We begin today's roundup with
Eugene Robinson, who asks if history is finally on Hillary Clinton's side as she makes her bid for the presidency:
No sooner had Clinton announced than the Republican National Committee issued a statement saying she has “left a trail of secrecy, scandal and failed policies.” Other Republicans resumed the familiar Benghazi chant. It doesn’t take clairvoyance to predict that the anti-Clinton rhetoric will become more heated, more extreme and more personal. I don’t think anyone will be surprised if it becomes sexist as well.
My guess is that progressive Democrats will react to these attacks by rallying around their party’s certain nominee. This time, Clinton’s inevitability looks real. History may well be on her side for a change.
Bloomberg's editors, meanwhile, take on the many sides of Marco Rubio:
Marco Rubio's entry into the presidential campaign could be welcome news -- depending on which Rubio is running.
All politicians are a combination of the principled and the calculating, of course; successful ones even more so. And one candidate's ideological stand is another's craven surrender. Sometimes it's even hard for supporters to tell the difference.
Yet this dichotomy within Rubio seems especially stark. At his best, the Republican junior senator from Florida demonstrates that his party is more than a collection of oppositionists and ideologues.
Much more below the fold.
Jonathan Capehart says Clinton is a "culture warrior" on equal rights:
Yes, plenty of Republicans have evolved on LGBT rights and marriage equality. But they aren’t running for president, which is great for Clinton and the other Democrats who will run for president. For them, LGBT Americans are an integral part of the national fabric. That their lives, relationships and families deserve the respect and dignity accorded all those striving to achieve their brand of the American Dream is a settled issue. It’s just one more issue to contrast themselves more favorably against a Republican Party and candidates who want the nation to believe it is looking to the future — from a 1950s redoubt.
Ryan Cooper at The Week argues that Clinton may be "misjudging" the 2016 landscape:
I submit that for any liberal candidate, trying to run a middle-of-the-road campaign in an age of stupendous inequality is highly politically risky. The reason is that not only does this feed the (largely correct, at this point) perception that both parties are owned by the 1 percent, thus depressing left-wing turnout, but it also leaves their most powerful political weapon by the wayside. When the Democrats ran some conservative Wall Steet hack in 1924, they got crushed. [...]
Instead, so far Clinton is being utterly mealy-mouthed about the issue, talking about the need for "consensus" and equality of opportunity and other such weak tea, probably in part to keep the donor class happy. On the contrary, this is zero-sum class war, and the 1 percent has been winning for 40 years. If the rest of the country is to win, then the rich have to lose. Failing to acknowledge that obvious fact is the kind of timid conservatism that may cost Clinton the election.
Monica Potts at The Daily Beast dives into polling on millenials:
Millennials are first of all more likely to be Democratic—51 percent identify as Democratic or Democratic leaning, as opposed to 35 percent Republican leaning. Millennials are a big generation, and the younger half are more partisan than their slightly older peers: the number who identified as Dem or Dem leaning inched up from 50 to 51 percent, those who leaned in the opposite direction toward Republicans went up from 13 percent to a still anemic 16 percent. Meanwhile, the number of undecideds fell, which makes sense in our highly partisan climate.
At US News,
Jennifer Lawrence adds her take on Clinton's run:
Clinton obviously can’t help being a woman of a certain age, or how people react to that. Clinton fatigue – the sense that she is overly political and familiar or, to put it more bluntly, stale – is a more complicated issue. She might have benefited from time out of the spotlight when she stepped down as secretary of state in early 2013. That was an opportunity to hold on for a while to her identity as a top diplomat apart from politics, enjoying the higher poll ratings associated with being outside the political arena. Then she could have come roaring back into the public eye as a White House contender.
Finally, take some time today and
read this piece by Michael Daly at The Daily Beast which recounts "the untold miracle of Lincoln's last day on Earth":
Just after 3 p.m. on that fateful day, President Lincoln heard a commotion outside his White House office, followed by a woman’s cry.
“But I need to see Mr. Lincoln!”
Lincoln opened the office door and saw the guards hustling the woman out. The date was April 14, 1865, exactly 150 years ago.
“I’m here,” he reportedly said. “Tell me what you want. I have time for all good people who need to see me. Let the good woman come in.”