Nate Silver has written a post on Hillary’s chances for 2016. I find it the same kind of insufferable “she ran a strategic mess in 2008 and thought she was the pre-ordained frontrunner but now that we’ve taken her down, completely humiliated her and the Republicans have lost interest in beating the shit out of her reputation, which is strengthened by her executive level management skills that we didn’t require of Obama because he had Penis Years, she is now acceptable to us as a candidate for 2016″*. You know, the same meme diarrhea we’ve seen from all of the Democratic operatives since 2007. Lots of mythology about the blinding brilliance of the Obama campaign that overlooks the facts that he was carried over the threshold to the nomination by the DNC because his Wall Street backers were willing to throw lots of money at the party. Lots of lying about Hillary’s popularity and her “polarizing” personality.
This is bullshit. I don’t care what his success is as a statistician or how many people would vote for Hillary grudgingly or un. What’s good for the country is not necessarily good for Hillary. I also don’t think any position is worth that much humiliation and kowtowing. It’s likely that she will have to kiss a lot of asses and promise a strictly hands-off policy to the corporate and finance industry overlords. And you know what? As much as I would have liked to see her as president, I don’t think it’s worth it if you can’t be your own person and set your own goals. I will always be of the opinion that that’s why she didn’t get the nod in 2008. She wasn’t willing to play the same kind of game as Obama. Well, we know what kind of game Obama was playing so he must have been courted and pressured very heavily by the finance industry gurus who have gone virtually unpunished for ruining our lives. They found his ethics and values to be quite flexible and much more to their liking. Can we stop the nauseating hagiography of Obama’s 2008 campaign?? When the historians write about what really happened, the young, male graduate student factions of the Democratic party are going to look like the self-interested Obama fluffers that they turned out to be. In fact, next election season, read whatever those young Ezra’s and Yglesiases and Kevin Drums say and carefully consider the primary candidates they loathe. As far as I’m concerned, the new, young and almost completely male “progressive” opinion makers have shot whatever credibility they ever possessed when they signed on with Obama.
Make no mistake, one of the parties is going to try to run another historic candidate in the very near future. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a woman. If it is, I sincerely hope that the Democratic voters take a good hard look at her record and pay very close attention to what the media is saying about her. There is sure to be a lot of hype around the next woman candidate and it will be very hard to resist.
But let’s not get sucked in again, OK? The last thing we need is to get another stealth candidate like Harvard educated, financier toe-kissing Obama. It’s the policies that matter above anything else. That was the only reason I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary. The fact that she had lady parts was only icing on the cake. I suspect that posts like Silver’s are just setting us up for disappointment because Hillary will not run and that the next “historic” candidate is going to be another Trojan Horse. Let’s not let it happen again.
* Beating down a politician by using constant humiliation and misogyny ala Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove album cover is a weird criterion for making a presidential candidate acceptable. It says more about the guys who had a baitball frenzy in 2008 than Hillary Clinton. I don’t think you guys know how over-the-top horrible you looked. We won’t forget who you are and we’d be nuts to ever take you seriously.