For months, the Republicans’ prospective 2016 contenders have been taking pot shots at each other. But things are now heating up on the Democratic side as well.
Andrew Stiles at the Free Beacon notes that the Democrats’ coalition—centered around a Clinton candidacy—seems to be fracturing. Stiles cites a piece by Ezra Klein titled, “Hillary Clinton’s Atlantic interview shows she’s not inevitable” and writes:
Klein isn’t the only liberal reassessing his assumptions about Hillary’s inevitability. The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber argued that Clinton’s “provocative” Atlantic interview was “the first blunder of her 2016 campaign.” Given that liberals are less than enthusiastic about Clinton’s rhetoric on income inequality, Scheiber suggests, she could be increasingly vulnerable to a Democratic primary challenger such as Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden.
MoveOn.org also was not impressed. The once-relevant left-wing group said Hillary “should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today.”
Not only is Clinton’s foreign policy under attack from the left, but her economic policy is taking a hit, too. Several weeks ago at the liberal rally Netroots Nation, Politico reported, activists were displeased with Clinton, comparing her closeness with Wall Street to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s seemingly more populist economic approach:
“Certainly, I would vote for her, OK, but if she wins the primary, I’m going to focus on local elections,” said Alberto Saavedra, who works in the computer industry in Los Angeles. Asked whom he would be excited about for 2016, he replied, “Guess who … Elizabeth Warren. She has spoken so well about the issues that concern average Americans, she’s not too of-Wall Street. Hillary is too Wall Street and also too hawkish, but compared to any of the Republicans, she’s acceptable.”
Cracks are appearing in Clintonworld, and she hasn’t even announced that she’s running yet.
