Billary Clinton appears to be going through the last four of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ stages of grief as she answers the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ bullshit charges on Benghazi in Washington, D.C., in January — charges that the traitors (including Mittens Romney) couldn’t make stick to President Barack Obama but sure the fuck are trying to make stick to Billary, even though war criminals George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. remain free. I, for one, don’t want to hear even more Benghazi bullshit for months and months to come, and would much rather see another, actually progressive Democrat win the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, male or female. (Go, Elizabeth Warren!) I reject Billary’s “inevitability,” and I hope that she has to go through Kubler-Ross’ stages of grief where the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is concerned.
Too many people were bored over the long holiday weekend, because the “buzz” was over Billary Clinton: Will Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren run in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary?
A writer for the New Republic says yes (or, at least, says probably); the smug, center-right political columnist for Slate.com David Weigel, in response, among other things has proclaimed that “The professional left [an apparent insult, since progressives, myself included, were quite insulted when a mouthpiece of the Obama regime dismissively referred to us as “the professional left,” when the more correct term for us would be “the Democratic Party’s base”] doesn’t know how to win” and asks (rhetorically?) of “the professional left”: “if the Obama experience hasn’t taught them that a dreamy presidential candidate won’t bring about paradise, what will?”
Weigel could have summarized his inevitability-of-Billary screed in two words: Surrender, Dorothy!
It’s fun to pick on “the professional left,” I’m sure. And it’s fun to knock down an argument that your (presumed) opponent never even fucking made. I mean, I know of no progressive who ever has described Elizabeth Warren as a “dreamy” candidate who will usher in “paradise.”
I do believe, in fact, that “the Obama experience” has taught us progressives an important lesson. (If nothing else, Obama has utterly ruined the words “hope” and “change” for all Democratic campaigns to come.) But Weigel, who apparently doesn’t actually associate with any of the progressives whom he so smugly disdains, wouldn’t know that; if he knew that, he wouldn’t need to ask, rhetorically or not.
Weigel’s assertion — not to pick only on Weigel, although he can be a real asshole — essentially seems to be that because “Billary Clinton is more popular than ever,” we might as well just skip the 2016 Democratic primary season and declare her the victor already.
I remember when the Deaniacs were basically, sometimes even literally, saying the same thing about Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential election cycle. Even progressive columnist and political cartoonist Ted Rall, with whom I agree more than 90 percent of the time, once actually wrote a column suggesting that states save money by skipping the caucuses and primaries altogether, since Howard Dean undoubtedly was going to win the nomination anyway.
Of course, when people actually voted in the primaries and attended the caucuses that Rall had recommended be scrapped, it turned out very differently: The candidate whom I’d supported all along, John Kerry, like Lazarus, arose from the dead and got the nomination. (Kerry, admittedly, has been a shitty, or at least a disappointing, secretary of state, but I still believe that he did much better against George W. Bush in 2004 than Howard Dean would have done had he won the nomination.)
So I reject similar assertions of Billary Clinton’s inevitability. Will she run for president again in 2016? Very most likely, as she is widely seen, as Mittens Romney apparently was seen in 2012, as her party’s heir apparent for 2016.
But is her primary-season win inevitable?
No. No more so than was Howard Dean’s.
Sure, polls right now show Billary as the undisputed leader for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, but doesn’t the fact that the likes of David Weigel basically are telling Americans that Billary Is Inevitable lead a great number of them to believe that Billary is their only real choice?
Elizabeth Warren shows in the top three in the 2016 Democratic presidential field in the latest polling, which suggests to me that she has a real shot.
I’d support Elizabeth Warren or another actually progressive Democratic candidate (female or male) hands down over Billary. I’m fine with a woman as our next president; I’m not fine with that woman being the center-right Billary Clinton.
I require more than the mere possession of the XX chromosomes in a presidential candidate. I wouldn’t want Sarah Palin to be president (or even vice president), either.
Ted Rall, in his forthcoming column on Billary Clinton and how she never should be president, among other things, notes:
… Hillary’s admirers have conflated her impressive list of jobs with actually having gotten things done. When you scratch the surface, however, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the woman has done little more than warm a series of comfy leather desk chairs. How has this career politician changed Americans’ lives? Not in the least.
No doubt, Hillary knows her way around the corridors of power: first lady, senator from New York, presidential candidate, secretary of state. Nice resume, but what did she do with all her jobs? Not much. …
Rall reminds us of Billary’s years in the U.S. Senate:
… After sleazing her way into the Capitol as an out-of-state carpetbagger — New Yorkers still remember — Senator Clinton wiled away the early 2000s as a slacker senator. This, remember, was while Bush was pushing through his radical right agenda: the Patriot Act, wars, coups, drones, torture, renditions and so on.
While Bush was running roughshod, Hillary was meek and acquiescent. …
[Update: Rall’s full column is here.]
Indeed, Obama also accomplished little to nothing during his (four) years in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, perhaps progressives have learned that you look beyond a candidate’s campaign rhetoric and instead look at that candidate’s record, and Billary’s record of accomplishment is no more impressive than was Obama’s when he won the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
“Since 2009 we’ve seen what happens when we elect a president with charisma but minus a resume,” Rall notes. But Billary doesn’t even have the charisma.
And, as Rall notes, “At least with Obama, 2008 voters saw potential. Hillary has had 20 years to shine. If she hasn’t gotten anything accomplished in all that time, with all that power, why should we think she’ll make a great president?”
Elizabeth Warren at least has consistently stood up to Wall Street — Warren at least shows potential — while the Clinton machine has made Wall Street its engine.
Would Warren use the hopey-changey bait and switch that Obama did? I doubt it. It wouldn’t be impossible, but I find it unlikely. And it would be difficult to find a lazier president than Obama has been. Recall that when he had both houses of Congress in his party’s control in 2009 and in 2010, he squandered his political capital, something that even the fucktarded George W. Bush never did.
In his column, Rall also correctly points out that although “A woman president is two centuries overdue,” by having ridden her husband’s coattails, Billary is “a terrible role model for women,” and that Billary royally fucked up in October 2002 when, in “the most important vote of her life,” as a U.S. senator she voted to allow the unelected Bush regime to launch its Vietraq War.
While I don’t know that I agree with Rall’s assertion that Billary lost to Obama in 2008 “primarily due to that vote,” it was a significant factor. (The charisma factor was larger, though, I surmise.) I, for one, still hold it against my U.S. senator, the nauseating DINO Dianne Feinstein, for having voted for the Vietraq War in October 2002 (the traitor nonetheless keeps getting re-elected here in California, though; that she’s a millionaire helps, I guess), and I still like my other, for-the-most-part-actually Democratic U.S. senator, Barbara Boxer, in no small part because she voted against it.
But John Kerry also had stupidly voted for the Vietraq War in October 2002 yet still won the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
True, the Vietraq War still raged then, and we didn’t have the hindsight on it that we did when Billary ran in 2008, but here in the United States of Amnesia, I can’t see her vote for the Vietraq War hurting Billary much in a 2016 campaign.
Still, though, her vote for the Vietraq War demonstrates that if she isn’t a self-serving coward who will do what’s politically expedient over what is right, she exhibited, in Rall’s words, breathtakingly “poor political calculus,” which makes her “kind of dumb.” (“Kind of” is generous.)
I’ll offer yet another, perhaps selfish reason to reject the “inevitability” of Billary Clinton: I really, really, really don’t want to keep hearing, for months on end, about Benghazi from the very same right-wing traitors who have had no problem whatsofuckingever with the pointless deaths of more than 4,000 of our troops in the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked, unjust and thus bogus — and thus treasonous — Vietraq War, but who claim to care sooo much about four Americans who died in the Middle East last year.
But then again, perhaps with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors so fucking focused on trying to take down Billary with the Benghazi bullshit, they wouldn’t see someone like Elizabeth Warren coming…