(via Jim Newell at Salon)
Asked and answered, as the expression goes. Hillary had an unobjectionable, if thoroughly anodyne, response to the DREAMers: We should elect more Democrats. It’s not the answer they were looking for, and it’s not the answer the media wanted (because it’s hard to twist into either disrespect or slavish agreement with the current President), but it’s not like she dropped her burger and ran away choking, either.
I think Dave Weigel has the best take I’ve seen:
… The reader may be surprised to learn that Clinton did not reveal her 2016 plans to a reporter on a ropeline. Nor to the other reporter who asked. Actually, it appeared as though Clinton was following the plan of every other 2016 candidate—pacing herself before the midterms, making a decision after them. It’s almost unheard of to announce a presidential run before the previous cycle’s midterms are over, and the only guy who’s broken that recently was Mike Gravel, who did not become the nominee…
The Hillary 2016 campaign is a minor problem for Democrats. They are generally ready to nominate her. Some of them want a progressive challenge that moves her to the left, or at least keeps her honest. Far, far fewer believe that the party needs a savior, because it already tossed her aside for one of those.
Hillary 2016 is a far bigger problem for the media, which simultaneously is ready right now to cover her like a nominee—200 reporters!—and yet so palpably bored with how she talks, and runs.
The media needs eyeballs, in order to sell advertising. The Media Villagers need entertainment, and it’s worth their sinecures to be caught watching — or mocking — the simple pleasures of the True Heartlander (reality tv and YouTube), so they want the political equivalent of a bear to bait or a bull to lance. It’s gonna be a long slog to 2016.
And yet: We do need to elect more Democrats!