Posted on 05/15/2016 7:42:58 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure.
No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.
Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.
Maybe. But don’t be too sure.
Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?
Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.
A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”
Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.
Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.
Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.
Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.
Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.
The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.
and author of Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason.
She has had a bunch of job titles.
She hasn't done anything. She doesn't know how to do anything. Except throw lamps.
-—a 74-year-old Jewish socialist——
Salon is racist
I noticed that too.
And we're told there's disunity among Conservatives.
“”””her credentials are strong
She has had a bunch of job titles.
She hasn’t done anything. She doesn’t know how to do anything. Except throw lamps. “””””
She has also never been challenged by the media. Why don’t they ask her why 6 billion dollars is unaccounted for from her term as SOS?
Why don’t they ask her why she is such a warmonger?
From the article: “Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics.”
How is it possible the author overlooked Clinton’s biggest advantage (no, not her V) - nonstop sympathetic treatment from the media and entertainment elites.
When you’re a lefty and even Salon is politely dumping on you that’s not good. It’s too late for the Dems to dump her, and even if they do a switcheroo on her now it will implode the Democratic Party. The lefties should of buried the Clintons in 1992, but they wanted the presidency so badly they ignored all the baggage. Now twenty four years later the Clintons are in a powerful position and know where the skeletons are hiding and where the secrets are buried. Getting rid of them means all that stuff comes out in the open. Either way, whether Hillary is the nominee or not, it’s gonna be a dreary fall for the Democrats.
Dumber vs. Dumber
Heck, she has not even had a bunch of job titles: 1 term Senator from New York - given her after being a wife in the White House.
One 4 year-disaster as Sec of State.
During which, she apparently spent 31,000 emails being an ineffective, non-deciding non-entity while ISIS-ISIL-Muslim brotherhood took over the MidEast and Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the world were lost
... And she sent 34,000 emails being a yoga-stretching mother of the bride worried about dresses.
But, then again, she did delete those 34,000 emails. Didn’t she?
“The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat....”
Golden!!!
Hillary is destroying the Democrat Party.
What will her next crime be?
This is the best year I’ve had since I was a kid!
“..She hasn’t done anything. She doesn’t know how to do anything. Except throw lamps...”
And commit crimes. How long can a rap sheet be??
Every now and then the media takes a picture with the filter off the camera. They see:
(1) A shrill, unlikable woman with a voice like fingernails on a chalkboard.
(2) A candidate that can’t give a straight answer to any question.
(3) An elderly woman with a wrinkled, lumpy body hidden by oversized jackets.
(4) A candidate with a list of impressive jobs, but no positive accomplishments.
(5) A woman who has ridden on the coattails of her husband.
I watched a video of a Clinton campaign event yesterday. Bill was speaking while Hillary literally waddled across the stage. Bill looked and sounded geriatric. Hillary turned and waved and in so doing she gave a glimpse of the lumpy cellulite under the tent-jacket. So much for the youth vote...
The Democrats will soon conclude that Hillary is doomed in the General Election, and will move to replace her. My prediction is that they will pick Kristin Gillibrand, who would be a lead pipe cinch to win.
Resume? Accomplishments? Please - plenty of success to point to:
1. Successful futures trader - turning a $1,000 investment in cattle futures to $100,000 virtually overnight.
2. FIRED from the Dem team investigating the Nixon/Watergate - for UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR. You really have to be doing something bad when fellow Dems fire you for being UNETHICAL. As the Dems seem to want unethical representation, this is something their voters will admire!
3. Successfully managed the “Bimbo Eruption” hit-team. No charges against were ever successfully prosecuted.
4. Successfully defended a child rapist.
5. Successfully ran for and won a NY Senate seat.
6. Successfully (so far) avoided any responsibility for Benghazi and the deaths of a US Ambassador & 3 brave patriots.
7. As US Senator, successfully sponsored and passed 3 bills naming roads, bridges, and buildings after others.
I could go on, but I’d overwhelm the FR servers. She’s at LEAST as qualified as Obama ever was!
{/snark}
Hillary has cheated and lied about everything else why not lie about her résumé....what proof has anyone that it is factual? Her accomplishments? HA! 
(“We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son”)
Hillary says Benghazi families, Mother lied....
Hillary Clinton the most dishonest/corrupt politician in the world. In fact she should not be allowed to run for any office in the USA! Word on the street is her delegates ALSO CHEAT!
Look, hackers are going to hack their way in -- what difference does it make The question is, how much would they pay to save themselves the time? Taking the money always worked for Bill when he had secrets rich foreigners wanted, and we still left the White House flat broke. Who knows where it goes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
