I will give credit where credit is due: my title is a paraphrasing of the NY Post's front page today that screams 'Hill No!' The NY Post, that great rag, keeps surpassing itself in terms of sorry, childish front pages-who can forget their silly page attacking A-Rod after his first homer in spring training or when it even sniffed about another liberal bleeding heart in the world after Chelsea Clinton's child was born?
Regarding the NY Post, Ms. Clinton should just do a Dan Quayle-of all people-and say 'I wear their scorn like a badge of honor!'
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-06-14/news/9202220786_1_indiana-national-guard-pit-puppy-elite
I can understand the pain of the Post and other conservative outfits: for 24 years and counting they've tried to despise Hillary and her husband and all to no avail-though a loss in public resources of time and money we'll never get back.
The fake scandal about Hillary's email is just the latest chapter of that. Only in the Republican mind can you admit that there was no wrongdoing in Benghazi after 2 years of wasted taxpayers money investigating it and now turnaround and say that because Hillary has a server-a server!-we have to figure out what this means for Benghazi-even though no wrongdoing has been uncovered.
Meanwhile no one worries that Jeb too has a server! I get the Right wing frustration: 24 years of nothing, well feelings of impotence are the close cousin of frustration and further digging in and doubling down.
So for their frustration alone, I'm all for Hillary and hope this time she gets her gold medal. Of course, there are some on the Left who don't like her. They want Saint Warren to come and disappoint Hillary's hopes yet again just like 2008.
However, unlike in 2008, this is getting no groundswell save for a couple of purists who lie to themselves that Hillary is going to be as conservative as her husband-and even Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley was and the rest of the Democratic party was-in the 90s.
The party has embraced Hillary. Even Greg Sargent admits it's too late for a 'real primary' now. I know, there is a feeling among some in the media that she has been coronated and that therefore she must be 'humbled.'
Yet, I don't get what the big deal is here. The idea that you always have a big primary isn't totally true. After a President serves 8 years, it's common for his VP to be the presumed party nominee without that much opposition. To be sure. Hillary was not the Veep but the Secretary of State. Still how can this be undemocratic if Democrats seem to support her overwhelmingly including against Warren?
To my mind, here's what matters: we need to defeat the GOP and their kamikaze agenda. Sargent also admits that the Democrats are very unified and that there is not much difference on most issues between the various Dems. Usually the GOP is the unified party and the Dems are fighting a civil war. If the roles have reversed this time why not just embrace it rather than pine for a civil war?
All Democratic energy right now should be focused on winning in 2016 as there are so many issues on the line-immigration, a treaty with Iran, healthcare, basically everything Obama has done the GOP wants to undo. Then what is truly monumental is that a Democratic win in 2016 might finally allow the Dems to change the ideological makeup for the Supreme Court which has been conservative for 30 years.
How would having a knockdown drag-out primary for Hillary get us closer to achieving this?
UPDATE: I met to include this:
"The announcement will effectively begin what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history — a stark contrast to the 2008 primaries, when Mrs. Clinton, the early front-runner, ended up in a long and expensive battle won by Barack Obama. It could also be the first time a woman captures a major party’s nomination."
"Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign will open a new chapter in the extraordinary life of a public figure who has captivated and polarized the country since her husband, former President Bill Clinton, declared his intention to run for president in 1991. Mrs. Clinton was the co-star of the Clinton administration, the only first lady ever elected to the United States Senate and a globe-trotting diplomat who surprised her party by serving dutifully under the president who defeated her."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0
While I supported her initially over Obama, I turned my support immediately to him after she lost as to my mind they were both excellent candidates. I appreciate her place in the Obama Administration and I would say that the one thing she could do that I wouldn't like would be to do what Gore did in 2000 and try to distance herself from the President. Thankfully, she has been doing the opposite.
Regarding the NY Post, Ms. Clinton should just do a Dan Quayle-of all people-and say 'I wear their scorn like a badge of honor!'
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-06-14/news/9202220786_1_indiana-national-guard-pit-puppy-elite
I can understand the pain of the Post and other conservative outfits: for 24 years and counting they've tried to despise Hillary and her husband and all to no avail-though a loss in public resources of time and money we'll never get back.
The fake scandal about Hillary's email is just the latest chapter of that. Only in the Republican mind can you admit that there was no wrongdoing in Benghazi after 2 years of wasted taxpayers money investigating it and now turnaround and say that because Hillary has a server-a server!-we have to figure out what this means for Benghazi-even though no wrongdoing has been uncovered.
Meanwhile no one worries that Jeb too has a server! I get the Right wing frustration: 24 years of nothing, well feelings of impotence are the close cousin of frustration and further digging in and doubling down.
So for their frustration alone, I'm all for Hillary and hope this time she gets her gold medal. Of course, there are some on the Left who don't like her. They want Saint Warren to come and disappoint Hillary's hopes yet again just like 2008.
However, unlike in 2008, this is getting no groundswell save for a couple of purists who lie to themselves that Hillary is going to be as conservative as her husband-and even Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley was and the rest of the Democratic party was-in the 90s.
The party has embraced Hillary. Even Greg Sargent admits it's too late for a 'real primary' now. I know, there is a feeling among some in the media that she has been coronated and that therefore she must be 'humbled.'
Yet, I don't get what the big deal is here. The idea that you always have a big primary isn't totally true. After a President serves 8 years, it's common for his VP to be the presumed party nominee without that much opposition. To be sure. Hillary was not the Veep but the Secretary of State. Still how can this be undemocratic if Democrats seem to support her overwhelmingly including against Warren?
To my mind, here's what matters: we need to defeat the GOP and their kamikaze agenda. Sargent also admits that the Democrats are very unified and that there is not much difference on most issues between the various Dems. Usually the GOP is the unified party and the Dems are fighting a civil war. If the roles have reversed this time why not just embrace it rather than pine for a civil war?
All Democratic energy right now should be focused on winning in 2016 as there are so many issues on the line-immigration, a treaty with Iran, healthcare, basically everything Obama has done the GOP wants to undo. Then what is truly monumental is that a Democratic win in 2016 might finally allow the Dems to change the ideological makeup for the Supreme Court which has been conservative for 30 years.
How would having a knockdown drag-out primary for Hillary get us closer to achieving this?
UPDATE: I met to include this:
"The announcement will effectively begin what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history — a stark contrast to the 2008 primaries, when Mrs. Clinton, the early front-runner, ended up in a long and expensive battle won by Barack Obama. It could also be the first time a woman captures a major party’s nomination."
"Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign will open a new chapter in the extraordinary life of a public figure who has captivated and polarized the country since her husband, former President Bill Clinton, declared his intention to run for president in 1991. Mrs. Clinton was the co-star of the Clinton administration, the only first lady ever elected to the United States Senate and a globe-trotting diplomat who surprised her party by serving dutifully under the president who defeated her."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0
While I supported her initially over Obama, I turned my support immediately to him after she lost as to my mind they were both excellent candidates. I appreciate her place in the Obama Administration and I would say that the one thing she could do that I wouldn't like would be to do what Gore did in 2000 and try to distance herself from the President. Thankfully, she has been doing the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment