Thursday, November 6, 2014

Hillary will be the Democrats “savior”—again—or at least according to the Clinton News Network

“Who Will Stop Hillary?” expectorates a cover story in TIME magazine, while the Clinton News Network (CNN) is calling Hillary Clinton the “new superstar” of the Democratic party who will "save" it after its blistering defeat all over the country yesterday, losing the U.S. Senate and many governorships. CNN slobbered presumptuously

“Look no further than Hillary Clinton's travel schedule over the past two months to see how popular she is with Democratic lawmakers and base voters. It was a path her husband, the political iron man, started blazing earlier in the year -- crisscrossing the country as the "go-to" surrogate. The Clintons went where the President could not, did not and was not welcomed. Together, the Clintons participated in more than 100 campaign events. Yet, even they couldn't save Democrats on a night that went big for Republicans. Today, we enter a new election cycle and Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. If she runs, Clinton will become the new political head of the party, as the President bears down and focuses on his final two years in office.”

Well, as Republicans, cynics and realists might point out, Clinton’s presence was once more less about her “influence” than her so-called “rock star” status. Allegedly 83 percent of Democrats think she will be a “good” president; that was not much different than in 2006. The problem then was that what people say and what they do are often two entirely different things. Of course they are going to say that she will be a “good” president—what else are they going to say? They don’t want to be accused of being sexist. The crowds before election day came out to see her show—not to follow her “advice” and voted for Democratic candidates. Or was she actually just “campaigning” for herself? I wouldn’t put it past someone as obsessed with self as Clinton.

But it should be troubling to Democrats and Clinton’s media partisans that one of every six Democratic voters believe that she will not be a good president (I am one of them). Both the Clintons are arrogant, conceited people, but at least the male half concealed it well with the common touch, which the female half does not have. Of course, Bill and Hillary have two entirely different backgrounds and personalities; and while the cheap attacks contained in anti-Clinton literature like the American Conservative Union’s “What America Should Know“ about Hillary is just a rehash of what can be dug up in any politician’s closet, it is instructive of how many opportunities for dirt-digging the Clintons have given Republicans that can be tied to Hillary.

But a greater problem is that one senses with Hillary Clinton that once the adulation stops, a fit of indignant paroxysm is ready at the boil, with an unhealthy dollop of ill-timed sarcasm to bring a halt to any “expectation” of forward movement. It also should be pointed out—as demonstrated during the 2008 primaries—that Clinton’s mind can go wandering off in all kinds of bizarre directions when under pressure. Who do you trust to take that late call? Someone who make strange insinuations about the RFK assassination, or who appeals to the racial paranoia of white voters?

It is clear that Clinton’s is hyped not so much for her so-called “experience”—Republicans and any Democratic challenger can do much more than merely point to her featherweight record as Secretary of State—but to advance a gender agenda. But as in 2008, people are not going to be so willing to concede to the media their “anointment” of Clinton; even if Clinton does decide to enter the presidential race, a significant portion of the Democratic base will still be looking for an alternative. CNN and TIME show great contempt for voters if they think they can force feed something into them that they don’t really want.

This isn’t to say that Clinton can’t win a presidential election if nominated; if Republicans in Congress “rule” too ineffectually, voters might vote for Clinton solely because they want to feel “good” about actually voting for something “meaningful.” If the Republicans do maintain control of Congress, things may remain in stasis; on the other hand, Republicans may fear alienating the female voting base by appearing “sexist.” Certainly the media never called out the Republicans for making barely concealed racial appeals to their base against Obama.

On the other hand, if this past election means anything, the white female vote—which was barely greater for Obama than the white male vote in 2012—is not as “progressive” as the media claims. They may vote for Clinton purely as a gender politics issue, but a sizable majority of them are as red-right Republican or right-leaning as their male counterparts. We have seen as much by CNN’s giving Obama’s enemies as much “fair” time as possible; its hyping of Clinton is clearly a personal agenda, rather than supportive of a progressive one. I have no “faith” in white female voters—other than their being easily influenced by the politics of fear and paranoia. This past election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No comments:

Post a Comment