I Post This... Not Because I Agree With It... But Because It Should Be Read... And Discussed...

[WillyT]

No, I’m not “ready for Hillary” — but here’s why resistance is futile
Left media goes on the attack and Warren boosters keep hoping -- but battling Hillary is a pointless distraction
ANDREW O'HEHIR - Salon
SATURDAY, NOV 15, 2014 09:00 AM PST

<snip>

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends: the spectacle of the American left (I could, and perhaps should, use scare quotes around that term) chewing on its own entrails in anguish and frustration. With the misery of the midterm elections out of the way, and their thoroughly unsurprising revelation that people who nominally support the Democratic Party don’t actually care enough to vote, we can move on to bigger things. Specifically, to the Big Kahuna of American politics, the specter that’s been haunting the political arena from just offstage for months if not years, like a half-inflated cartoon blimp from the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. I refer, of course, to Hillary Clinton, who will provide endless fodder for deep-thinking punditry and 24/7 programming for the Liberal Despair Network from now through the 2016 Iowa caucuses and beyond. If you thought you were sick of her already, just wait.

I plead guilty as charged, of course. Clinton is so hated both on the right and on the left, yet so overwhelmingly likely to be our next president, that she’s like a black hole that sucks up all political energy, a bright flame that draws in all the hapless moths. I wrote a column a few months ago comparing her to Ronald Reagan, which I certainly meant to be provocative but was far too arch in execution. I forgot or didn’t know the first rule of punditry, which is to make your premise really obvious and beat the reader over the head with it repeatedly. I still get occasional mails from horrified liberals telling me that Clinton is the exact opposite of Reagan, or horrified conservatives saying “LOL u wish libtard.” So here’s the Cliff’s Note version: The comparison was not meant to be flattering to either of them, but the point was that they both functioned as supercharged political symbols, meant to mobilize specific voter demographics far beyond their normal level of participation. (White men and white women, respectively.)

That demographic superpower made Reagan impossible to defeat, and may do the same for Clinton. Here’s my premise this time: Clinton’s impending presidential campaign is causing immense anguish on the left (which I share), but the 2016 battle is quite simply not worth fighting, not by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or anybody else. I think we have to consider that potent symbolic dimension when we face the left’s combination of Hillary-mania and Hillary-phobia, which does not entirely correspond to the measurable dimensions of Hillary Clinton as a politician, policymaker and public figure. There just isn’t much anyone can say about her on those latter fronts that hasn’t been said many times before. That problem bedevils Doug Henwood’s thorough and even cautious “Stop Hillary!” cover story in the November issue of Harper’s (unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall), along with almost everything else that gets written about the former first lady, former secretary of state and presumptive presidential front-runner.

Henwood’s article was the longest and most articulate entry in a stop-Clinton litany that has also included pieces in the Nation, In These Times and the New Republic over the last year or so. This week brought us a gossipy summary in Politico, loaded with unfounded surmises and insiderish jargon, which argues that the “liberal media” is desperately trying to gin up an anti-Clinton crusade and provoke someone into running against her from the left: Sanders or Warren or outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley or, what the hell, outgoing Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (who isn’t a left-winger by anyone’s definition). This article is both vastly dumber than the Harper’s essay and, curiously, much more on point. Hillary Clinton’s actual positions are not really in doubt, and as Henwood rigorously details, anybody who fails to grasp that she’s a hawk on both economics and foreign policy, a pawn of Wall Street, a creature of the neoliberal “Washington consensus” and a loyal defender of the deep state is living inside a willed delusion.

No, the focus of current left-wing obsession is not so much Hillary herself as the Hillary conundrum...

<snip>

More: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/15/no_im_not_ready_for_hillary_but_heres_why_resistance_is_futile/

[MineralMan]

1. :shrug;

Discuss what, exactly? There will be dozens of similar posts in the coming months. I'm bored with them already. We have a system for choosing candidates. It will operate as usual, punditry or not.

[WillyT]

4. That's What We DU Here... That's Why It's Called A "Discussion Board"... Feel Free To Ignore...

[MineralMan]

5. I felt free to comment, instead.

I will continue to feel free to do so. This kind of omphaloskepsis always is worth comment, if only to point out its banality.

[WillyT]

7. As Is Your Right

[L0oniX]

14. *

[leftofcool]

2. All this has been hashed and rehashed.

[WillyT]

6. Is This The New Meme ??? - Feel Free To Trash The Thread !!!

[KoKo]

3. Interesting Read, Willy T...always like to hear what our Dem Ops are putting out there..

Sadly...some of us have trouble distinguishing the "Dem Third Way Ops" from other Dems these days.

That's why the Opposition view and others are always WELCOME to read for those of us who have "Inquiring Minds" about Politics.

[WillyT]

8. :)

[Callmecrazy]

9. I'm voting for Uncle Joe...

as a write-in if necessary.

[WillyT]

10. Has Anybody Seen Uncle Joe As Of Late ???

I have not.

And I Miss him.

[deutsey]

11. Am I the only one who believes two years in the political world

is the equivalent of a hundred years?

She may very well go on to be the nominee and the eventual victor, but two years out is way too soon to be making any conclusions one way or another, I don't give a damn what "THE POLLS" say at this point.

Nothing is inevitable with two years to go, unless the electoral process is obsolete (which it may very well be since 2000).

I thought the point of primaries was to select the nominees and the point of the general election was to select the president and members of Congress.

If it's inevitable let's just forgo the process, declare the heirs to the throne now based on polls, and put the money normally wasted on elections to some good use.

[djean111]

18. I believe that if the Hillary camp can find a way around having primaries, they will do

that. It would be presented as saving money for the general election, not giving the GOP any ammunition from the debates and campaigns, and avoiding rifts in the party. What it would do, of course, is cause a rift in the party.
I cannot think of any other reason for the relentless and almost demented pushing of "Hillary is inevitable".

If it's inevitable let's just forgo the process, declare the heirs to the throne now based on polls, and put the money normally wasted on elections to some good use.

That's the plan. But the money won't be put to good use, it will stay in those big fat war chests.

[deutsey]

21. Yeah, I originally had a snarky comment about putting the money

to enriching the wealthy even more than they already are, but I deleted it.

I do know, however, that's what is considered these days by putting money to "good use" means.

[H2O Man]

12. Recommended.

Thank you for posting this, with the intention of sparking a meaningful discussion. It's always a giggle to see the "old reliable" crew being so excited to express how {yawn} bored to read this type of thing. The careful study of, and rehearsed responses to such articles and discussions is clearly their passion.

In 2007, democrats were told that Senator Clinton was inevitable .....that she was destined to be the Democratic Party's nominee, and no force on earth or in Washington could possibly stop her march to the White House. And, truth be told, she proved to be a tough, extremely capable contender. I found her much more compelling, and far, far more attractive a candidate, than those around her, working for her campaign.

I voted for her for the Senate. And I could have supported her for president in 2008, although I came to prefer Senator Obama. I remember how some here on DU reacted in February of '08, when I posted an OP in support of Obama -- yikes! You'd have thought I committed grave sins against humanity. (A few DUers, led by one who spread a rumor that I was actually Patrick Buchanan, attempted to have me "tomb-stoned." For gracious' sake. I am many things, but not Pat Buchanan!)

At this point in time, I believe that Clinton offers many good things -- she'd be strong on reforming health care, for example. But she is weak on environmental issues, being too supportive of energy corporations. And her foreign policy belief system is neoconservative, which is the very last thing our nation needs.

I can see her playing an important role in the next administration, specifically on health care. But I hope that she does not become the nominee.

[WillyT]

17. Thank You H2O Man... That Means A Lot Coming From You...

[Thinkingabout]

13. I would hate to vote for someone who is for:

Increasing the minimum wage
Thinks disparity in wages is wrong
Thinks women has a right of choice
Thinks education is good
Ending Bush tax cuts to the rich
No tax increases for those earning less than $250k
Doesn't want Social security privatized
Did not vote for Roberts and Alito
Believes in healthcare
Wants to end tax subsidies for companies going off shore
Has had enough of corporate welfare and golden parachutes.

[geek tragedy]

15. Focus on issues, not personality.

The fundamental forces that matter extend far beyond any single candidate.

And truth be told, Hillary and whoever challenges her will be a lot more similar than different.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. There's always an inevitable contender; sometimes they actually win the nomination.

Stay tuned.

[Octafish]

19. We don't need the next in line.

We need the best in line.

[wyldwolf]

20. Liberal Despair Network

[Odin2005]

23. Your glee is disgusting.

[Odin2005]

22. More "inevitability" BS.