Hillary: Only Inevitable Until They Give Us A Choice

Hillary 2016

On AlterNet, Guy Saperstein points out that Hillary Clinton, despite her charm and extraordinary work ethic, is not a better candidate for President this time than she was in 2008.

By every metric, voters are in a surly mood and they are not going to be happy campers in 2016, either. Why should they be? The economy is still in the toilet, not enough jobs are being created even to keep up with population growth, personal debt and student debt are rising, college graduates can’t find jobs, retirement benefits are shrinking, infrastructure is deteriorating, banksters never were held accountable for melting down the economy, inequality is exploding — and neither party is addressing the depth of the problems America faces.

Here are just a few of the problems with a Clinton candidacy, according to Saperstein:

  • Voters in 2016 will be seeking change and there is no way Clinton can run as a “change” candidate.
  • Rand Paul is out-polling Clinton 45-40 percent in Colorado, a blue state Democrats need to win in 2016.
  • Overwhelmingly, Democrats believe that Wall Street played a substantial role in gaming the system for their benefit while melting down the economy, but Clinton will be perceived as Wall Street’s candidate.
  • Clinton is not simply a hawk at a time when the Democratic base (and the country) is sick of expensive and counter-productive foreign adventures, she is a superhawk.
  • Clinton’s campaign will harken back to the glory years of the Clinton administration, but how much is that going to help? The major policy changes that started the ball rolling steeply downhill for workers and the middle class began in the Clinton administration.
  • Clinton spent four years as Secretary of State, which certainly improved her public profile, but can anyone identify any substantial accomplishments she had as Secretary of State?

As in 2008, Hillary’s main asset is her so-called “inevitability.” But that’s only an advantage until somebody better enters the race. Like Elizabeth Warren.

  1. #1 by Anonymous on May 8, 2014 - 6:44 pm

    She is a psychopathic murderess. ‘Nuff said.

  2. #2 by Anonymous on May 8, 2014 - 7:05 pm

    Charm? S’cuse me while I retch.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on May 8, 2014 - 8:03 pm

    Your opinions might carry some credibility of you de-anonymized them.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on May 8, 2014 - 10:05 pm

    The pot definitely needs to be stirred and Elizabeth Warren is certainly poised to do that. You can’t say she doesn’t have the guts we need right now. I’d like to read her new book when I get a chance.

    All of the points made in the article are good ones.

    The media is going to utterly ignore Warren unless she gets as popular as Howard Dean did on the internet and then it’s going to find something to trash her with, over and over again…

    “Journalist” training in the 21st century does NOT include letting a candidate go after the banks or the corporations.

  5. #5 by brewski on May 9, 2014 - 8:44 am

    Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Walmart for 6 years. Where is her record of promoting unions and women’s employee rights?

    • #6 by Larry Bergan on May 9, 2014 - 11:48 pm

      brewski, brewski:

      If there were only two candidates you could vote for for anything: Hillary or Warren; WHO would you vote for?

      I know it’s a hard question for a woman hater.

      • #7 by brewski on May 10, 2014 - 9:59 am

        Stupid question. If there were only two candidates running, Romney or Santorum, who would you vote for. I know it’s a hard question for a pot head.

        • #8 by Larry Bergan on May 10, 2014 - 10:22 am

          I have to admit; THAT is a very hard question.

          Romney vs Santorum?

          Probably Rmoney.

      • #9 by Richard Warnick on May 10, 2014 - 2:51 pm

        Actually there are never “only two candidates” for President. We shouldn’t fall into that trap.

        • #10 by brewski on May 10, 2014 - 9:31 pm

          It was Larry’s false choice. Not mine.

  6. #11 by Anonymous on May 9, 2014 - 9:15 am

    So you say. Highly unlikely in this NSA world.

    It is abundantly apparent no citizen’s input is of much account this far into fascism. Though some animals are more equal than others.

  7. #12 by Larry Bergan on May 10, 2014 - 10:35 am

    So who is it, brewski/noname?


    Give it!

    • #13 by brewski on May 10, 2014 - 9:33 pm

      I’d take Warren. The reason is that if Hillary was elected some things would actually get done and they’d all be bad. If Warren were elected nothing would get done and nothing is better than a lot of bad crap.

  8. #14 by Larry Bergan on May 10, 2014 - 10:48 am

    I apologize for the “Anonymous” mosquitoe.

  9. #15 by Nathan Erkkila on May 10, 2014 - 5:23 pm

    Only the people can give the people a choice.

  10. #16 by Anonymous on May 11, 2014 - 12:17 pm

    What do you love about a Weeble? Webble’s wobble but they don’t fall down!

  11. #17 by Anonymous on May 14, 2014 - 11:39 am

    Perhaps Larry apologize for yourself… Anyone who has half a wit would not leave their name on any site like this, before obama’s vile abuses of the 4th amendment, among others. Now you would have those with divergent views leave their name for government led by a man who signs his name to every illegal executive order and drone assassination?

    Perhaps you agree with the president, which makes you feel safe, until you don’t agree and then the drone murderer and his minions know your name.

    Is that intelligent Larry? Do you think those in obama’s sights overseas would lend their names so willingly?

    Are you stoned Larry?

    If this is what progressives support and wish others too as well it is no wonder the nation is circling the drain.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: