Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton?
Most of the Facebook groups of which I am a member, many of the liberal sites and blogs I regularly follow, and many of my Facebook friends are pro-Elizabeth Warren Progressives. (Of course, Elizabeth Warren has clearly and emphatically and repeatedly denied that she is a candidate for the Presidency in 2016.)
 |
| Hillary Clinton |
WS
Some of them insist that Hillary is no better than Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or Scott Walker; and some of them insist that they will refuse to vote for her. She is too "Wall Street" for them. (They think that Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker AREN'T "Wall Street"? Not sure I really understand that complaint in view of the opposition.)
Well, I WILL vote for Hillary Clinton, though with reservations, and for a couple of very good reasons; the first one is of utmost importance:
She will probably win.
Remember Watergate?
Let me put this in context:
I've been watching the movie about Watergate, All the President's Men, over the past few evenings. The movie was released in 1976 with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the young reporters. If you don't recall or you are too young to remember, the Watergate scandal was not about a minor league break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters in the run up to the 1972 election; it was about Republican dirty tricks to knock off the strongest Democratic opponents; the opponents that actually could have BEAT Nixon and deprived the Republicans of Nixon's second term.
The Republicans WANTED to run against a Progressive in 1972.
They went after Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, because apparently there were some polls in 1971 that showed that Muskie was the guy who could beat Nixon. Their campaign "operatives" wrote memos on Muskie campaign paper that seemed to portray Muskie as a bigot regarding French-Canadians in his home state of Maine. They trashed his wife. This contributed to the breakdown of the Muskie candidacy. But we all have to remember that, what came out during the Watergate investigations, the Republicans WANTED Nixon to run against the progressive/liberal McGovern because they knew Nixon would beat McGovern.
Let me put this in context:
I've been watching the movie about Watergate, All the President's Men, over the past few evenings. The movie was released in 1976 with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the young reporters. If you don't recall or you are too young to remember, the Watergate scandal was not about a minor league break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters in the run up to the 1972 election; it was about Republican dirty tricks to knock off the strongest Democratic opponents; the opponents that actually could have BEAT Nixon and deprived the Republicans of Nixon's second term.
The Republicans WANTED to run against a Progressive in 1972.
They went after Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, because apparently there were some polls in 1971 that showed that Muskie was the guy who could beat Nixon. Their campaign "operatives" wrote memos on Muskie campaign paper that seemed to portray Muskie as a bigot regarding French-Canadians in his home state of Maine. They trashed his wife. This contributed to the breakdown of the Muskie candidacy. But we all have to remember that, what came out during the Watergate investigations, the Republicans WANTED Nixon to run against the progressive/liberal McGovern because they knew Nixon would beat McGovern.
The 2016 version of Dirty Tricks
"Dirty tricks" are probably worse now with the unfiltered Internet; with talk radio, bloggers, and even Fox News free to say whatever they want to say about somebody, even if those statements are outright lies. Every time I see someone portraying themselves as a liberal or progressive and insisting that Hillary is too "Wall Street" for them, I think about those dirty tricks; I wonder if anyone is funding this or that "Progressive" attack on Hillary Clinton.
They WANT Progressives to Stay Home.
The Republicans KNOW that Clinton can beat anybody now on the Republican clown car. She continues to lead all comers in every poll. So they will pound on her from every side and from the top and the bottom... and they will feed Progressives (or faux Progressives) anti-Clinton stuff as well.
They are hoping the Progressives will stay home and will allow Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie to move their conservative Republican war-mongering anti-people legions into the White House. (And they would love to see Elizabeth Warren run in opposition to any of those now on the Republican clown car, because, as much as Progressives love her, she would probably lose. As great as she is, she is fairly unknown and she never gets more than 15% on polls among DEMOCRATS!)
Actually, the second reason I would vote for Clinton is also of utmost importance:
They are hoping the Progressives will stay home and will allow Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie to move their conservative Republican war-mongering anti-people legions into the White House. (And they would love to see Elizabeth Warren run in opposition to any of those now on the Republican clown car, because, as much as Progressives love her, she would probably lose. As great as she is, she is fairly unknown and she never gets more than 15% on polls among DEMOCRATS!)
Actually, the second reason I would vote for Clinton is also of utmost importance:
Remember the Supreme Court!
No, Both Parties are NOT the Same, particularly when one party or the other is in the White House and nominating Cabinet officials and federal judges.... especially Supreme Court judges.
So my bottom line: Even if you think Clinton is not progressive enough, defend her wherever you can with your life.
And if you really think that a Democratic administration headed by Clinton will be "no different" than a Republican administration headed by Jeb Bush or one of those other guys... well, wake up, for heaven's sake. Pull your head out of your ass.
Related reading:
Related reading:
- March 18, 2015: Allen Clifton at Forward Progressives just published There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face
- March 13, 2015: Jim Wright at his Stonekettle Station site talks about Republican war-mongering and mentions the election of 1968.
Exactly! I couldn't say it any better! We HAVE to win in 16!
ReplyDeleteExcellently said!!!!!
ReplyDelete