WASHINGTON – We just can’t leave it alone. Writing about Hillary Clinton and her prospects for 2016 is just too delectable, too enticing, too historically epic in proportions that keeping it all alive until Mrs. Clinton decides is what any political writer worth his or her salt will do. You’re going to have to decide what’s worth reading, because right now it’s a crap storm out there. However, the latest topic of discussion is on whether Hillary is a “field-clearer” for 2016.

Mike Allen, as only he can do [see video above], succinctly and correctly lays out the case why Hillary is in the position she is today. It doesn’t take a historical rundown, or any dissecting of any great magnitude. It comes down to the issue that Mrs. Clinton has the resume, has paid her dues, and there has never been a female president of the United States and it’s long past time there was and she’s made for casting.

Jonathan Martin wrote the best piece yet on it, which kicked off the conversation down the new media chain, because to be out of the Hillary traffic loop on the web is accepting irrelevancy.

Steve Kornacki does the historic work, filling in the background, because the obvious has already been done.

David Corn recently revealed yet again his endless anti-Clinton bloodline, opining “I’m not convinced yet that Hillary is going to run because she’ll be 69.”

The rebuttal was left to Joan Walsh, who was afraid of calling Corn out in her piece, “No, Hillary Clinton is not too old to be president.” Writing, “I’m not crying sexism,” talking about Corn, then finishing with “there’s no doubt Clinton’s age will push more people’s buttons than if she were a man.” Leaving Corn aside, it’s logic twisted in knots until it chokes.

I’ve never been afflicted with that disease, which is why I became a pariah for telling the truth and being right. So a little truth… It’s not that David Corn is sexist; it’s that he’s a die hard Clinton hater.

And what would a “field-clearing” story be without juicy gossip came from a Clintonite who just can’t help but keep that hope alive? Unloading the absolute dish for Rupert Murdoch’s rag is the best way to get it done.

“Hillary will be our next president and she will be a great one,” Angelo Tsakopoulos, 76, told the Greek Reporter at a private banquet in California last weekend. “I talked to her husband, and he confirmed it. She will run.”

Who can doubt that former President Bill Clinton would say that to someone on the sly?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a “field-clearer,” because she’s the most capable candidate the Democratic party could field in 2016, including Vice President Joe Biden, who is a tremendous asset for Democrats, but is still just another white male among many. But nobody knows better than Clinton that getting the nomination is a lot different from being considered inevitable, though if she does run, 2016 won’t look at all like 2008. Having been on the front lines and written the book on what happened, I can say this with some authority.

Taylor Marsh, is an author and veteran political analyst who has contributed to Huffington Post, The Hill, U.S. News & World Report, as well as cable outfits from Al Jazeera to CNN and beyond. A former Broadway performer, Miss Missouri in the Miss American Pageant, Marsh also dabbled in radio and wrote, directed and produced her one-woman show “Weeking for J.F.K.” Author of The Hillary Effect, Marsh’s book is available at Barnes and Noble and on Amazon. Her new-media magazine www.taylormarsh.com covers national politics, women, foreign policy, and culture.

TAYLOR MARSH, Guest Voice Columnist
Leave a replyComments (17)
  1. zephyr March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am

    I agree she would be a field clearer. I also think overreaction from the Hillary haters (what other kind is there) would backlash and end up working in her favor. As for this…

    Who can doubt that former President Bill Clinton would say that to someone on the sly?

    Seems to me just the sort of information he might let slide during an unguarded (or perhaps planned) moment.

  2. dduck March 1, 2013 at 11:47 am

    “David Corn recently revealed yet again his endless anti-Clinton bloodline, opining “I’m not convinced yet that Hillary is going to run because she’ll be 69.”
    Interesting, that is Bob Woodward’s age.

  3. ShannonLeee March 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Just like in 2008, the Republican Party has no one ready for a Presidential run in the coming cycle, at least no one that can compete with Hillary. Barring an Obama disaster this term and betting that she won’t run an arrogant campaign like in 2008, she should have a pretty clear run to the White House in 2016.

    As I have written before, she has my vote.

  4. dduck March 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Watch out for Kerry, more qualified and more honest.

  5. The_Ohioan March 1, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    One advantage, unless the Republicans also have a woman candidate, is the sexist blame game would be a powerful weapon just as it was in 2008. Both Ms Palin and Ms. Clinton had an edge that no mere male could ever expect.

    I’m not a Clinton hater, but would never vote for either again because of their nanny obsession and their pure political power prevarications. Ms Clinton could and should be an excellent advocate for the half of the human population many of whom are living in near slavery.

  6. ShannonLeee March 1, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Kerry could not even beat W.

    Nanny obsession?

  7. zephyr March 1, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Watch out for Kerry, more qualified and more honest


    nanny obsession


  8. KP March 1, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Taylor, you knit the subject up in a tight bow. I read through the article, was impressed by the straight talk and due diligence, then looked to see who wrote it. Not surprised it was your piece. “POW”.

  9. dduck March 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    SL, at least we know when Kerry was being shot at that it was for real.
    More experience: head of Foreign Relations Comm., a veteran and a SoS.
    Plus, his spouse probably won’t get in the way.

  10. zephyr March 1, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    Forget Kerry, he had his chance and couldn’t pull it off. Democrats won’t take a chance on him losing twice. He’s fine with the cabinet position.

  11. ShannonLeee March 1, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    Nah, Kerry blew a no brainer shot at a terrible incumbent and failed. He is done as a candidate.

  12. SteveK March 1, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    Have to agree with ShannonLeee… Kerry is Ketchup.

  13. KP March 1, 2013 at 11:36 pm

    “Kerry is Ketchup”

    Ha ha .. ha ha .. credit!

  14. The_Ohioan March 2, 2013 at 5:24 am

    Nanny obsession: Malady afflicting authority figure(s)(often political) who consider themselves smarter, better educated, and more knowledgeable about what one needs than oneself.

  15. zephyr March 2, 2013 at 7:58 am

    Well Ohioan, it’s a fair bet that Hillary IS smarter, better educated and more knowledgeable than most people. Only in politics would that be considered a possible drawback. As for the “obsession” part, I don’t see it.

  16. dduck March 2, 2013 at 9:32 am

    SL, puhleez, beating an incumbent when you are not a good BS artist is very difficult, especially when you look at the time, 2004, the nearness of 9/11 and the momentum of the war in Iraq.
    If HC can have the public forget all her, and his, baggage and emerge as a pristine candidate, then Kerry can forget his lost “chance”.

  17. The_Ohioan March 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm


    She/he may be. But people don’t like being told not only that what has been done was done for them, but that they should be grateful for what was done for them.

    Health care done for them, not by them (or even their representatives). Fail.
    It takes a village. Not everyone has a village and do very well. Fail.

    Her whole career is working to change things for women world wide. Admirable, and certainly needs doing, but her version doesn’t always do what’s best for those involved.

    Besides, she’s a war hawk and will probably do for us what we don’t want done in the Middle East and elsewhere. It’s an attitude of “just let me do it” that’s offputting.