OK, the presidential election is still almost 19 months
away, and it’s early to be worried. But Hillary Clinton wasn’t my choice for
president in 2008, and – although I may change my mind – I’m not enthusiastic
about her now.
Problem is, of course, there’s nobody else.
Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia
Senator Jim Webb, former Rhode Island Senator and former Governor Lincoln
Chafee, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are said to be thinking about
running, but they’re really long shots. Barring a massive Clinton screw-up
during the campaign, lesser-name candidates will likely drop out after a few
primaries, and Clinton will coast to the nomination.
For many of us, it won’t be hard to choose between Clinton
and any of the Republicans. Some, like Ted Cruz, would be disasters as
president, but they’ll be disasters as candidates, too, so there’s little need
to worry. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are a different matter. Either, I think,
would give Clinton a tough race.
And any of the Republican candidates would set the country
on a course that will be hard to turn back from. There’s not a moderate among
them.
Climate change, gun control, health care, education,
abortion rights, gay rights, labor rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
income inequality, campaign finance, foreign policy, Supreme Court nominations,
our response to terrorism: what’s at stake in the 2016 election is huge.
So why not Clinton?
Certainly she has many strengths. I
don’t think liberals will have to worry about her on most domestic issues. And
she could be an eloquent advocate on income inequality, shaming any Republican
she runs against.
But she’s much more of a hawk than I like. I worry that
she’ll pull back from some of the critically important progress Obama has made
in foreign policy. And given her hawkish nature, Republicans’ harsh militarism
could push her farther to the right.
I also worry that she can’t get elected.
Maybe that’s not a concern. Presumably she’ll have lots of
money. She has plenty of name recognition and already has a big base of
supporters, particularly among African-Americans and women.
In New York magazine earlier this month, Jason Zengerle discussed the factors that traditionally influence
election outcomes, and he noted two that are in Clinton’s favor: the economy is
improving, and Obama’s approval ratings, while not great, are decent.
But another factor is whether voters think it’s time for a
change. Clinton is not only in the same party as Obama, but she served in his
administration. In addition to average voters who hope that “change” equals
“better,” there are the passionate Obama haters. And they’ll have no problem
redirecting their ire and turning it onto Clinton.
Just as important, though, may be a problem that hurt
Clinton in 2008: She just doesn’t seem “natural.” She’s an introvert, Zengerle writes, but that trait comes off as being haughty
and entitled. And I think she’s often defensive in a way that creates the
suspicion that she’s hiding something. Republicans have already shown that
they’ll try to fan that fire.
Zengerle quotes GOP consultant
Rick Wilson as calling Clinton “a schemer and a planner and a plodder.” “You
need people like that in politics,” Wilson said, “but most of the time they end
up as campaign strategists, not candidates.”
And then Zengerle quotes Pat
Buchanan: “She reminds me of Nixon.” And in some of her news
conferences, actually… yes. She does.
Clinton’s personality, then, may help a Republican pull not
only his party’s base but also a lot of independents and conservative
Democrats. Over the next 18-plus months, Clinton will have to lay out a vision
that turns out her base and inspires the majority of other voters. If
Republicans are crazy enough to nominate someone like Ted Cruz, Democrats and
many independents and moderate Republicans will probably race to the polls out
of sheer fear. But if it’s Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio?
It’s early days. But Clinton’s run
has me more worried than excited.
This article appears in Apr 15-21, 2015.
“Some, like Ted Cruz, would be disasters as president, but they’ll be disasters as candidates, too, so there’s little need to worry…”
Hahahaha! Ted Cruz already has $50 million in his war chest, was the top debater in North America in both categories and has a debate championship named after him at Princeton. If I were on Team Hillary I wouldn’t let her within 100 miles of a debate with Ted Cruz!
” Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are a different matter. Either, I think, would give Clinton a tough race.”
Jeb would be still be associated with the past Bush legacy; I can’t imagine him being a Republican choice, if the party wants to regain the Whitehouse.
Marco Rubio, however, has alot of going for himself. His patriotism resonates with sincere love for our country, he’s quick- witted, can answer questions without stumbling, has specific, well thought out remedies to fix problems (whether you agree with them or not), is decisive, refreshing, young, handsome and represents a new hopeful look to politics. He also does’nt have the Bush or Clinton baggage to hinder him. He could be the first Latino president and has a warm, yet strong presence. He’s the one that can rally the country because he appears so excited and positive, in spite of negative times. Look out Hillary, if he becomes the Republican nominee.
I would be most happy if neither candidate were named Clinton or Bush.
I (and I think lots of people, both Democrat and Republican) would be most unhappy if this election winds up being Clinton vs Bush.
“Climate change, gun control, health care, education, abortion rights, gay rights, labor rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, income inequality, campaign finance, foreign policy, Supreme Court nominations, our response to terrorism: what’s at stake in the 2016 election is huge.” Yes, it is huge. If the United States is to survive, then an anti-Obama will need to be elected. Hillary is a joke . The nation needs to go back to the values of the Constitution. Who that will be is yet to be determined. I hope the REAL citizens will get out to vote. Our future depends on electing a government that will care about this nation and NOT about creating a legacy.
Ugh! In a country of 320 million can’t we find anyone else besides the same old same old? (emphasis on OLD). The office of President is not hereditary or dynastic. We don’t need any more Clinton administrations, or Bush administrations for that matter. The office is not an entitlement either, so it’s not Hillary’s TURN to be president as she and the Democrats seems to think.
Whoever coined the term ‘Clinton Fatigue’ got it right. Won’t they ever go away? The Clintons are of highly questionable ethics and character in my opinion. Hillary will continue where the disastrous Obama administration leaves off, taking the country down the wrong path that most Americans believe we are already on. We are overdue for some course-correction and Hillary is not the one for the job!
Hillary Clinton may be far from the ideal Democratic candidate and another candidate may still emerge. However, if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, there is much that can be done to shape her candidacy.
It is not too soon to contact Hillary’s campaign and let her know what you expect of the Democratic candidate. Let Hillary know that without specific stands on specific issues, you will not cast a vote for her. For me, a candidate must support GMO labeling, a ban on fracking, an all out effort to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar, American jobs over free trade agreements, diplomacy over war, single-payer health care, equal rights for all, ending corporate welfare and uplifting the middle class.
Then you have to follow through. If Hillary is not the candidate you want to support, then do not vote for her. Voting for second best or the lesser of two evils sends a signal to candidates that they do not need to aspire to be the best. Withholding your vote from a major party candidate and casting it for a third party candidate that matches your ideals is the best use of your vote. And it sends a strong and threatening message to the main party candidates that they actually need to represent people, not big money interests.
Justice Cruz has a nice ring to it. A few decades on the Supreme Court would have more lasting and beneficial impact on Constitutional governance than a few years in the White House.