Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Progressives, It’s Time to Start Panicking about Hillary
The National Review ^ | March 5, 2015 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on 03/06/2015 2:57:15 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

There is no Plan B for 2016.

I’ll say it, happily: Democrats should be worried about Hillary Clinton, and moderately panicked about the immediate future of both their party and their cause.

This is not, of course, because Hillary’s latest scandale du jour is in any practical way going to “disqualify” her; and nor is it because leftward-leaning voters are likely to recall anything more from this rather awkward period in time than that the Clintons are as perennially sleazy as they ever were. Rather, it is because the last few days have underscored just how tenuous the Left’s grip on power and influence truly is in the waning days of the once-buoyant Obama era. At present, Republicans control the House of Representatives, they lead the Senate, and they enjoy pole position within a vast majority of the states. The Democratic party, by contrast, has been all but wiped out, its great historical hope having relegated himself by his obstinacy to the role of MVP on a team of just a few. For the next couple of years, Obama will dig in where he can, blocking here, usurping there, and seeking to provide for the Left a source of energy and of authority. But then . . . what?

After last year’s midterm elections, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait contended grimly that the sheer scale of the Republican wave had rendered Hillary Clinton “the only thing standing between a Republican Party even more radical than George W. Bush’s version and unfettered control of American government.” The customary rhetorical hysterics to one side, this estimation appears to be sound. On the surface, the knowledge that Clinton is ready to consolidate the gains of the Obama project should be a matter of considerable comfort to progressivism and its champions. Indeed, as it stands today, I’d still bet that Hillary will eventually make a somewhat formidable candidate, and that, despite her many, many flaws, she retains a better than 50 percent chance of winning the presidency in 2016. In part, this is because she is a woman, yes, and because she will play ad nauseam upon this fact between now and November of next year; in part this is because she has been distressingly effective at selling herself as a moderate, and because her husband is remembered as a solid caretaker and remains popular across partisan lines; in part this is because the Democratic party is currently benefitting from a number of structural advantages that Republicans will struggle to overcome, whomever they choose to be their standard bearer; and in part this is because the economy will almost certainly be doing well enough by next year that the “Obama saved us all” narratives will seem plausible to a good number of voters.

But — and this is a big but: Once we take Hillary out of the equation, the game looks rather different. As potent as it might be on paper, the Democratic party’s present edge within the Electoral College is by no means infinite, and it does not obtain in a personality vacuum. Such as they are, the current predictive models tend to presume less that the Democrats are bulletproof per se, and more that the party will field a strong and popular candidate in the mold of a Barack Obama or a John F. Kennedy or a William Jefferson Clinton and that this good candidate will start from a position of structural strength. Does the party have such a figure, other than Hillary? I cannot see that it does, no. Certainly, it is amusing for us to sing “Run, Liz, Run,” to tease Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, and even to pretend that Andrew Cuomo or Martin O’Malley could ever be elected president of the United States. But, idle levity to one side, there is ultimately no hiding from the recognition that Clinton is the only viable game in town. Historically, running for a third term is extraordinarily tough. Are Americans expected to return a nobody to the highest office in the land purely because the on-paper estimates favor his party?

In the last few days, we have seen a host of progressive commentators begin to call for an alternative. And yet for all the thrilling “Challenge!” headlines that this dissent has inevitably provoked, it remains the case that pretty much every single person who has called for a contested Democratic primary has chosen to rest his argument on the presumption that a nomination fight would help Hillary to improve, not that it would help her party to select a more appropriate candidate. A quote, from radio host Deborah Arnie Arnesen, sums up the pattern well:

“The Democratic base that isn’t wedded to her is nervous about it,” said Deborah Arnie Arnesen, a progressive radio host in Concord, New Hampshire. “It makes her more vulnerable. What is this anointed candidate getting us? A much more flawed candidate than we thought. And Republicans now have material they never thought they would have.”

“We need to litigate this in a primary so that she will be better at it, or it will be the Republicans who will be doing it for her,” she added.

This fear is well placed. Indeed, were I a progressive Democrat, I daresay I’d be saying the same thing. Suppose, arguendo, that I thought, as does Jonathan Chait, that there was quite literally one human being standing between my agenda and a sweeping set of market and political reforms that would destroy my dreams for a generation. Suppose I believed, as does ThinkProgress, that if a Republican president is given the opportunity to nominate two or three more Supreme Court justices, the dream of a progressive judiciary will be dead for a generation or more. Suppose that I considered Obamacare to be a great and historic political victory, and that I was desperate for an executive who would protect it against Republican — or popular — repeal. Wouldn’t I be rather worried that Clinton might . . . die? Wouldn’t I find myself lying awake at night, fretting that Hillary might become too sick to run? Would I not entertain with horror the possibility that this latest scandal might be the tip of the iceberg, and that Hillary might have one too many crimes in her well-stocked closet? Wouldn’t it occur to me that she might begin to stumble and fall on the campaign trail, the better to be shown up by a young and fresh-faced alternative from the right?

The old adage holds that only a fool elects to put all his eggs in one basket, and, for all our technological progress and social ingenuity, this remains as true now as it ever was. In the New York Times yesterday, Frank Bruni inquired of Hillary: “Does she have a political death wish?” He might well ask that of her party as well. The lights are going out across Blue America. The amplifying fear that there will be nobody viable to light them back aflame is grounded in reality. Time for a little sweating, perhaps.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; cuomo; democrat; democrats; elizabethwarren; hillary; hillaryclinton; obama; progressives
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 03/06/2015 2:57:15 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ah,that’s only auntie Hill being auntie Hill!


2 posted on 03/06/2015 2:58:49 AM PST by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nuts. Both houses of Congress are still controlled by Democrats because Boehner, McConnell and about 1/3 of elected Republicans are closet Democrats who come out when their votes are needed to maintain what open Democrats have created.


3 posted on 03/06/2015 3:15:46 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Black Swan in all of this is Hillary’s health. She not young, she drinks more than a bit And I have no idea when she last had sex with the playboy of the western world but Lord knows what he could have brought home to her.


4 posted on 03/06/2015 3:19:03 AM PST by muir_redwoods ("He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." G.K .C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

>> Nuts. Both houses of Congress are still controlled by Democrats

Had same reaction to 4th sentence.


5 posted on 03/06/2015 3:21:30 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

That Hillary Clinton is even the front-runner for the Democrats is an indication of how old and tired that political party is. When you look at the most prominent leaders of the Democrat Party — Clinton, Harry Reid and Pelosi — you see people who come across as just old and feeble.


6 posted on 03/06/2015 3:27:44 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

From the article..
“and in part this is because the economy will almost certainly be doing well enough by next year”

Much of the data says otherwise


7 posted on 03/06/2015 3:28:47 AM PST by LMAO (("Begging hands and Bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"...Anthem from Rush))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Post #3 is exactly correct


8 posted on 03/06/2015 3:31:48 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
No, it's not.

Progressives should remain perfectly calm and exalt their future presidentess. At least until the leaves turn yellow and start falling off the trees in the fall of 2016.

Too good to be true. And not going to happen.

My hunch is the leftards are going to bolt for Granny Warren, the fake affirmative-action Injun from Massachusetts. They just need to get up the nerve. That's what all this stuff about www.clintonemail.com is all about!

9 posted on 03/06/2015 3:35:10 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

The GOP needs, needs to be for bringing back American industry.

93.7 million Americans are now out of the labor force. That continues to grow constantly.

We are now over 18 TRILLI,ON in debt. The problem is, the GOP is nowhere about the most important issue in the world:

American manufacturing. That is what the GOP needs to get behind, and that is what the GOP is completely sold out about.

Bring back JOBS.


10 posted on 03/06/2015 3:42:49 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
... even more radical than George W. Bush’s version and unfettered control of American government.

I'm sorry, but I do not consider an analysis that contains this statement unquestionable. Maybe if it was altered to something like "unfettered American government" I'd believe it. Bush did nothing to reduce the scope and spending IMO. Even worse, he created two of the biggest threats to our liberty not seen in generations: DHS and TSA.

That hitching point aside, there is some merit in the argument Democrats may feel that she is the only one in the way of Republican control of government - including a SC justice pick or two. Granted.

But there are those kooks out there (many it seems by the hype about her) who think Warren is the understudy who will stun Broadway after Hillary breaks her legs (hard to do with calves like that) and can't star in the play. Regardless, if it isn't Warren it will be some other Obama-like Turtle that has been drudged up and concocted.

Here is what Obama is going to do to make sure the sales for that play (no matter who stars) are SRO. He WILL allow 10 Million illegals to register to vote. He will fight lawsuits and connive federal injunctions to allow the process to continue through to the election. Those are the numbers Democrats need to win, and he will give them the votes.

11 posted on 03/06/2015 3:46:38 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
But — and this is a big but

Glad to see that one made it past the editors.

12 posted on 03/06/2015 3:46:56 AM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aposiopetic

Harf, Harf, Harf - good one......


13 posted on 03/06/2015 3:51:56 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Hillary and Bill are the Gordon Gekkos of politics.


14 posted on 03/06/2015 3:53:14 AM PST by Daveinyork ( Marbury vs.Madison was the biggest power grab in American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

“My hunch is the leftards are going to bolt for Granny Warren, the fake affirmative-action Injun from Massachusetts. They just need to get up the nerve. That’s what all this stuff about www.clintonemail.com is all about! “

Could be. Another theory is that Hillary is self-vetting herself on this issue so that a year from now if a Republican should bring it up, she and her pukes can state that “there you go again, dragging up old news”. Seems to work like a charm.


15 posted on 03/06/2015 3:56:31 AM PST by snoringbear (E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

As long as Boner controls the House and turkey neck controls the Senate, the GOP controls NOTHING.


16 posted on 03/06/2015 3:59:22 AM PST by ZULU (Je Suis Charlie. . GET IT OBAMA, OR DON'T YOU??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I have no idea when she last had sex with the playboy of the western world

August 22, 1979.

17 posted on 03/06/2015 4:04:03 AM PST by USS Alaska (Exterminate the terrorist savages, everywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We’re about to see the Furies attack Hillary and destroy her. The act will be very public and extremely nasty.

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Furies.html


18 posted on 03/06/2015 4:09:25 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear
Another theory is that Hillary is self-vetting herself on this issue so that a year from now if a Republican should bring it up, she and her pukes can state that “there you go again, dragging up old news”.

I'm starting to wonder if they aren't getting ready to dump all the blame for Benghazi on her to protect Obama. She has enough dirt on him for it to get really messy if she doesn't go along, so part of the deal is that she gets a Presidential pardon on any criminal charges. But for that to work, she'll have to be convicted before he leaves office. He can't grant a pardon for crimes she hasn't been convicted of yet so they need to get in front of it and keep it steered in the right direction.

19 posted on 03/06/2015 4:16:27 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
One flaw in your analysis involves the illegal aliens voting.

To win a presidential election, Democrats don't need 10 million illegal aliens to vote. They simply need them living in the U.S. and counted in the U.S. census. Electoral votes and Congressional seats are apportioned by population, not registered voters. This is why California has 53 seats in the House and 55 electoral votes, even though it probably has some Congressional districts where most of the residents can't vote.

20 posted on 03/06/2015 4:20:39 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson