“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