Scott Sumner Makes the Case for Hillary

I can make the case for her all day, of course, but Scott doesn't like Hillary. Here's how he puts it:

"Lawrence, You asked:

“So remind me again why we should prefer Hillary?”

"Trump is trying to turn the GOP into France’s National Front. Hillary is trying to prevent the Dems from turning socialist."

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31781#comment-805612

That sort of sums it up. Jennifer Rubin makes the Nixon comparison-but in a good way.

"It turns out that the most distinguishing feature of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not her gender. She certainly had a gender gap, with women favoring her by about the same margin men favored Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). (In the general election, she’s likely to win women by a huge margin and lose men by a smaller margin.) And she could not resist some rhetorical flourishes after her big wins last night, complete with a paean to Seneca Falls. Nevertheless, her campaign turned out to be much more about ideology — the party of FDR vs. a Western European socialist party — and the insider vs. populist dynamic that also bedeviled the Republicans."

"Clinton won, we would argue, because she clung to her image of a standard-issue liberal, one more in touch with economic and international realities than Sanders and one who knows her way around the levers of power. She was not endearing or exciting; she never overcame her trustworthiness deficit. She did, however, demonstrate uncommon perseverance; her critics would call it unbridled ambition. After being beaten in 2008, few thought eight years later she’d be the favorite to win the presidency."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/08/clinton-didnt-win-on-gender/

Agreed. Rubin rightly debunks two false memes.

1. That Hillary ran on the woman card.

2. That she was pushed to the Left.

Not so. She ran as Hillary Clinton, the sensible, pragmatic Center Left liberal.

I probably shouldn't even mention this now but she totally has outsmarted everyone on the TPP deal-which Trump called 'PPP' last night and then made a pee joke.

"In a time of tumult, unease and anxiety, Clinton lucked into an extreme opponent in the primary and a general-election opponent (for the time being) who is divisive, erratic and extreme. In the general election, she offers a generic vision of “unity” and the image of competence in contrast with an ignorant and unsteady political novice. Extreme, fiscally irresponsible and weak on national security? That was Bernie Sanders in the primary and now Donald Trump in the general. Clinton is literally running on the premise that the other guy cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and won’t stand behind the country’s sovereign debt."

"If the country seems in turmoil now, remember, Nixon in 1968 ran in perhaps the most tumultuous post-Civil War year in American history. He ran as a centrist, promising stability and law and order at home and peace in the world. (“I don’t promise that we can eradicate poverty, and end discrimination, eliminate all danger of war in the space of four, or even eight years,” he said in his convention acceptance speech. “But, I do promise action — a new policy for peace abroad; a new policy for peace and progress and justice at home.”) He famously appealed to the “silent majority,” what Bill Clinton called the people who “work hard and play by the rules.” (Nixon at the convention described them as the “quiet voice in the tumult and the shouting. It is the voice of the great majority of Americans, the forgotten Americans — the non-shouters; the non-demonstrators.”) Out of tumult, the election chose the steady, boring, socially awkward candidate."

"And that may be Clinton’s story as well. Ironically, in the year of the outsider, when voters are furious with the political establishment, the country very well may go with sensible, boring, not very honest (but not scary) and competent Clinton. If she wins, it will not be because she is a woman but because she ran as herself."

I guess great minds think a like. As I made the same point recently too. Boston Globe writer, Michael Cohen has written a book about the Nixon comparison.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-forgotten-hillary-clinton-supporters.html

Bill Scher makes a similar point in Politico today:

"It's early yet, but if Clinton successfully walks the tightrope we could experience a dramatic ideological reorganization. A Clinton coalition that mixes populist with establishmentarian, capturing both disgusted center-right Republicans and wary independent Sandernistas, could be the biggest tent American politics has seen since Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency while he was bombing Cambodia."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-nomination-barack-obama-establishment-213947#ixzz4B0MP5WLX

Again, I like the analogy. Though she won't bomb Cambodia, of that we can be confident.

But I have felt all along that while we hear so much about Bernie and Trump's crowds, we Hillary supporters have been the forgotten ones.

The pragmatic Dems, the none rioters, non shouters, etc.

This is Hillary's moment. In 2016, the best man for the job turns out to be a woman with her powers of mediation.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination

Hillary will mediate the countries divisions rather than save the world overnight a la Bernie or Trump. 

It's fitting that they were her two opponents as they really do share a lot in common starting from the fact that neither is willing to ever listen to anyone but their own alleged superior judgment. 

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/bitter-bernies-end.html