It seems that Hillary Clinton has been making a bit of a buzz lately with a trip out west wherein she announced, by not announcing, her candidacy for the Presidency in 2016. Really? Is that the best we can do; be saddled for eight years with Mrs. Welfare Reform, Mrs. Wall Street and media deregulation, and Ms. Iraq War, all rolled into one?
As in 2008, Democrats have an opportunity, with public opinion overwhelmingly behind them, to clobber Villager centrism once and for all, and seem determined (as usual) not to do it. The only beneficiaries of a Clinton revival would be the same sort of sleazebags of the Rahm Emanuel/Tony Podesta variety and of course, the Republicans, for whom losing would, if history is any guide, seem a lot like winning.
And the choice of Hillary, at a time when young and enthusiastic voters are so crucial to Democratic success, feels like something that, well, Republicans might do, and might also shave a few points off the inevitable Democratic victory. Not meaning to lapse into ageism here, but I’m a lot younger than Hillary and am still too much of a hag to be President. And I never served on the board of Walmart, either.
Since 2014 is going to be a loss for Democrats, even if not a rout, thanks to Republican machinations too numerous to mention, dampening turnout and disillusioning the young any further by nominating a neoliberal Cocktailhag for 2016 is pure madness, unless, of course, there’s a method to it. Which there is.
A narrow Clinton victory would be much more beneficial to the 1% than a Warren/Sanders landslide, and thus the latter will never be on offer; the choices will be whether we like our Wall Street, Big Carbon, and Police State with or without a side of Jesus.
Photo by topicagnostic used under creative commons license