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.