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.
Who is Kristin Gillibrand?
I never heard of her.
Should I vote for her?
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.
Those do not sound like the kind of people who will easily stand for their favorite nut being screwed out of the nomination, exactly what the Witch and her super delegates are doing to him. A that point many of them may well listen to Trump, decide the system was rigged against them, and refuse to vote for the Witch.
Really?
Salon thinks the Hillabeast’s sorry assed resume is a plus?
Really really?
The Democrats' dilemma is that Sanders is the only alternative they have this year. Talk of parachuting in "Uncle Joe" or someone else is the same sort of fantasy talk that the RNC was entertaining a few weeks back. Discarding the whole primary vote process in favor of some last-minute back-room deal would turn most of the Democratic base against the party and incur massive down-ballot repercussions. It's something they simply cannot do.
Then there's the problem that it's "her turn" and Hillary won't go quietly. It's been obvious from the start of the whole Kabuki Theater e-mail "investigation" will go nowhere because Hillary has enough dirt (and the vindictiveness to use it) to take down Obama and most of his administration with her if they try to take her out that way. I'm sure they've tried negotiation, but Hillary and Bill know this is their last gasp and they'd rather go down fighting for power than step aside.
So the powers-that-be are being forced to let her run into the Trump buzz-saw. It won't be pretty, but it's the only way out.
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.
Saying it twice does not make it more true. The author could say it many more times without making it true.
I saw a video that Shawn Hannity did, asking people (mostly women) standing in line for a Hillary rally what Hillary has actually done for women. Most of them drew total blanks. Some of them did come up with warm fuzzy blather, but not a one could think of a single accomplishment.
Is she the political version of the military acronym REMF? All hat and no cattle, never done a thing?
Which is why we should refer to her as "Mrs. Bill Clinton" instead of "Hillary", as you did.
Hey David Niose, Hillary's not riding impressive credentials or a resume... She's riding the crooked democrat path called 'rigging the system'.
And what's that?
Super-delegates.
If you don't understand the math - and how it's almost IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to get the nomination from 'establishment insiders - get a friend who understand statistics to explain it. Democrats have taken the power the people should have and given it to themselves.
Really David Niose 'do the math'... see for yourself. Oh - and quit being a fool. Democrats took away the power of the vote intentionally - from the people. Without a whimper of resistance from the press... Write about that...
She was our anointed Senator from Gnu Yak. A raving Liberal in the vein of Chuck U Schumer...without the charm.
“should of”
Should have...
Only because nobody knows who she is!
Absurd.
If you start off with lies, you can never get to the truth.
Salon is pointing out the elephant in the room. Without the black vote, the Dems cannot win. And most blacks WILL NOT vote for a Jew.
Look at the NY exit polls, and the Michigan exit polls
This from lib Salon no less.
yep
Exactly!
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.