In the coming Democrat nominating process, Hillary will likely be the necessary, but not necessarily the popular choice. By that I mean she will probably be the most formidable (electable) pick to run against the Republican candidate for president, whomever that might be. This is important only because it’s important (vital) that a Democrat in the White House makes the choice regarding who the appointment to the Supreme Court will be when the next vacancy occurs.
Hillary will likely be the necessary, but not necessarily the popular choice.
Bernie is popular now and gathering momentum, but we’ve yet to see just how far that will carry. And the big question—even if he were to get the Democratic nomination—could he win in the general election? Remember the average voter (if there is such a thing?) in this country is center and slightly to the right. And that generally has been Hillary’s position.
Clinton is popular with women, and her base in the Democrat party; but she is beset with problems. She is (or has been in the past) too cozy with Wall Street; too non-committal currently on TPP; and too tepid on climate change. There is Benghazi and the e-mail controversy. Probably there’s nothing substantive to either of these so-called scandals, but that won’t stop the Republicans from trying to exploit them politically. But more important, can she be trusted to represent liberal and Democrat issues, or would she be just another triangulating and accommodating centrist politician like her husband, willing to coddle Wall Street and reform entitlements (to supposedly balance the budget) and do trade deals in favor of big business at the expense of the average working American?
Hillary represents a big gamble for liberals and progressives, because she’s neither. The biggest risk with Clinton if she were to become President would be her choice—were she to have the opportunity—to appoint a Supreme Court judge. This would be a real wild-card in a Clinton administration, and liberals might be disappointed. Democrats and Progressives would be looking for an accredited liberal judge who might swing the balance on the Supreme Court sufficiently to over-turn the Citizen’s United ruling and shore up the Voting Rights Act. I wouldn’t bet the deed to the ranch on this however. Clinton is—at best—a squishy liberal and suspect Democrat. There are just too many wealthy donors holding her markers. Her husband was basically a Republican—a centrist, triangulating politician (like Obama), and that was how he governed. Hillary is preferable—by far to the Republican option—but my own opinion is that she can’t be trusted to live-up to true liberal Democrat ideals.
Clinton is—at best—a squishy liberal and suspect Democrat.
She just last week rolled out a student loan debt reform plan that was very Obama like—again, a lot of squishy, qualified half-measures ( no big principal write-downs or total forgiveness ) and hopeful ideas that won’t really accomplish anything, do anything substantive in helping young people burdened with too much student debt. She is—remember—still a creature of the big banks.
Most modern day professional politicians (except perhaps Bernie) owe their careers, have major outstanding IOU’s to the big money interests (the “economic royalists”, as Roosevelt called them) who have financed their numerous campaigns. This is especially true of Bill and Hillary—as well, of course, of the Republicans who routinely, and quite hypocritically, attack her. I’m a Liberal and a Democrat so this is hard to say. But Hillary long ago compromised herself with some of her positions. She is like the high school prom queen in the back seat of the car at the Drive-In movie. She has already taken off her clothes, but still she keeps promising herself that the next time she won’t be so easy.
The Money Trader