I usually don't agree with Peggy Noonan, but this is actual analysis instead of her usual water-carrying drivel. Basically it's talking about the hawkishness of Hillary vs the populist (and non-internventionalist) aspects of Rand Paul.
It does bring up an interesting point: If it comes down to a populist, non-interventionalist like Paul vs a Wall Street, big business hawk like Hillary, what then? Might be the first election since 2000 where I'd actually be interested in what both candidates had to say...
And then this morning WashPo had an article detailing how Rand Paul (and the other Libertarians) are using Ferguson to tout a populist message.But what if the nominee were Rand Paul? And he went up against Mrs. Clinton? The Kentucky senator would, presumably, be to her left on foreign policy. That would be historic enough. But what would the GOP's establishmentarians, its money men and opinion shapers, do if the 2016 election came down to Mr. Paul versus a more moderate-seeming Hillary? They just might choose Mrs. Clinton. Bolt the party, or sit this one out.
We could see a rising populist candidate pretty much split the Democratic Party this year, and a rising libertarian one pretty much split the Republicans.
It does bring up an interesting point: If it comes down to a populist, non-interventionalist like Paul vs a Wall Street, big business hawk like Hillary, what then? Might be the first election since 2000 where I'd actually be interested in what both candidates had to say...