Is Hillary haunted by what might have been?

Persistent rumors of Hillary Clinton's 2020 presidential aspirations are not sitting well with the left-wing media.

Politico's Matt Latimer claims he can prove that Hillary is "running again":

And the facts are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.

Latimer's "proof" is largely circumstantial ­– the Clinton Global Initiative has "scaled back," but not shut down, Mrs. Clinton is writing another book, and she didn't close the door in her concession speech.

Latimer also notes Hillary's tweeting "3-0" "to gloat over" the judicial rebuke of the president's immigration executive order:

Most defeated rivals disappear after their loss. Instead, Clinton sounded very much like she was still on the campaign trail. (Because, of course, she is.)

The Politico piece notes that "in another era," Mrs. Clinton's "political career might have been seen as having passed its expiration date" but then goes on to suggest a motivation for a Clinton reboot:

Besides, consider the alternative: having a chance to run for a third time – and squandering it.

Observing that Al Gore and Mitt Romney both passed on a third run at the presidency, when either man could "wonder what might have happened had he pursued a rematch," Latimer says of Clinton (italics in original):

Clinton is not going to want to spend the rest of her life haunted by the question of "What if?" What if I could run again – and win? Besides, seeking the White House has been her aspiration for decades. What else is there for her to do?

Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running.

Latimer adds that Hillary "has 100 percent name ID, a personal fortune and a bastion of loyalists," and he suggests as a strategy that she hold back and enter the race, "at the behest of the people, of course."

The Washington Post takes umbrage at the entire notion of Hillary running again, with Chris Cillizza pushing back at the "purposely provocative" Politico piece:

Clinton has now lost twice in runs for the White House. And they were defeats of the devastating variety.

... One loss like that would be more than enough for most politicians. Two is approaching Greek tragedy levels.

... Why commit to spending – at least – two years more away from your family on an activity that has brought you nothing but heartache for the past decade?

Cillizza maintains further that the party should steer clear of another Clinton run:

The second she started to show interest in running for president again, people would remember all of the things they didn't like about her. The same trust and likability issues would dog her.

... The best way for Democrats to beat Trump, to my mind, is to not allow him to claim the outsider mantle again. Nominating Clinton would do just that.

... Democrats would be foolish to, again, place all their bets on Clinton. That time has passed.

Not to be outdone, H.A. Goodman at The Huffington Post claims that if Politico is "publishing this type of headline, Clinton's future campaign is more than just hyperbole." 

Goodman therefore says of the Politico piece:

Well, there you have it: Trump's reelection has been confirmed.

... Furthermore, most Hillary voters would absolutely love Clinton to run again, especially since Russia stole the election and Comey's letter helped Putin.

Many Democrats truly want a third Clinton campaign.

But, Goodman says, in addition to the rift in the party and the garden-variety Clinton scandals, "there's only one enormous problem":

Clinton's ties to Russia[.] ... Yes, you heard it right, and Hillary Clinton has circumvented these ties for too long.

Trump isn't stupid, and the Russian uranium deal during President Obama's administration will be examined in 2020 against Clinton. 

... It's likely you didn't hear much about Bill Clinton's $500,000 payment from a Moscow investment bank, did you?

... Think of Trump's 2020 campaign ads stating "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

The Huffington Post contends with some justification that the Democrats' cupboard is bare:

Clinton will run again, simply because Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren don't have the brand name and fundraising abilities of Madam Secretary. Democrats have learned nothing from Trump's victory.

... Therefore, get ready for eight years of President Trump.

While Hillary may be haunted by what might have been, Democrats may be haunted by another Hillary run.

Persistent rumors of Hillary Clinton's 2020 presidential aspirations are not sitting well with the left-wing media.

Politico's Matt Latimer claims he can prove that Hillary is "running again":

And the facts are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.

Latimer's "proof" is largely circumstantial ­– the Clinton Global Initiative has "scaled back," but not shut down, Mrs. Clinton is writing another book, and she didn't close the door in her concession speech.

Latimer also notes Hillary's tweeting "3-0" "to gloat over" the judicial rebuke of the president's immigration executive order:

Most defeated rivals disappear after their loss. Instead, Clinton sounded very much like she was still on the campaign trail. (Because, of course, she is.)

The Politico piece notes that "in another era," Mrs. Clinton's "political career might have been seen as having passed its expiration date" but then goes on to suggest a motivation for a Clinton reboot:

Besides, consider the alternative: having a chance to run for a third time – and squandering it.

Observing that Al Gore and Mitt Romney both passed on a third run at the presidency, when either man could "wonder what might have happened had he pursued a rematch," Latimer says of Clinton (italics in original):

Clinton is not going to want to spend the rest of her life haunted by the question of "What if?" What if I could run again – and win? Besides, seeking the White House has been her aspiration for decades. What else is there for her to do?

Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running.

Latimer adds that Hillary "has 100 percent name ID, a personal fortune and a bastion of loyalists," and he suggests as a strategy that she hold back and enter the race, "at the behest of the people, of course."

The Washington Post takes umbrage at the entire notion of Hillary running again, with Chris Cillizza pushing back at the "purposely provocative" Politico piece:

Clinton has now lost twice in runs for the White House. And they were defeats of the devastating variety.

... One loss like that would be more than enough for most politicians. Two is approaching Greek tragedy levels.

... Why commit to spending – at least – two years more away from your family on an activity that has brought you nothing but heartache for the past decade?

Cillizza maintains further that the party should steer clear of another Clinton run:

The second she started to show interest in running for president again, people would remember all of the things they didn't like about her. The same trust and likability issues would dog her.

... The best way for Democrats to beat Trump, to my mind, is to not allow him to claim the outsider mantle again. Nominating Clinton would do just that.

... Democrats would be foolish to, again, place all their bets on Clinton. That time has passed.

Not to be outdone, H.A. Goodman at The Huffington Post claims that if Politico is "publishing this type of headline, Clinton's future campaign is more than just hyperbole." 

Goodman therefore says of the Politico piece:

Well, there you have it: Trump's reelection has been confirmed.

... Furthermore, most Hillary voters would absolutely love Clinton to run again, especially since Russia stole the election and Comey's letter helped Putin.

Many Democrats truly want a third Clinton campaign.

But, Goodman says, in addition to the rift in the party and the garden-variety Clinton scandals, "there's only one enormous problem":

Clinton's ties to Russia[.] ... Yes, you heard it right, and Hillary Clinton has circumvented these ties for too long.

Trump isn't stupid, and the Russian uranium deal during President Obama's administration will be examined in 2020 against Clinton. 

... It's likely you didn't hear much about Bill Clinton's $500,000 payment from a Moscow investment bank, did you?

... Think of Trump's 2020 campaign ads stating "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

The Huffington Post contends with some justification that the Democrats' cupboard is bare:

Clinton will run again, simply because Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren don't have the brand name and fundraising abilities of Madam Secretary. Democrats have learned nothing from Trump's victory.

... Therefore, get ready for eight years of President Trump.

While Hillary may be haunted by what might have been, Democrats may be haunted by another Hillary run.

RECENT VIDEOS