Archive by Author

Noem says she would be 'shocked' if Trump asks her to be 2024 running mate

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) said on Sunday that she would support former President Trump if he runs again in 2024 but declined to say if she wants to be his running mate.

“I think that there’s a lot of people out there who would like his running mate, I’m focused on getting reelected,” Noem told CNN “State of the Union” co-anchor Dana Bash. 

“I don’t operate in that hypothetical, either,” Noem continued. “I would be shocked if he asked. And right now, I’m just so focused on South Dakota, we’re doing great things and we’ve got a lot more to do the next four years.”

When asked if Trump bore any responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, Noem declined to say but called the attack a “horrific day.”

“I think we all need to examine this country and where we’re going,” she said after Bash repeatedly pressed her on the issue.

Trump is widely speculated to make a third bid for the White House in 2024. But as Vice President Pence increasingly breaks with Trump over Jan. 6, questions have swirled over Trump’s potential running mate.

Noem and other Republicans also are rumored to be considering a presidential run or posturing for a possible opening on a GOP ticket with Trump if he ultimately mounts a bid.

“It is clear she is running for president or vice president,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said of Noem during an interview with Bash minutes later on Sunday. “She’s scared to death of the base.”

Kinzinger, who previously served in Congress with Noem, said she is now “something very different.”

“This is not the Kristi Noem I served with,” Kinzinger said. “Kristi whom I served with was conservative, dedicated the truth. I at the time would have thought [she] would have put her country above her political career at any moment.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Liz Cheney has a political future — we just don’t know what it will be

Last May I wrote a piece outlining why Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) was “different” than nearly every other Republican who had dared to cross former President Donald Trump. While some members of the GOP learned how to sidle up to the former Commander in Chief, and while others opted to resign with their political tails between their legs, “Cheney’s fearless ambition sets her apart. Because she so firmly believes in herself, she won’t be diminished without a fight.”

At that time, House Republicans were confronted with a decision that seemed easy, but was actually existential: re-elect lifelong conservative Cheney as the party’s House Conference Chair — the No. 3 Republican in the chamber — or choose moderate-turned-MAGA Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.).

I had thought — wrongly — that in a secret-ballot vote, enough Republicans still upset about the Jan. 6 terrorist attack only four months earlier would — without risk of retribution — stick with Cheney. This was their opportunity to take a consequential stand with no dire consequences. Maintaining the status quo while trying to move on from a tumultuous election cycle seemed fitting, if not entirely beneficial.

But the GOP instead handed Stefanik 74 percent of the vote. Soon after, Trump endorsed Cheney’s leading 2022 primary challenger, Harriet Hageman. Earlier this year, Stefanik and GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made the unusual move of endorsing Hageman, as well.

For most politicians, it would be game over. Cheney already had a narrow path to tread in the Age of Trump. As a largely powerless congresswoman with few public backers — and based on polls, a longshot to win re-election — she appeared to be approaching a dead end.

Her best chance at retaining political clout — and as a result, a political future — would be to align with her longtime opponents on the other side of the aisle. And of course, House Democrats were all too happy to align with her, as well as retiring GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), as members of the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Attack. Democrats gave Cheney a political lifeline, and as co-chair of the committee, she gave them a public semblance of bipartisanship.

Ironically, earlier this year, the Republican National Committee censured Cheney (and Kinzinger) for their roles on the committee. But of course, that’s like an ex-fling calling you a “big ol’ meanie” a decade after they broke up with you, while they’re being investigated for criminal activity, and while you’re happily married with three kids.

In fact, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel’s desperation to sully Cheney’s reputation mirrors efforts by Trump, McCarthy, Stefanik, and many other Republican leaders who are awaking to the realization that Cheney is now more powerful than ever before, while the GOP brand continues to weaken with each successive round of damning testimony.

The lone congresswoman from Wyoming has a new lease on political life that realistically could go in one of three directions. 

On one path, she’ll overcome the odds and win the August GOP primary, and then lock down re-election in November. The latter step might prove difficult, especially if Hageman decides to run as an independent. But if Cheney makes it through this gauntlet, she would return to Congress with an eye toward rebuilding her reputation from the inside, hoping to outlast MAGA and help rebuild a more traditionally conservative party — one that she can lead.

A second path would send her packing in August (or November, if she loses to a third-party conservative), after which she might lay low for a couple of years, focus on re-strengthening ties with Wyoming Republicans, hit the speaking circuit, build up her coffers, and wait and see if one of her state’s soon-to-be septuagenarian senators announces their decision not to run for re-election. If Trump’s not on the ballot in 2024, then Cheney’s gradual rebirth as a mainstream Republican would be more achievable.

A third path puts her on a trajectory for a presidential run in 2028 or 2032 … or 2024? If you think that’s outlandish, consider that 85 percent of Americans believe the country’s headed in the wrong direction. Trump might very well announce another run, setting up perhaps the bloodiest GOP primary since, well, ever. And Democrats are agonizing over the possibility of unpopular President Joe Biden running for re-election.

This doesn’t mean Cheney would win. But multiple times Cheney has run for positions that she had little chance of securing. That hasn’t stopped her.

As I wrote last year, Cheney is built differently. Her fearlessness makes her heroic to some, dangerous to others, and at times, reckless to the electorate. But it is who she is. And whichever path she chooses, and whether she fails or succeeds, her unflappability continues to separate her from the pack.

B.J. Rudell is a longtime political strategist, former associate director for Duke University’s Center for Politics, and recent North Carolina Democratic Party operative. In a career encompassing stints on Capitol Hill, on presidential campaigns, in a newsroom, in classrooms, and for a consulting firm, he has authored three books and has shared political insights across all media platforms, including for CNN and Fox News.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cheney says it's possible Jan. 6 panel will make criminal referral against Trump

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that it’s possible that the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack at the U.S. Capitol will make a criminal referral against former President Trump.

During the interview on ABC’s “This Week,” the network’s chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl, asked Cheney — who serves as the vice chair on the committee — whether the panel’s hearings have demonstrated that Trump should be prosecuted.

“Ultimately, the Justice Department will decide that,” Cheney responded. “I think we may well as a committee have a view on that. And if you just think about it from the perspective of, what kind of man knows that a mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the Capitol and further incites that mob when his own vice president is under threat, when the Congress is under threat?”

“It’s just very chilling. And I think certainly we will continue to present to the American people what we’ve found,” she added.

When pressed by Karl, Cheney said that it is possible the committee will officially make a criminal referral. She also noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) doesn’t need to wait for the panel to make a decision in order for them to make its own criminal referral.

Last month, the committee’s chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), sparked criticism after saying that the panel would not make a criminal referral, claiming that it’s “not our job.” Thompson clarified soon after making his comments that the decision to make a referral remained a possibility.

Cheney’s comments follow ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony last week to the panel about the former president’s behavior during the attack on the Capitol. Cheney told Karl in a previously released portion of the interview that she wholeheartedly believes in Hutchinson’s credibility.

“I am absolutely confident in her credibility. I’m confident in her testimony,” Cheney said. “I think that what Cassidy Hutchinson did was an unbelievable example of bravery and of courage and patriotism in the face of real pressure.”

Karl also asked Cheney if she’s concerned about the possibility of Trump running for president in 2024 against Biden amid a Justice Department prosecutor. Cheney answered that she was more worried about the possibility of people who hold responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack not being held accountable and the “constitutional threat” that could impose on the country.

“I have greater concern about what it would mean if people weren’t held accountable for what’s happened here,” the Republican congresswoman said. “I think it’s a much graver constitutional threat if a president can engage in these kinds of activities and the majority of the president’s party looks away, or we as a country decide, ‘You know, we’re not actually going to take out constitutional obligation seriously.’ I think that’s a much more serious threat.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The importance of CAPSTONE: First mission of NASA’s return to the moon

The first mission of NASA’s Artemis program, CAPSTONE, is on its way to the moon. The mission of the microwave-sized probe is to test the peculiar elliptical orbit around the moon that is planned for the Lunar Gateway, a facility that has come under some criticism. It will also test deep-space navigation technology, using the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that has been in service since 2009. However, CAPSTONE’s real importance is the launch company that sent it on its way.

CAPSTONE, which is short for Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment, was launched by a company called Rocket Lab from a facility located in New Zealand. Rocket Lab has launched a number of small satellites into Earth orbit on its two stage Electron rocket. CAPSTONE is the company’s first deep-space mission. It may be the first of many. For instance, Rocket Lab is planning to launch a private probe to Venus in 2023.

According to an analysis published by NBC News, Rocket Lab proposes to be a competitor to SpaceX. It’s not there yet. A satellite launched on an Electron costs about $10,000 per pound as opposed to about $1,200 per pound on a SpaceX Falcon 9. Unlike Falcon 9, Electron is not reusable, although Rocket Lab is experimenting with catching the first stage midair with a helicopter to return it intact for reuse. The rocket is powered by 3D-printed Rutherford engines.

However, according to a recent presentation, Rocket Lab already has a new rocket, the Neutron, in development. The company describes it as a “rocket for 2050 – built today.” It incorporates some impressive technology that should make it far cheaper to operate than anything flying today. These technologies include:

• Carbon composite materials that are stronger and lighter and, using a new process called “automatic fiber placement” cheaper to manufacture than anything currently in use for rockets
• Retractable fairings, the part of the rocket that protects the payload during launch, which remain attached but open and close as needed
• Archimedes rocket engines that can be reused over and over again with a minimum of refurbishment and repair
• The ability to land the first stage back at the launch site, without using a drone barge at sea

The Neutron will be designed to launch constellations of small satellites, similar to the SpaceX Starlink. It can also be used to launch heavier satellites to geostationary orbit, planetary probes to deep space and even crewed spacecraft.

Clearly, Rocket Lab is gunning for SpaceX with an urgency and an eye for innovation that thus far commercial space rival Blue Origin, whose New Glenn is still in development, has not been able to accomplish.

Neutron, however, is not scheduled to fly earlier that 2024. SpaceX is still developing the Starship, the absolute beast of a rocket that is designed to deliver 100 metric tons anywhere in the solar system, using in-space refueling. Even so, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had best look to his laurels.

So far, SpaceX has dominated the space launch industry. It has lowered the cost of launching payloads into space by orders of magnitude. The company is taking cargo and crew to and from the International Space Station. The first Americans back to the moon will ride to the lunar surface on board a SpaceX rocket. Musk’s dreams of settling Mars seem within the realm of possibility.

The rise of Rocket Lab, as exemplified by the launch of CAPSTONE to the moon, suggests that the SpaceX dominance may be coming to an end. In the over-all scheme of things, this new competition is a good thing. Competition in the launch business will mean even lower costs and expanded capabilities as humankind begins to realize the immense opportunities that space offers.

The rise of Rocket Lab also represents a warning for other launch companies, including legacy firms such as United Launch Alliance and would-be upstarts such as Blue Origin. Talking about or playing at innovation will not cut it anymore. To quote a line from “Star Wars,” “Do or do not. There is no try.”

The histories of other industries are littered with the wreckage of once proud companies that lost the innovation race. It looks like Rocket Lab does not propose to be one of those when the history of the commercial launch industry is written.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of space exploration studies “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Mayorkas: Migrants who died in Texas 'put their lives' in criminal organizations' hands

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Sunday warned against migrants attempting to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border after dozens died inside a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas last week.

“These migrants received false information from smugglers,” Mayorkas said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“They put their lives, their life savings, in the hands of these exploitative organizations, these criminal organizations that do not care for their lives and only seek to make a profit,” he added, noting that smuggling organizations have become “very sophisticated” in recent years.

Fifty-three migrants have died out of the 64 people found inside the vehicle on Monday, and the Justice Department last week charged four individuals in connection with the incident.

More migrants died or went missing in 2021 at the U.S.-Mexico border than any year since at least 2014, according to The Migrant Project, an initiative run by the United Nations. The group has documented 297 dead or missing migrants at the border so far in 2022.

“We continue to warn people not to take the dangerous journey,” Mayorkas said on Sunday. “We saw so tragically in San Antonio, Texas, one of the possible tragic results of that dangerous journey, and so many people don’t even make it that far in the hands of exploitative smugglers.”

Mayorkas also said he did not expect the number of migrants to continue to surge.

“No, I’m not predicting that at all,” he told host Margaret Brennan.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the Biden administration in its plan to end the “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy, ruling 5-4 that the administration did not violate federal immigration law in seeking to rescind the Trump-era rule. The policy, which came under fire from immigration advocates, requires U.S. asylum-seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their applications are processed.

“Their proceedings will continue in immigration court, where they will pursue their claims for asylum,” Mayorkas said on Sunday. “And if those claims are unsuccessful, they will be swiftly removed from the United States.”

Source: TEST FEED1

There’s something more dangerous than the ‘Big Lie’

In a recent Jan. 6 hearing, Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling revealed the most important insight into our current democratic challenges. He was describing how he painstakingly went through each false election claim put forward by one of his family members. When the list was exhausted, the family member acknowledged the evidence presented but declared that it didn’t matter. He knew “in his heart” the election was stolen.

We need to understand and address this mindset to find our way forward as a democracy and a society. It’s not about the lie, but what lies beneath.

In winning hearts and minds, we cannot neglect hearts.

Many of us concerned about democracy fret endlessly about information integrity. We discuss regulations on social media and other channels to stop the flow of dis/mal/mis information. We invest in debunking false information. We worry about our inability to penetrate certain information bubbles with the truth. Many articles were written about Fox News not airing the first Jan. 6 hearing or Tucker Carlson’s show never cutting to commercial. All because we believe somehow if people could just see and hear the truth — if we reach their minds — it will be better.

But the facts are all around us. We do not live in Russia where we can go to jail for reporting on, or even acknowledging, the truth, or behind a great firewall like folks in China. And while for some, no doubt a different media diet could change behavior and attitudes, we need to acknowledge that for others it is not about information but something far deeper, more primal. What is in Sterling’s relative’s heart? Why is it simply inconceivable that Biden won?

Part of the challenge we know is that often facts don’t change minds. Fact-checking can sometimes backfire, ironically making people hold on more fervently to the corrected lie. But it’s also the case that people may understand or accept the facts but simply not care, as they are motivated by something else. Thus, all the logic and evidence — even from trusted messengers, as in Sterling’s case — doesn’t shake the ‘Big Lie,’ because the lie isn’t really the point.

The United States is not alone. In the Philippines, Bongbong Marcos campaigned on fantasies about the traditional, glorious past when his father ruled and on lies about his opponents. His supporters acknowledged his mendacity. It just had no influence on their support.

We like to believe that political opinions and voting behavior are fact-driven and informed by crisp policy arguments, political ideology, performance records, and — above all — informed choice. Sadly, we have never met this standard. Voter behavior is inconsistent, driven by emotions, and often uninformed. I’ve lived in many countries where voting is based on patron-client relations and historical family clan ties, with some vote-buying thrown in. Platforms and agendas do not even come up. And it is not unusual for political support to hold steadfast despite the transgressions or lies of our preferred leaders.

The dangerous inflection point we are at, however, is that loyalty to team has become not only more important than facts, but more important than democracy — and has justified harassment and violence.

Many have written about the deep polarization and partisan tribalism that has turned our opponents into mortal enemies and made contestations of power a zero-sum game. Some research makes the case that historical and cultural mythology, grievance, and fear (of change, of difference, of other) can drive people to vote against their own self-interest. Certainly the Trump campaign leaned into fear, whether caravans of immigrants coming to take your job and rape you or more explicit “great replacement” narratives that threaten traditional pecking orders of white power. Thus, for some Trump supporters, a Biden victory is inconceivable as it poses an existential threat challenging their assumed political power as well as their cultural dominance.

We must remain committed to building democracies’ defenses against disinformation and trust in accurate information sources (and this is part of my own organization’s mission). But we also need to address the underlying psychology that allows public indifference to truth.

This may require tackling those deeply held fears head-on and figuring out ways to “de-tribalize” our communities.

Dialogues and trust-building discourse may help de-polarize and build cohesion, particularly when bringing together people from across socio-economic, racial/religious, and geographic divides. Research on the desegregation of units in the Korean War, for example, has shown that men from desegregated units demonstrated more lifelong tolerance than segregated ones. Summer camps that have integrated Palestinian and Israeli kids have had a similar effect in building understanding and empathy. Connecting people from disparate backgrounds to work toward a common goal, such as mandatory civil service, is worth exploring.

Importantly, and perhaps impossibly, our political leaders need to stop feeding the fear and grievances and instead get behind bringing us together rather than tearing us apart.

The Jan. 6 hearings are critical for creating a historical record and advocating for the protection of our democracy going forward. This protection will require understanding people’s hearts as well as their minds to embrace values of democracy and truth.

Laura L. Thornton is director and senior fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund. Prior to joining ASD, she worked for 25 years in Asia and the former Soviet Union for democracy-promotion organizations.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 panel member 'surprised' by prosecutors' reaction to Hutchinson testimony

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who sits on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, said she is “surprised” by federal prosecutors’ reactions to testimony given before the panel this week by Cassidy Hutchinson, who previously served as an aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that was aired on Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked Lofgren to react to a story published last week in The New York Times that reported federal prosecutors working on the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation felt blindsided after watching Hutchinson’s testimony and were as surprised by her remarks as those watching it. 

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper said that prior to her testimony, prosecutors had not been given transcripts or videos of her past interviews with the committee. Hutchinson spoke to panel investigators behind closed doors four times before testifying in Tuesday’s public hearing.

“You know, I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised. What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does,” Lofgren told Todd. 

Asked if she thought it was a fair characterization that the House panel had blindsided the Justice Department, she said she did not think so.

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice. We’re a legislative committee. They have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so. We interviewed her four times. I think that’s publicly known at this point. And the fourth interview was very compelling,” she added.

Lofgren’s comments come after Hutchinson gave explosive testimony during a last-minute hearing held by the panel on Tuesday.

Among the most significant pieces of her testimony, she said that both Meadows and Rudy Giuliani sought pardons from former President Trump, that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the car he was in on Jan. 6 in an attempt to get to the Capitol after being informed he could not be taken there and that Meadows told her on Jan. 2 that things could “get real, real bad” on the day the riot ultimately occurred.

Tensions have arisen between the House select committee and the Justice Department, the latter of which has complained its investigation has been hampered by the panel refusing to provide transcripts of witness interviews.

Source: TEST FEED1

HHS secretary: 'I don't believe' Roe will be overturned for long

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said during an interview aired Sunday that “I don’t believe” the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would stand for long.

“I’ve been around long enough to know that nothing’s ever totally safe. But remember, we still haven’t even been able to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. And so this country has a way to go. But certainly I don’t believe this decision by this court and Dobbs is going to stand long. This is just not America,” Becerra said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The Supreme Court last month ruled it would be overturning Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. Some Democrats have voiced frustration over leaders of their party and the president for not taking more forceful action in the wake of the high court’s ruling or for their immediate response to the decision.  

President Biden on Thursday did call for an exemption to be made to the filibuster for codifying abortion rights.

“Well I tell them, ‘Give us some good ideas.’ We’re going to explore everything we can,” Becerra replied when he was asked by “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd about what he would tell Democrats who feel that the party is not fighting hard enough.

“And I also would ask them to please pass a law. They have it in their power, if they can find the votes to actually codify the Roe decision, which is what we need more than anything else … We will find what we can and do as much as we can,” he continued. “But when you are stripped of a right, as the Supreme Court has just done to every woman of childbearing age, it is tough to overcome. It took 50 years for us to get as far as we did. Now we have to figure out how to do this. It will not be easy.”

The Health and Human Services secretary explained that while proposals have been offered, it does not necessarily mean the Biden administration can readily act on them.

“We have to make sure, Chuck, that we stay within the confines of the law, and that we have the resources to do it, and that our authorities allow us to do it,” he responded when he was asked to elaborate on one idea of transporting women to other states to receive abortions.

Becerra’s comments come as a patchwork of states across the country have quickly rolled back abortion access, though some state laws are now paused amid legal challenges that were soon filed after the Supreme Court’s decision.

Source: TEST FEED1

Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton

Earlier this year, I co-authored a piece for the Wall Street Journal which argued that a perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once unfathomable scenario — a comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024 — highly plausible.

Our reasoning was that President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run again, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket have created a leadership vacuum within the party which only Mrs. Clinton — as an experienced and politically savvy “change candidate” — can fill.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — upending decades of precedent and revoking a constitutional right that American women have enjoyed for half a century — the case for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is even clearer.

Regardless of one’s own political affiliation or opinions of Mrs. Clinton, the country knows her as an experienced politician and a champion of women’s rights. From her declaration at the United Nations in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights,” to being the first woman nominated as a major party’s candidate for president in 2016, she offers the exact type of leadership that the Democratic Party desperately needs. 

Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Joe Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.

Put another way, the stakes are simply too high for Democrats to remain on this slowly sinking ship. 

Democrats are headed for a blowout loss in November, even worse than in 1994 and 2010 — the two worst midterm election years for the party in recent history — when they lost 53 and 63 seats respectively, per Gallup’s analysis of four key national mood indicators.

Indeed, President Biden’s approval rating is lower than both Obama’s and Clinton’s at the same points in their presidency, and Americans in 2022 are less satisfied with the direction of the country, more negative about the economy, and more disapproving of Congress.

Polls generally show Republicans with a lead of at least 2 or 3 points in the 2022 generic vote for Congress. This advantage would likely give the G.O.P. a solid majority in the House — considering the favorable Republican rulings in redistricting litigation in key states, as well as the likelihood that Republican turnout will be even higher than most pollsters are currently accounting for.

While Joe Biden was the right person to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, he is clearly not the right person to lead the Democratic Party going forward — as only 36 percent of Democrats believe that President Biden gives them the best chance to win the presidency in 2024, per recent polling.

To be sure, Democrats’ confidence in President Biden will only decline further after the party experiences a shellacking in the midterm elections. These voters will be looking for a change candidate who is experienced, effective, savvy, and committed to the issues they care most about — namely, women’s and civil rights. 

At that point, Hillary Clinton will have a unique opportunity to position herself as an experienced candidate, capable of leading Democrats on a more successful path, who will also fight — as she has done her entire career — for women’s rights. 

As John Ellis wrote this week, “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.”

Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.

Repositing herself in the national spotlight, Mrs. Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”

Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Mrs. Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.  

Aside from Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party lacks any other rising stars who could take the torch from Biden — if he chooses not to run — and win in a general election. The most natural successor would be Vice President Harris. However, Harris is even more unpopular than Biden, and would almost guarantee a Republican victory in 2024.

Further, Harris’ response to Roe being overturned missed the mark, as she was widely criticized for trying to make the case that abortion access will greatly impact America’s sons.

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton is the only prominent Democrat with the experience, the campaign infrastructure, the political know-how, and the proven track record who can win a general election.  

As Fox News Channel’s Juan Williams wrote earlier this week, “Democrats need a strong voice ready to fight to restore women’s rights, now that the Supreme Court has struck down Roe v. Wade. There’s only one Hillary Clinton.”

If Democrats want a chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Hillary Clinton is — now more than ever — their best chance.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” 

Source: TEST FEED1