The political season has begun again, less than a year after the country shouted a resounding and unified “Hell, no!” to Barack Obama in the midterm elections. In the Democratic corner, weighing in at “Political Lightweight With Few Accomplishments,” is Hillary Rodham Clinton, presumptive nominee with a checkered past. Seemingly unbeatable, it appears that all Hills is gonna have to do is keep her mouth shut, not make any major mistakes, and bam—Bill Clinton will be the First Husband.
But wait—haven’t we seen this before?
I remember receiving a phone call in 2007 from a RNC fundraiser, asking me if I was “prepared to do what it took to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office.” The answer was “ABSOLUTELY!” I then hung up on him, because I was a 29-year-old who was getting ready for my first child to arrive, and I didn’t have two spare dimes to rub together. But it turned out that I didn’t have to do much of anything to keep Hillary out of office, because the Dems decided that having a black man with no real accomplishments become president was more important than having a woman with no real accomplishments become president. And just like that, Hillary was shoved to the side.
But now that Barack is a lame-duck president who’s lost the House and Senate, the Democratic Party is more than willing to welcome Hillary back as the Chosen One. The problem is that she’s spent the last eight years accomplishing absolutely nothing. Wait, no, that wouldn’t be quite as bad as the actual truth—she’s spent the last eight years doing next to nothing, and the things she actually did were pretty screwed up.
The thing is—the media doesn’t seem as interested in protecting her as they ought to be. The secret e-mail scandal is still getting some press. The foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation are making waves. Poor Hills—she can’t even leave Benghazi behind. And you know that if somebody like Rand Paul becomes the Republican nominee, he will learn from Romney’s 2012 mistakes. He’ll go for Hillary’s throat in the debates.
So whenever I see the media not protecting Hillary like you’d expect, I have to wonder—why? After all, we know that people like Les Moonves dictate what the narrative about political figures is going to be.
I think they know Hillary is in trouble. I think they know that she’s going to have a hard time distancing herself from Obama—you know, what with being his Secretary of State and all—and he’s now officially less popular than George Freaking Bush. What’s Hillary going to do that’s going to be similar enough to O’s agenda to keep the liberals happy yet be different enough to attract swing voters?
If you ask Hillary supporters why they’re going to vote for her, they typically don’t have great reasons. You’ll hear things like “she’s smart.” Really? Ted Cruz has an Ivy League law degree and has argued cases in front of SCOTUS. You think she’s smarter than he is? “She’s not like the Washington elite.” Uh, what? She IS the Washington elite. Do you realize that she recently admitted that she hasn’t even driven a car in nearly twenty years? Or that she’s 67 years old—or nearly exactly the same age as that “old white guy” Mitt Romney?
What has she actually accomplished? What new ideas does she have? What’s compelling about her other than her possession of “lady parts?” Those are questions she has yet to answer—but she will, and soon. The media might be throwing her softballs now, but with her poll numbers sliding, specifically on “trustworthiness,” she can’t maintain her silence forever. In fact, you know when the last time was her numbers were that low? In 2008, when she lost the primary to BHO.
If you wanna crown her ass, then go ahead and crown her. But I have a hunch that even if her Democratic nomination is a given, that she’s very, very vulnerable in a general election.
The coronation of Hillary won’t be because of any of her supposed merits or weaknesses; it will be because the GOP repeatedly proves itself utterly incapable of nominating a centrist candidate. First it was the evangelicals dragging McCain off the right end. Then it was the Tea Party forcing Romney too far to the right.
if the GOP can somehow nominate a candidate that’s anywhere near the center of the political spectrum, they MIGHT have a chance. If not, it’ll be Hillary in ’16.
I always find it interesting that the Democratic can run as far left as they want, but the Republicans had better run a “centrist candidate” or they don’t have a snowballs chance. Name me one Republican presidential candidate that ran as a centrist and won. I don’t think there’s that many mythical swing voters left, and they’re certainly not going to win over an democrats. Might as well appeal to the base and say f you to everyone else. Can’t do much worse.
the rest of the world laughs at the notion of the Democratic party being “left wing.” yes, they’re to the left of the Republican party but that’s not saying much.
I don’t usually chime in on this but I fully agree with you. The primary system chooses the worst for both parties.
God I hope you’re right.
When there are candidates on the right who I respect they (ironically) have to sign a deal with the devil to get the gop nod. The authors fantasy of a Paul candidate from the right boggles the imagination. By the time we get out of primary season the democrats are running a far more libertarian set of proposals than the republicans are. Every damn time.
In more local elections it’s a different story obviously. But on the national level there is nothing conservative (in temperament) about the candidates the gop gives the nod to.
I enjoy reading this (now combined Baruth) blog because 1) brothers are cool and 2) you two seem to be draw different political conclusions than I do, and Jack is especially skilled at expressing them.
That said, the content can come across as insecure at times with the somewhat common mentions of shirts, suits, watches, guitars, and my favorite – ambiguous suggestions of high IQ. I honestly think the positions would be more persuasive without all of that fluff. It’s not the fact that they are included in the content – it’s just the way that they are presented.
All fair points, but remember, it’s just a personal blog, where we talk about the things that interest us. Clothes, cars, musical instruments, watches, music, politics, romance, and so on.
We’re not trying to be popular. If somebody reads this blog and says, “Fuck that furniture-guitar collector and his Euro-touring brother,” it doesn’t cost us anything.
So either we’re not insecure at all, or we are SO INSECURE THAT WE HAVE TO FEIGN SECURITY ABOUT IT.
Steve is 100% correct. The GOP has managed to sabotage their own candidates with swing voters, minorities, moderates, and independents by allowing the foot-stamping vocal tea-party far-rightists to drag said candidates up the planks of a platform which is really, really bad at electoral college math.
Also, consider that The Hills is running virtually unopposed, awaiting to be crowned the Democratic candidate, which means she’s going to get to craft her position and her image without challenge and without a heated defense. Meanwhile, the Republican candidates will be doing what they always do, tearing each other down for not being “right” enough — conducting less a primary than a conservative litmus test.
Then the chosen battle-worn Republican, someone who has had to walk-back their records and statements and utter mainstream-alienating soundbites to please the ultra-conservatives in the party while alienating the moderate-middle, will go up against a primped and primed and well-rehearsed Clinton (with a campaign war chest that will yet to have been depleted and is, by all accounts, bigger than the GDP of half the world’s nations).
The Republican will yell Benghazi and Emails and Illegal Server and Hills will brush it off, point out where the Republicans have again lost the plot, left the tracks, and steered their candidate into a quicksand of contradictions and just doesn’t get immigration reform, Obamacare is here to stay, it’s still George W’s fault, stay out of the bedrooms of people of all genders and orientation, and our vaginas, and what about the 99% of the rest of us, etc etc. In other words, DNC speechwriters, dust off the last two elections worth of material and give it a little Clinton spin, with Bill delivering the punchlines because, let’s face, he’s really f’n good at it and Hills is, well, a little shrill.
Hopefully, the RNC has figured out how to direct their firepower at the Democratic opponent and not their own feet for this go-round. If they’ve managed that, as perhaps the midterms suggest (or not — it could have been a natural backlash against Obama which had to come sooner or later), they just might keep their powder dry for when it counts. But only if they let their very qualified candidates run against each other on their own records, achievements, and yes, sometimes not far-right enough histories. Because the point, as I tell my Wing Nut stepfather, isn’t to be “right” enough, it’s to win.
I’m dreading this election. I really don’t want any more Clintons or Bushes in office. We’ve had enough. I think I’d be happy to see a moderate candidate put forward by either side…but it seems like the last couple of elections, the candidate on each side is more and more extreme. I lean Republican but have felt alienated by the RNC catering to the Tea Party folks.
It’s hers to lose. The ‘pubs can’t mount Shit to stop her. Unless somebody pulls a major upset in the primaries, Godzillary will be the candidate. And if she’s the candidate, I can’t see her losing.
And I’m sorry, but the reds terrify me right now. I’m seeing way too much xenophobic hate wrapped up in a bible taco, from the right.
Agree It’s hers to lose and she is a reasonably smart politician so I doubt she will screw it up to much.
I’m independent but lean left as of late(but used to lean pretty far right) and I also agree with other commentators that from a strictly strategic point of view the GOP has not found a way to not shoot them selves in the foot in the primaries by forcing there centrist candidate to lean to far right to get the nomination. This then causes doubt in the swing voters and leads to lost elections.
Swing voters are low-information voters.
Low-information voters will vote for a woman just because, the same way SO many did for the half-black candidate.
Also, people that thing the problem with the GOP is that they are too FAR from the Democrats are quite insane. Nobody wants Democrat Lite.
Never before have I yearned so for a None of the Above box on the ballot.
Oh wow, wouldn’t it be so awesome if we could vote politicians out of office and the seat would have to remain vacant for the entire term?
Candidates name followed by D. OR R OR what the hell ever —-none of them you are alive and NONE CARE.
To me, the presidential vote has become a choice of: do I want a kick in the ‘nads, or to be stabbed in the eye? Neither of which is very appealing to me. If I listen to most TV news, the Republicans are barely removed from Beelzebub’s side and the Democrats are at least equal to Mother Teresa. Conversely, if I listen to talk radio the Republicans stand for Truth, Justice and the American way, while the Democrats are somewhere below the drooling retard cousin that your brother in law has. It’s gotten to the point I watch/listen to neither as I already have blood pressure issues and need not add to it. Both parties claim to “know what the people want”, yet by word and deed show they have no clue what us “little people” want. Either decry the amount of money that is spent, yet both line up at the trough of any special interest that will support them. I have heard estimates that each side will spend in the neighborhood of 1 billion, yes billion with a B, on this election. The dog and pony show has reached dizzying heights these days. Sadly the genie is out of the bottle and I see no hope of putting it back in.
In the current climate, if Jesus himself were to return and run for president, both sides would find fault and do their best to cut him down. So far on the Democratic side I see no candidate that I would be comfortable with as president. On the Republican side only Rubio or Walker are of any interest to me, not that my opinion matters to anyone but me.
Depending on the outcome of this election, I might end up as another of the growing number of folks who have given up their citizenship. I’m getting old, have little patience left, and am fortunate to have a decent amount of money available to me when I do decide to quit the rat race. Perhaps now is the time to check other options.
“The political season has begun again, less than a year after the country shouted a resounding and unified “Hell, no!” to Barack Obama in the midterm elections.”
the same way the country shouted a resounding and unified “Hell, no!” to George Bush in the 2006 midterm elections.
this whole phenomenon is little more than “lather, rinse, repeat.” it’s happened multiple times; any time we get tired of a president in his 2nd term, Congress shifts the other way. Happened last year, happened in 2006, happened to Clinton (the “Contract with America”,) happened to Reagan in ’86 (though not a huge shift.)
to act like the results of last year’s midterm elections is some specific stinging rebuke of Obama is to ignore history. History which most of us were alive to see.
Clinton’s “Hell No!” was first term. Reminds me of a joke, Q: What do Al Gore and George W. Bush have in common? A: They both got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton ever did.
The idea that there’s a dime’s worth of difference between the GOP and the Dems is, to my mind, absurd. They offer different distractions, but behind closed doors, they all serve the same masters. Obama/Bush… Clinton/Bush… It’s been more than 25 years of the same old same old. On anything truly substantive, has anything changed? The rich get richer, the banks and multinational corporations run the government and we all get fucked.
This is also true when you look at the records thru history most presidents in the last 40 years are surprisingly similar on average (of course there is variation on key issues) It becomes pretty obvious that in the end they are working for their own good more than the people.
I can’t claim to be the first person to have done this math, but I will happily repost it every chance I get.
If you were not 18 years old, and registered to vote, on November 2, 1976 then you have NEVER had the opportunity to vote in a Presidential election that did not have a Bush or a Clinton as a candidate, running mate, or key part of the Administration. That is not how I was taught power was supposed to work in this country.
If you want to keep “more of the same” out of the White House, consider educating yourself about Bernie Sanders, and maybe, you know, go vote in your state’s primary. A 17.3% turnout in primary elections is shameful and embarrassing.
And BTW, spare me the “He’s a left wing Socialist loony who doesn’t have a chance” argument. The facts of his positions simply don’t support that, and the only way he doesn’t have a chance is if we don’t give him one.
I’d probably take Bernie over Hill-dawg, given the choice.
I know it is a left wing show that not everyone enjoys, but John Stewart has been giving Hillary hell as of late and it has been hilarious. His take on Bernie Sanders is also very eye opening as well.
Its going to be tough for poor Bernie though. He isn’t polished, and he is trying to make waves while the current mass media machine doesn’t find him compelling/sexy. If anything, he will provide a true test for Hilary if they get into a debate. Might make a real candidate out of her.