Wednesday, October 23, 2013
A Hillary Clinton Presidency – No So Fast to Gaze Into the Crystal Ball of the Presidency of the U.S. 2016
There’s an article in the Huffington Post today that was a bit on the interesting side - Although the piece, written by Sean McElwee, suggests it is one which brings a “Case Against Clinton 2016”, it is more of a rehash of her critics, and then a resounding conclusion that suggests there is no other candidate for President and, yes, Virginia, the Democrats will win the White House in 2016. There are also a few, perhaps to believe that a John McCain run for the Presidency may occur(Washington Post), however, even those without a crystal ball find it a bit ridiculous at this point to announce either Clinton or McCain as one a “done-deal” and the other even a remote possibility.
Hillary Clinton in 2008 was the strongest available candidate – at the time. This was comparing her to both Barack Obama (experience, and look where that has led), and McCain (who was, and remains, somewhat clueless when it comes to foreign policy, and or making decisions that would benefit everyone, not just the GOP inside D.C.) If it was Clinton vs. McCain, to this mind, it would have been a run, not a walk to the polling booth to choose the first woman President. There were several reasons, none of which had to do with gender, or the fact that as a Libertarian/Conservative, the natural reasoning would be to align oneself with whichever body the GOP put up for the job. Clinton had a record to stand on in the Senate, one which was her own – she was on the fiscally conservative voting side, took care of the Veteran’s and was a bit hawkish but in a protect the homeland vein – cautiously casting votes, rather than being brash – or casting a political vote. She had a darn good plan for the health care system, which would have been much more reasonable than either Romney Care or its derivative, Obama Care. (That can be said with a little authority living in Massachusetts.)
That said, there have been divisions in both political parties – in 2008 one saw the real rise of the Progressive Democrat, whereby a solid candidate for the blue-collar American Worker, Clinton, was cast aside for the ideologue, who looked great on camera, but continues to lack substance – a second coming of Jimmy Carter, which, through no fault of his own, apparently is in over his proverbial head. These particular brand of Democrats (not the New Deal democrats that are referred to in the McElwee piece) is deeply entrenched in the party, and will hold sway over elections until diminished – there is something in the word Progressive – move forward – that sounds right to the “uninformed” voters who are more than likely generational party members. Therefore, Clinton would have a rough primary against an inflated, mao-Barbie in the form of one Junior Senator from MA, Elizabeth Warren. Although polling near dead last at this moment, Ms. Warren one can predict will rise like a Phoenix, similarly to the President.
The GOP is now in the same predicament that the DNC appears to have itself – instead of Progressives (which to some conservatives appear to reside inside the GOP, as well as the DNC), there is the Tea Party – that much maligned group of agitators who are just too darn tied to the Constitution. They did not disappear after 2010, despite the harassment by a certain branch of the government), they fared poorly to some in the 2012 election, but to be fair, they did not have a dog in that hunt, neither did rank and file conservatives, or evangelicals. If one wants to think hard and long about why Romney failed so miserably when all the stars were aligned just perfectly – then think about the evangelicals who would not vote for someone whose religion was anathema (despite reports to the contrary) – that’s 10,000,000 votes (a conservative estimate). Add to that the Tea Party members of conscious who could not vote for someone who had been the harbinger of Obama Care – add another 2,000,000 or more voters who either skipped the Presidential choices on the ballot and/or just stayed home.
Therefore, one has to have a balance – a Constitutionalist who would appeal to the rank and file GOP (those generational party voters will go along to get along), conservatives, tea party libertarians, and yes, the evangelical right wing. Without all of those forces aligned, the GOP will lose another election, even if, as one might suspect, the candidate would be another “first” who would, indeed, lack experience.
To say at this point, that the nation would go one way or the other is ludicrous. There will be characters of interest, no doubt, and the usual suspects will occur from both parties, but one might suspect that a stronger candidate will prevail. The question remains, which candidate in 2016 will appeal to all facets of their particular party brand. Perhaps one can afford a few million voters –staying at home, or voting with caution by avoiding the top of the ticket, but to the candidate that has the majority of his or her base in their back pocket, as well as cross over and generational party voters, that individual will walk into the White House – in a landslide. It will be the one candidate that does not tow the Party line, nor willingly invest themselves in the Washington party –one suspect that this time around, it will be the real hand-shaker, with some intellect that may rule the day. As to which candidate will capture the hearts of the voting public, that remains to be seen.