your future endeavors — mostly," said Republican Rep. Steve Chabot.

I don't picture Hillary Clinton as the candidate in 2016. Someone new will emerge. The Democrats gravitate toward youth (even as the Republicans duly cede the candidacy to the next oldie in line).

"Clinton will take a long, much-deserved vacation, then assume a low-key schedule of advocacy work and lucrative speaking engagements."

"She'll exercise, sleep more and eat better.... Her hair will finally find the sweet spot between the Stepford-esque helmet head of the campaign trail and the current granny-cum-Eileen-Fisher-model look...."

And then in late 2014, a more vibrant, less jowly Clinton will return to the spotlight and announce her candidacy for president....

When it comes to historic elections, 2008 was just what most Democrats wanted. First the exciting young black guy, then the somewhat less exciting but eminently reliable old white lady. It was as if liberal voters promised to eat their vegetables if they could just have dessert first.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a formidable presidential candidate in 2016."

Says Nate Silver, the proven genius.

"Obama doesn’t really like very many people."

"And he likes to talk about sports. But other than that he just doesn’t like very many people. Unfortunately, it extends to people who used to have his job."

Ryan Lizza, quoting a "Democrat deeply familiar with the relationship" between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who was refuting the common belief that mutual dislike originated with Clinton's unhappiness over the 2008 primary.

Now, Obama needs Clinton:

Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff, moved to Chicago to manage the campaign, and he took charge of the Clinton account.... Clinton, Messina told me, is one of the few people who can make the case for Obama among voters who still haven’t made up their minds....

But does Clinton need Obama?

His associates take it as a given that he would like nothing more than to see his wife become President. Hillary Clinton will step down as Secretary of State after the campaign and begin the process of deciding whether she will run in 2016. By some measures, a defeat for Obama in November would leave Hillary the undisputed leader of her party and propel her toward the Oval Office that much faster. 

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton will take the stage in prime time at the convention, claiming the spot that would traditionally go to the vice presidential candidate, with Biden shunted elsewhere. 

Now, liking is a key concept in connection with Obama. He's always told he's so likeable. And we remember Hillary, back in '08, being needled about being less likeable than Obama and Obama stealing the spotlight to say "You're likeable enough" right after she'd done a nice delivery of the quip "That hurts my feelings." He's just so likeable.

Ah... but who does he like?

Politico identifies "5 landmines" for the Democratic convention.

#1 is: Bill Clinton. 

I'd say Obama should not trust Bill Clinton. Hillary has too much to gain from an Obama loss.

The other 4 are:

2. "Rebuilding 'You didn’t build that.'" (Especially with Elizabeth Warren as a prime-time speaker. She's "a political novice who will be making her debut on the national stage," and whose personal goal is winning in Massachusetts, and thus in being much more liberal than the average American.)

3. "Actual class warfare." (The Occupy protesters, who might have once seemed to be boosting the Democratic Party, are taking it to the streets of Charlotte. What if there's something 1968-ish?! And then there's just the danger of various convention-goers saying something non-mainstream.)

4. "Not a sell-out audience." (And with extra tickets being given away, there's an unusual danger of hecklers and protesters.)

5. "Can Charlotte cut it?" It's pretty small and ill-equipped for a city hosting an event this size.

"Bill Clinton Does Not Want Barack Obama to Win."

Let me point back to this post of mine: "Bill Clinton did not come to Wisconsin to help Tom Barrett win the recall election."

I'm not convinced Clinton is devoted to the short game of reelecting Obama. I think he might be playing a long game: Hillary 2016.

"You get out of a ditch when people stand on each others’ shoulders and somebody gets to the top and then reaches down and pulls everybody else up."

Said Bill Clinton in Milwaukee yesterday. He was ostensibly campaigning for the Democratic candidate in the recall election, but I'm pretty sure he had ulterior motives. Now, look at the quote: It's what Democrats tend to call trickle-down economics.

It's not the anti-rich rhetoric we hear from Obama. Clinton is saying it's good to have some people climbing up over others and getting rich, because then, as their business grows, they're in a position to offer jobs to people.

This is consistent with his praising Mitt Romney the other day, saying he had a "sterling" career at Bain Capital.

Obama needs to watch out for Bill Clinton. This is the real Bill Clinton, don't you think?

Bill Clinton did not come to Wisconsin to help Tom Barrett win the recall election.

The Democrats have given so little help to Tom Barrett in his effort to oust Scott Walker, but Bill Clinton did show up for a rally yesterday, 4 days before the recall election. Barrett's impending loss was so apparent that — I think— the Democratic Party elite had decided that it was best to avoid association with him. Spin it as an insignificant, local matter, even as the Republicans are portraying it as a test of whether governors all over America can make bold reforms and a prediction of what will happen in the fall election.

So what changed? Why does Clinton show up now? I'm going to say: Money! Scott Walker is about to win, about to collect his new mandate, and the Democrats are going to want to raise money off that event. The terrible Scott Walker — now with more power — threatens America! Quick, send money! That's the pitch they want to go out next Wednesday. But how can they do that if they did nothing to help Tom Barrett defeat Scott Walker? The savvy recipient of the quick-send-money email might think: If Scott Walker was so dangerous, why didn't you people do what you could to defeat him when you had the chance? But if the well-loved, charismatic President goes to Wisconsin, that's the one thing people will remember. The clips and quotes of the man can be mobilized for money gathering.

You can watch Clinton's whole speech over here. You can comb through that and see what might prove useful to the Democratic Party as it pursues victory in the fall elections.

But I want to focus on something else, a second theory about why Bill Clinton came to Wisconsin. I'm not convinced Clinton is devoted to the short game of reelecting Obama. I think he might be playing a long game: Hillary 2016. The game of Hillary 2016 can be won in different ways, but one path opens up if Obama loses in 2012. If he loses, why will he have lost? And how would Bill Clinton frame that loss as he plays Hillary 2016?

Bill Clinton might think in terms of Bill Clinton: I won in 1996, because I leveraged myself off the Republican victory in 1994, which is exactly what Obama has failed to do in response to the Republican victory in 2010. Can't you see that potential in Clinton's remarks at the "Tom Barrett" rally?

“This divide-and-conquer, no compromise crowd, if they’d been in control, there never would have been a United States Constitution....

“Cooperation works. Constant conflict is a dead-bang loser and you need to get rid of it,” said Clinton, rattling off incidences of Republicans and Democrats cooperating...

Obama hasn't been cooperating with Republicans. He certainly hasn't used Republican power in Congress as a way to rack up credit for some conservative reform the way Bill Clinton did welfare reform. Here's Bill Clinton basking in self-admiration in a NYT op-ed "How We Ended Welfare, Together":

Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship. Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country....

Ten years ago, neither side got exactly what it had hoped for. While we compromised to reach an agreement, we never betrayed our principles and we passed a bill that worked and stood the test of time. This style of cooperative governing is anything but a sign of weakness. It is a measure of strength, deeply rooted in our Constitution and history, and essential to the better future that all Americans deserve, Republicans and Democrats alike.

The date on that op-ed was 2006. What was Bill Clinton doing in 2006? He was playing a little game called Hillary 2008.