Recently I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on social media. Whenever somebody makes a legitimate criticism of Hillary Clinton, there is always someone who responds by effectively saying, “So, you want the Republicans to win?” The assumption here seems to either be that Clinton has already won the Democratic nomination or that she is the only Democrat who can beat a Republican. The first is obviously false, the second is probably wrong.
Let’s discuss the first assumption. We’re a year away from the Democratic primaries, and yet many people seem to assume that Clinton has it all wrapped up. Many people made that same assumption back in 2008, when she lost to a brash young upstart named Barack Obama. The election is still a year away. A lot can happen between now and then.
As for Clinton being the only Democrat who can beat a Republican, that’s a weird assumption to make considering how much baggage Clinton is carrying. Has anyone carrying so much baggage ever been elected to the presidency before? Richard Nixon comes to mind, but he had been out of the public spotlight for a few years, so people had begun to forget what a turd the guy was. (He packaged himself as the “New Nixon”.) Clinton has been in the public eye almost continuously since 2008. During that time, she presided over the fiasco of the intervention in Libya. You can be sure the Republicans are going to talk about that.
As for the e-mail controversy, it’s not as trivial as some people claim. Clinton deleted over 30,000 e-mails. She says that they were strictly private in nature. Maybe, but we only have her word for it. Common sense dictates the government business should be conducted through government e-mail accounts. At the very least, Clinton showed poor judgment. And Clinton has a history of showing poor judgment, from Whitewater to the invasion of Iraq.
Back in 2003, it was clear to me that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Clinton thought the plan was just swell. I’m supposed to trust the foreign policy judgment of someone like this? You’ve got to be kidding.
The Spanish Prisoner 
April 1, 2015 at 8:02 pm |
i don’t disagree with what you’re saying here, but who else is seriously putting him or herself out there? martin o’malley? oh, please… and by the way, if you remember, barak obama first came to national attention back in 2004 when he gave the keynote address at the democratic national convention, a good four years before winning the nomination himself. so there’s not a huge window of opportunity left for anyone who hasn’t already announced his or her intentions.
p.s. i live in baltimore, and i would rather fuck myself in the teeth with a steel rasp rather than vote for martin o’malley. if you want to get a good idea of what an o’malley administration would be like, i recommend watching the last two season of “the wire,” and pay close attention to all the moves carcetti makes. not that hilary clinton would in any way be any different.
April 2, 2015 at 7:36 am |
Some people are pushing Elizabeth Warren, but Wall Street will never let her get the nomination. Jim Webb, who was at least critical of the Iraq War, may run, but I’m not sure how much name recognition he has. I must admit, it doesn’t look good.
April 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm |
i don’t know that it’s only wall street that’s preventing elizabeth warren from running. is there actually a strong enough movement (actually, movement is not the right term here, a broadly held sentiment but one that is strong enough and focused enough as a social layer, a couche, as the french like to put it, that could compel her to make the decision to run, and would be the nucleus of her support? besides, if a potential candidate is already blocked from even declaring her candidacy by wall street, then is she really the sort of person you would want to see as president anyway?
April 3, 2015 at 7:36 am |
I didn’t say that Wall Street has blocked her. I merely said that they would find ways to prevent her from winning the nomination.
April 2, 2015 at 3:32 pm |
p.s. just read that there are now some people actively urging warren to run, but several of them said they are doing so mainly as a kind of leverage, or threat, to force hillary clinton to take a stronger left stance on issues relating to the economy. of course, i’ve also read that if we really want to make sure no one under 30 votes in the next presidential election, then it should definitely be a race between jeb bush and hillary. oh well, crap politics as usual…
April 3, 2015 at 7:53 am |
Since older voters are more likely to vote Republican, this would favor Bush. This is something the Democrats need to think about, but I fear that they won’t.
As for the “leverage” strategy, it doesn’t work. Once Hillary has the nomination, she will do whatever she pleases. What we need to do is actually elect left-wing politicians.
April 5, 2015 at 2:00 pm |
look, i’d like to see elizabeth warren run, too, or even better, bernie sanders, but wouldn’t wall street try to prevent any left-wing candidate from winning the nomination? a hundred years ago, did capital want there to be a strong labor movement in this country? no, but despite all it’s efforts to smash it, we had one. i mean, for any leftist to win a major election in america is almost the equivalent of a social revolution, but let’s not declare we’ve lost the war before we’ve even fought the first battle.