TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton Goes Unnoticed at Chipotle

Yes, she'll pay extra for guac

Hillary Clinton has had to make a lot of important decisions recently. Black or pinto beans? What kind of meat would she like? Does she want salsa? Most importantly, is she willing to pay extra for guacamole?

The answer to that last question is apparently yes. Clinton, who launched her presidential bid on Sunday in a long-awaited announcement, visited a Chipotle on Monday during a stop on her 1,000-mile campaign kick-off road trip, the New York Times reports. Charles Wright, manager of the restaurant in the Toledo suburb of Maumee where Clinton stopped, said she ordered a chicken burrito bowl (with the guac), a chicken salad and two drinks.

Clinton, joined by longtime aide Huma Abedin, went mostly unrecognized by Chipotle staff and customers. Wright wasn’t even aware that Clinton stopped by until he checked the security footage after a Times reporter called about a tip. “The thing is, she has these dark sunglasses on,” Wright said. “She just was another lady.”

In a way, that’s just the message Clinton is trying to send with her campaign.

[NYT]

Read next: Hillary Clinton’s Main Obstacle: Her Own Inevitability

TIME World

A Sword-Wielding Polish Prince Just Challenged a U.K. Politician to a Duel

"I’d like us to meet in Hyde Park one morning, with our swords, and resolve this matter"

The son of a celebrated Polish cavalry officer has formally challenged an English parliamentary candidate to a duel.

Polish prince Janek Żyliński challenged UKIP leader Nigel Farage to a 18th-century-style duel in a video posted on Youtube. Janek is the son of Andrzej Żyliński, a Polish officer who led a charge against the Nazis in 1939, according to the Independent.

“I’ve had enough of the discrimination against Polish people in this country,” Żyliński said before brandishing the sword his father used in World War II. “The most idiotic example I’ve heard of has been Mr. Nigel Farage blaming migrants for traffic jams on the M40.”

“What I’d like to do is to challenge you to a duel. I’d like us to meet in Hyde Park one morning, with our swords, and resolve this matter,” he continued.

“It is an impressive sword,” Farage said in response to the video, according to Sky News. “I don’t have one but I’m sure we could find one if we had to. But I’m not intending to accept the offer.”

[The Independent]

TIME politics

How a Hug Jump-Started Marco Rubio’s Career

Marco Rubio
Joe Raedle—Getty Images Marco Rubio speaks about Cuba during a Cuban Independence Day Celebration at the InterContinental Hotel May 23, 2008, in Miami

The Florida Senator was helped along by a politically perilous PDA

Monday promises to be a big day for Marco Rubio: the Florida Senator has said that he’ll announce whether he plans to run in the next election, and for what.

It was only a little more than five years ago that Rubio took the big risk that brought him to the precipice of a potential presidential candidacy. He had spent nearly a decade in the Florida state legislature but, in mid-2009, was not in office. In mid 2009, Florida’s governor Charlie Crist seemed to have the race locked up to become Florida’s next Senator. Then, after Barack Obama won the White House, Crist appeared at an event with the new President and exchanged a hug.

Rubio, as TIME’s David von Drehle recounted in a 2010 cover story about the changing Republican party, saw his chance:

Another Florida Republican had a different idea. His name was Marco Rubio. He was the baby-faced former speaker of the Florida legislature. Well-wired Floridians knew that Rubio was thinking about challenging Crist for a seat in the U.S. Senate, and they also knew that this was quixotic because Crist had at least a 30-point lead in the polls, plus friends and money and endorsements from powerful Republicans around the country.

But Rubio saw an opportunity in that hug. If one possible Republican strategy was to embrace the Democratic spending agenda, surely there was a case to be made for opposing it. Rubio decided to “stand up to this Big Government agenda, not be co-opted by it,” and three months after The Hug, tossed his hat into the ring. The date was May 5, 2009.

Looking back, that was the day the 2010 election truly began–not just the campaign for a Senate seat from Florida but the broad national campaign for control of Congress and the direction of the country. Rubio’s decision to wage a philosophical battle for the soul of the Florida GOP was a catalyst for the surprising and outrageous events that followed. He became a darling of the nascent Tea Party movement and a point man in the movement’s purge of the GOP establishment. Rubio led the way for a dust-kicking herd of dark-horse candidates–some thoroughbreds, some nags. And most of all, Rubio symbolized the fact that this year’s midterms have become a referendum on such fundamental issues as the role of government and the size of the public debt.

Crist eventually dropped out of the Republican field to run as an Independent, but it was too late. Rubio won the Senate seat and was catapulted to the top rung of the Republican Party.

Read the 2010 cover story, here in the TIME archives: Party Crashers

Read next: Republican Candidates Didn’t Just Talk Guns at NRA Event

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME White House

Thomas Jefferson Almost Didn’t Run for President

'Thomas Jefferson', 1805. Artist: Rembrandt Peale
Print Collector/Getty Images An 1805 portrait of Thomas Jefferson

He contemplated walking away from the chance

It’s hard to imagine a version of American history in which Thomas Jefferson, born on this day, April 13, in 1743, was never President. And yet, before he became the United States’ third President, he nearly walked away from politics entirely.

As Walter Kirn explained as part of a special 2005 TIME report on Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, the vast trove of letters that Jefferson left behind reveals that he was pretty sure he was done with politics in 1781, a full two decades before his inauguration:

The war he had helped launch and justify raged on, the enemy’s army had swept through his state capital only hours before and his successor as Virginia’s Governor still hadn’t been selected by the legislature, but Thomas Jefferson was going home, convinced that his work for America was done. It was the summer of 1781, five years since the July in Philadelphia when the author of the Declaration of Independence had, in two inspired weeks of writing energized by years of thought and study and practical political activity, helped create a new nation with his pen. The course this nation would follow remained uncertain, the fate of its central ideals undecided and the question of its very survival unclear, but Jefferson’s direction was firm and fixed: away from politics and public life and back to his cherished plantation, Monticello. Back to his loved ones, his gardens, his fields, his library and to the scores of people whose labor made his pursuit of happiness possible: his slaves.

The great revolutionary was calling it quits–or so he told his friends. In one of more than 20,000 letters that scholars estimate Jefferson completed before his death on July 4, 1826, the future Secretary of State, Vice President, two-term President and founder of the University of Virginia confirmed his premature decision to abandon the rigors of government service for the pleasures of rural solitude: “I have taken my final leave of everything of that nature, have retired to my farm, my family and books from which I think nothing will ever more separate me.”

That, of course, turned out not to be true. (“Nearly everything he wrote was contradicted at some point by something he did,” Kirn notes, from that very letter to his stance on slavery.) There’s no easy answer as to why Jefferson changed his mind, but by doing so he continued his strong track record of changing history.

Read TIME’s 2005 special issue about Thomas Jefferson, here in the archives: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Thomas Jefferson

TIME India

Indian Political Party Advocates the Denial of Voting Rights for Muslims

Protest against release of 2008 Mumbai attacks mastermind
EPA Activists of India's right-wing Shiv Sena party shout slogans before they burnt posters of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi (C-bottom), alleged mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks during a protest against Zaki-ur-Rehman's release, in New Delhi, on April 11, 2015.

The party hastily back-tracked after the editorial in its official publication caused outrage

A major Indian political party called for the voting rights of Muslims to be revoked in an editorial published Sunday, a statement that was slammed across the board and left its leadership red-faced and hastily backtracking.

The editorial was published in Saamana — the mouthpiece of the right-wing Shiv Sena party — and reiterated a statement from its late founder Balasaheb Thackeray that advocated the withdrawal of Muslim people’s right to vote, the Indian Express reported.

“If Muslims are being used … to play politics, they can never develop,” the editorial reads. “Balasaheb had once said voting rights of Muslims should be withdrawn. What he said is right.”

The statement invoked the condemnation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well as the opposition Congress party and several others.

“The Indian Constitution has given every citizen, irrespective of his/ her caste, community or religion, the right to vote,” said BJP spokesman Madhav Bhandari. “Those who express such views are blatantly violating the Indian Constitution. Strict action should be taken against them for such remarks.”

Senior Congress politician Anand Sharma called the editorial “unacceptable,” adding that “those behind the remarks have no place in a culture like ours.”

Neelam Gorhe, a state legislator from the Shiv Sena, sought to downplay her party’s controversial stand. “What [the Saamana editor] meant was that Muslims are being exploited for vote bank, and this will not lead to their development,” she said. “He is not suggesting that their voting rights should be taken away.”

The rights of India’s minorities have become a major issue since Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP came to power, with several controversial statements over the past year including one by the leader of a Hindu fundamentalist organization just a day before the Shiv Sena editorial, calling for the forced sterilization of Muslims and Christians.

Later on Monday, controversial BJP lawmaker Sakshi Maharaj (who once said all Hindu women should produce four children) echoed the Shiv Sena’s viewpoint by implying that Muslims should indulge in family planning or be “stripped of their voting right”.

Read next: What India Can Teach Us About Islam and Assimilation

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Television

Four Facts About John Dickerson, The Next Host of Face the Nation

This 2012 photo provided by CBS News shows CBS News political director John Dickerson, in Washington. Dickerson will replace the retiring Bob Schieffer as moderator of "Face the Nation," Schieffer announced Sunday, April 12, 2015
Chris Usher—AP This 2012 photo provided by CBS News shows CBS News political director John Dickerson, in Washington. Dickerson will replace the retiring Bob Schieffer as moderator of "Face the Nation," Schieffer announced Sunday, April 12, 2015

His mother was an associate producer on the very first broadcast of the show

CBS announced Sunday that chief political director John Dickerson will replace the retiring Bob Schieffer this summer as host of the political roundtable Face the Nation. Here are four facts to play catch-up on the veteran journalist’s career.

1. Dickerson spent 12 years covering politics for TIME.

Dickerson worked for TIME from 1993-2005, spending the final four years as the White House correspondent during the George W. Bush administration.

In 2003, Dickerson co-authored an article for TIME titled, “A War on Wilson,” which in 2007 resulted in his being named by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer as one of two reporters to whom he leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Dickerson has refuted the claim and offered his own account of events.

2. He is a podcast maven

On Slate’s popular Political Gabfest podcast, the three-person team of Dickerson, Atlas Obscura CEO David Plotz and New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon discuss the week’s current events. Dickerson is also the one-man host of Whistle Stop, a U.S. political campaign history podcast.

Fans will be happy to hear Dickerson will continue podcasting.

3. His mother was a pioneering journalist

In 1960, when journalism was almost completely male-dominated, Nancy Dickerson became CBS News’ the first female correspondent. She was also an associate producer on Face the Nation — including the very first broadcast of the show in 1954.

In 2006, John Dickerson wrote about his pioneering mother in the biography, On Her Trail, in which he retraces her life and explores their relationship, after her death in 1997. In a 2006 interview with TIME, he said, “I owe her more gratitude than I ever expressed and more sympathy than I ever demonstrated.”

4. The man loves his history

When Dickerson dives into William Henry Harrison’s first ever presidential campaign or the curious quirks of President Harding it is obvious that much of his success in journalism is because of his passion for history.

However, as CBS News president David Rhodes puts it, “John is first and foremost a reporter — and that’s what he’ll be as anchor of Face the Nation.”

TIME politics

Why Ted Cruz’s Campaign Will Break Barriers

GOP Presidential Hopeful Ted Cruz Campaigns In South Carolina
Richard Ellis—Getty Images Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz answers questions from local media following a town hall meeting on April 3, 2015 in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Zocalo Public Square is a not-for-profit Ideas Exchange that blends live events and humanities journalism.

Cruz was born in Canada

Go, Ted Cruz!

I am very excited that the senator from Texas is running for president, so that we can rid this country of one of its most pervasive myths: that you need to be born on U.S. soil to be a real American.

Admittedly, that is not why most of Cruz’s fervent backers are excited he’s in the race. Or why donors have already sent his campaign tens of millions. The reasons most of them are excited about Cruz’s candidacy — his aversion to compromise in politics, the centrality of God in his political platform, and his disdain for any sensible immigration reform — are precisely the reasons why I would be horrified to see him actually win the race I am so glad he is running. If Ted Cruz ever became president, I’d be tempted to flee to Canada.

Which brings me back to the one thing I love about Ted Cruz: The man was born in Canada!

If his candidacy is taken seriously, and his qualifications aren’t challenged in any of the primary states he contests, Cruz will be joining Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the list of presidential candidates whose campaigns broke barriers for minorities in the political process — in Cruz’s case, for Americans born outside the country.

I am one such “natural-born” American born elsewhere—in Mexico—and it’s been one of my lifelong frustrations to have people question my Americanness, and be utterly ignorant about the fact that you can indeed be born a U.S. citizen outside the country, if born to an American parent. I have nothing but the utmost respect for naturalized Americans who opt to become citizens later in life, but I am not one of them – I was born clenching my blue passport.

Who cares, you might ask, is the only difference between “natural-born” and naturalized Americans — in terms of their rights — is the right to be president? That awkward phrase “natural born” is in the Constitution, listed among the other qualifications for the highest office. Listed, but not defined, which is one of the reasons for all the confusion.

The qualification made its way into the Constitution because the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent their young republic from ever being hijacked by scheming European monarchs. It’s clear from both the prevailing English common law and from the first major law passed by Congress on matters of citizenship in 1790 that “natural-born” citizens included Americans born to an American father in another country. (American mothers, thankfully for me and Sen. Cruz, gained the equal right to transmit U.S. citizenship to their kids by a law passed in 1934.) Federal statutes over time have further defined what it means to be a natural-born American, often requiring a certain period of residency within the United States before an American parent could be entitled to pass on US citizenship to a child born outside the country.

So go on, Senator Cruz (but not too far!), and make everyone understand that you are as American as anyone, qualified (at least on this count) to be our leader. And don’t feel ashamed of your background — tell folks who come to your website where you were born, as opposed to just telling them, as your site currently does, where your mom was born.

Now that I have made clear that I belong in the “natural-born” club, I should add that it is an absurd club. All American citizens should share the same privileges, including the right to lead the nation. It’s shameful that countries like Germany and France are more open to the possibility of a naturalized immigrant becoming their head of state than we are. Can’t we just trust the voters to determine whether presidential candidates are sufficiently American for them?

Andrés Martinez is the editorial director of Zócalo Public Square and a professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Hillary Clinton

5 Other Women Who Ran For President

Hillary Clinton Receives Emily's List Award
Win McNamee—Getty Images Hillary Clinton addresses the 30th Anniversary National Conference of Emily's List on March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Hillary Clinton is not the first

With the expected announcement Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton will run for president in 2016, the Democratic Party has a female front-runner for the highest office in the land. But Clinton isn’t the first woman to run for president.

Here are five others who sought the White House:

Name: Victoria Woodhull

Year Ran: 1872

Party: Equal Rights Party

Votes: No official votes recorded

Platform: Universal suffrage, political reform, civil rights and social welfare

Victoria Woodhull ran for president nearly 50 years before the Nineteenth Amendment allowed women to vote in presidential elections. Though historians can’t agree on whether her name actually appeared on nationwide ballots (or whether she received any votes), they concur that her run was historic—not only was she the first woman to seek the office, but her running-mate, Frederick Douglass, was the first African-American ever nominated for Vice President.

She announced her run in a letter to the New York Herald in 1870: “I…claim the right to speak for the unenfranchised women of the country, and believing as I do that the prejudices which still exist in the popular mind against women in public life will soon disappear, I now announce myself as candidate for the Presidency.” But Woodhull was controversial and polarizing. A fierce believer in free love, she hated how society condemned liberated women, yet turned a blind eye to men’s dalliances. Her presidential run suffered a fatal blow when she was arrested on obscenity charges for writing an article about an adulterous love affair between Henry Ward Beecher, a powerful minister, and a parishioner just days before the election. Woodhull’s campaign was met with widespread derision, but it’s unclear if she could have taken office even if she had won—she was only 34 at the time of the election.

Name: Gracie Allen

Year Ran: 1940

Party: Surprise Party

Votes: Unknown

Platform: “Redwood, trimmed with nutty pine.”

Gracie Allen’s presidential run started as a stunt to generate publicity for her faltering radio show, the The Hinds Honey & Almond Cream Program Starring George Burns & Gracie Allen. During her satirical campaign, Allen used her ditzy persona to poke fun at the political system. The campaign included a mock party convention, a national whistle stop tour, an endorsement from Harvard University and an invitation from Eleanor Roosevelt to speak to the National Women’s Press Club.

“My opponents say they’re going to fight me ’til the cows come home,” she said in a campaign speech. “So, they admit the cows aren’t home. Why aren’t the cows home? Because they don’t like the conditions on the farm. The cows are smart. They’re not coming home ’til there’s a woman in the White House.” Though Allen did receive write-in votes, historians can’t agree on the number.

Name: Shirley Chisholm

Year Ran: 1972

Party: Democrat

Votes: 152 delegate votes in the Democratic primary

Platform: Equal rights and economic justice

Shirley Chisholm had already made history as the first African-American woman elected to Congress in 1968, though she admitted that “sometimes I have trouble, myself, believing that I made it this far against the odds.” In 1972 she decided to defy the odds again when she made a serious bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Chisholm called herself “the candidate of the people,” but struggled for acceptance as a viable candidate. Her disorganized and underfunded campaign didn’t help—though she was fourth place for the nomination at the Democratic National Convention, she lost to Governor George McGovern (who in turn lost to Richard Nixon). Though Chisholm was not the first woman to vie for the Democratic nomination, she was the most viable up until that time—but though Chisholm is respected for her political role today (she even appeared on a stamp in 2014), she was never taken as seriously as during her lifetime as Clinton is today.

Name: Linda Jenness

Year Ran: 1972

Party: Socialist Workers Party

Votes: 83,380

Platform: Women’s liberation, no more war in Vietnam

1972 was a very good year for women presidential hopefuls, and Linda Jenness, a secretary from Atlanta, joined their ranks as the Socialist Workers Party’s candidate. Jenness actually shared the nomination with another female candidate, Evelyn Reed, who ran in her place in states where Jenness did not qualify for the ballot due to her age.

Though Jenness repeatedly challenged Democratic nominee George McGovern to a debate, he refused. Jenness predicted her own defeat, declaring that “the Socialists do not fool themselves that they have a chance of winning any major victories this year.” She was right—but she still managed to garner over 83,000 votes despite tepid press and struggles to finance her campaign.

Name: Jill Stein

Year Ran: 2012

Party: Green Party

Votes: 469,015

Platform: Green jobs and environmental protections

As a third-party candidate in a raucous election year, Jill Stein’s 2012 presidential run felt more like an afterthought than a milestone. But in fact, Stein’s presidential candidacy was the most successful ever conducted by a woman.

A physician who specializes in environmental health, Stein ran for president after two unsuccessful bids for the office of governor of Massachusetts. “People ask me why I keep fighting political battles in a rigged system,” she said in a 2012 speech. “The answer is simple. I keep fighting because when it comes to our children, mothers don’t give up.” Though Stein only managed to grab 0.36 percent of the popular vote, she still hasn’t given up—she has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee for a 2016 run.

TIME Hillary Clinton

These People Have Been ‘Ready for Hillary’ Since 1992

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Cynthia Johnson—The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband's 1992 campaign

The idea that she should run is more than two decades old

With Hillary Clinton’s expected announcement Sunday that she will run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, her supporters who have declared themselves “Ready for Hillary” will finally have the chance to see whether the rest of the country is ready and willing too.

But, though that Super PAC is only about two years old, some people were ready for her to run since more than two decades ago.

When her husband Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, Hillary’s smarts—and her divisive comments about how she didn’t want her political-wife role to mean just sitting at home—drew frequent questions about whether she had the aspiration to run for office herself, perhaps as her husband’s Vice President. As the election approached, the idea of her political prospects didn’t go away. In fact, TIME’s September 1992 cover story about “The Hillary Factor” began thusly: “You might think Hillary Clinton was running for President.”

And some readers, it appeared, would not have minded if that had been the case, as this October 1992 letter to TIME, from Linda M. Mason of Mount Laurel, N.J., shows: “History will vindicate Hillary, for she is guilty only of being capable of serving as President herself.”

Even the experts agreed. In a story shortly after Clinton won the election, John Robert Starr, a conservative newspaper columnist from Arkansas, told TIME that “the best thing that could happen would be to let Hillary run the country. I know that sounds ridiculous, but she has just never failed.”

By 1993, TIME was reporting that “one poll had found that 40% of Americans believe Hillary is ‘smarter’ than her Rhodes scholar husband, and 47% think she is qualified to be President.”

And even Hillary Clinton herself hinted in the ’90s that voters should keep an eye on female candidates, if not on herself. Asked about the role of the First Lady in 1996, she conceded that the position was complicated one. “I think the answer is to just be who you are,” she said, “and do what you can do and get through it–and wait for a First Man to hold the position.”

Read the 1992 ‘Hillary Factor’ cover story, here in the TIME Vault: All Eyes on Hillary

TIME Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Has This Woman to Thank for Her Campaign

Bella Abzug fought relentlessly for women's place on the ballot

June 9, 1972 cover of .
June 9, 1972 cover of LIFE Magazine.

Hillary Clinton’s expected announcement Sunday that she will seek the Democratic nomination for president a second time is the culmination of decades of hard work and strategic maneuvering. But behind every great woman is another great woman, and behind Clinton—and, really, every woman who has run for U.S. political office in the last four decades—is Bella Abzug.

Abzug was a New York City lawyer who practiced for more than two decades, taking on civil rights cases and representing targets of Senator McCarthy’s Communist witch hunt, before becoming one of 12 women in Congress in 1971. She came up as an activist, advocating for peace, gay rights and women’s causes, and her resolve only strengthened when she achieved a post from which she could influence policy. After the legislative body to which she belonged failed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, she spearheaded the organization of the National Women’s Political Caucus along with co-founders Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Shirley Chisholm, among others.

Abzug and the NWPC worked to open doors for women in politics. When they wouldn’t open, they knocked them down. In its first year, the Caucus helped women secure an unprecedented 35% of the spots for delegates to the national Democratic convention. It offered support to women of both parties running for office around the country. Abzug herself quickly became, according to a friend quoted in LIFE’s 1972 profile of her, “more than a congresswoman. She’s a Symbol.”

Abzug made a name for herself after, as the magazine wrote, “she arrived in Congress … and began shouting.” She campaigned on the slogan “This woman’s place is in the House—the House of Representatives,” and her brash, outspoken style earned her the nickname “Battling Bella.” After two years in office, her Congressional district was eliminated. Though the official reason was redistricting following the 1970 Census, Abzug viewed the elimination as a simple case of gender discrimination. When Leonard McCombe photographed her for LIFE, she was in the process of clawing her way back into office, making the unpopular move of dividing the liberal vote by challenging an incumbent West Side Democrat. Though he defeated her in the primary, he died soon after, and Abzug handily won the general election.

Throughout her career—which included, after six years in Congress, failed bids for Senate and New York City mayor and a stint co-chairing the National Advisory Committee for Women under President Carter—Abzug was rarely seen without a wide-brimmed hat atop her head. It wasn’t a sartorial statement. Abzug began wearing hats after being mistaken for a secretary during her years as a lawyer, one too many times. In an interview she gave in 1997, the year before she died, she explained why they remained a part of her uniform:

When I ran for Congress and got to Washington, they made such a fuss about the hat instead of what was under it that I didn’t know whether they wanted me to take it off or keep it on. I decided that they wanted me to take it off, which made me determined to keep it on.

Liz Ronk, who edited this gallery, is the Photo Editor for LIFE.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LizabethRonk.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com