Hillary Clinton’s campaign believes it has a “firewall” against insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders in the form of African-American voters in Southern states where President Bill Clinton is remembered fondly. Do blacks really want to be her firewall? We’ll see soon.
Hello Firewall
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
12 Comments. Leave new
The irony here is that the GOP has spent years suppressing the black vote. Much as they hate Hillary, they’re gonna hate Bernie even worse.
CrazyH,
I’m going to have to disagree with that. Hillary Clinton is — UNIQUELY — despised by the Republican side. Lots of politicians have opponents, and lots of politicians have enemies and rivalries and so forth.
But Hillary Clinton is despised by the Republicans.
The Republicans hate Bernie Sanders for his crazy socialism nonsense, but the Republicans who hate him for it have always hated crazy socialism nonsense: Medicare, Social Security, public schools, government regulation of drinking water and what’s in it, etc.
There is NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where someone can claim that Hillary Clinton would be more liked or more tolerated than Bernie Sanders. Not one.
The irony here is that Hillary Clinton’s centrist “let’s make incremental gains over many lifetimes” is more in step with Far-Right Republican goals; they SHOULD be supporting her because she won’t talk about fundamental rights of citizens, she’ll tell the citizens, “Look. Ya gotta be patient. Just suffer for a few more decades. When I get back from delivering this speech, I’ll explain why the richest country in the world can’t do what every single other first-world country has.”
Okay, but then I don’t disagree with you, 😉
If Hillary were elected, her policies would be more in line with what the GOPranoes would like to see, even as they hate her, personally. They didn’t like Mr. Hillary much, either – but that which he accomplished was still closer to their own agenda. (I like Michael Moore’s take on it – Bill was the best Republican president we ever had.)
So, perhaps I should have said that they will hate Bernie’s agenda more than they would hate Hillary’s.
Either way, I’m looking forward to some spectacular hissy fits from the right.
And on that last point, we are in total agreement. 🙂
My take on it is that the original RW outrage over Mr. Hillary was that he won a presidential election they thought they had in the bag.
This was then exacerbated by all their failed attempts to undermine his presidency, culminating in those ridiculous impeachment hearings. Like a petulant child, they grew even more outraged that their outrage was never properly acknowledged by the adults in the house. (Much like Obama)
My memory is that they hated Hillary at that time for the same reason they hate Michelle today – she was the wife of the man they hated. By their so-called standards, that made her a viable target.
Afterwards, as her political aspirations became apparent, they transferred their Bill-hatred to her, and also to retroactively punish Bill. But eventually it took on a life of its own.
My take on it – curious what others think.
I have always thought that the rabid fanatical hate toward Bill Clinton was due to how Clinton, regardless of what you think of him or his presidency, did it all on his own merit and pluck.
Call him a Bubba. Call him a philanderer. Call him anything you want. But he did all the hard work himself. Sure, he might have gotten a little help along the way, but he started at the very bottom of the pile. And no matter what anyone says, the laurels are his to rest upon.
It seems that both 20 February and 27 February will be interesting days for those who study how political processes to pick leaders should not be run. I wonder which of them will prove the more interesting….
Henri
I suspect Nevada (the 20th) will be more interesting. Why? Apply lessons from your own personal life. Anyone can say they were late because of the subway. And, sure, it’s so believable that no one will bother checking.
The second time? Well, you might have an inkling of suspicion, but you’ll still probably let it slide. After that? Follow along …
“Jeez, howdya come so close to losing Iowa, Clinton?”
“Well, it doesn’t count. Iowa’s mainly white people.”
“Jeez, howdya lose New Hampshire. By double-digits? When you had it in the bag six months ago?”
“Well, New Hampshire’s right next to Vermont. And it’s mostly white people. It doesn’t count.”
“Dear God Above, you lost Nevada?”
“Gosh, well, if you don’t count the minorities who live in Nevada, it’s all white people. And it you don’t measure distance, it’s right next door to Vermont.”
“I know, I know, you lost South Carolina. I don’t even want to hear the excuse.”
“This isn’t an excuse, it’s a reason.”
I suspect Clinton will lose/come-so-close-it’s-a-loss in Nevada and then Team Clinton will have the horrible moment of clarity: Sanders campaign is running on “economic race” and that cuts all the way across every metric.
Clinton might win the nomination, especially if the next debate is held outdoors at Dealey Plaza in Dallas. But look at the knife-fight that’s already emerging from Scalia’s death. The Republicans are already vowing to force a delay of 300+ days so that the next president can nominate.
HRC has made “I. Can. Get. Things. Done.” the mantra of her campaign. But. She. Can’t. The Republicans will fight her on every single thing. She won’t sweep the general election. She won’t inspire the masses at anything even close to the level Sanders will, and whoever the next Democratic president is, he or she is going to have to sweep. He or she is going to have to inspire. He or she will need to gain all the for-grabs Senate seats as well as wipe out the Republican lead in the House (28 seats). That won’t happen if people are feeling “meh.”
Ms Clinton is, I fear, a fraud. She’s running a campaign on «electability», but has only been elected once, in a race in which the main opposition candidate withdrew due to health reasons, leaving her to face a relative unknown. She’s also running on being able to get things done, but has, so far as I can see, no administrative experience. She claims to have a great deal of foreign policy experience, but her policies – to the degree that she did indeed influence US policy while US Secretary of State – were disastrous. As Mr Sanders has noted, the question here is not primarily one of «experience», but rather one of judgement….
But of course, there are still worse alternatives – can one imagine, for instance, Rafael Edward Cruz at the helm of the US ship of state ?…
Mondo cane, as the Italians say….
Henri
> if you don’t count the minorities who live in Nevada, it’s all white people.
Love it.
I don’t think it will do the GOP any good to sit out the SCOTUS nomination. They have a slim enough senate majority right now, and could lose it come 2016. Smart money says the dems will pick up seats. We’re about 106% certain to have a democrat for prez, so at worst we’ll have someone more-or-less even with O’bummer, and at best we’ll have a true liberal.
Sitting on their hands for a year will just make ’em look like obstructionists (Who’d a thunk it?) and could be played to make them look even worse, especially if O’bummer nominates a true moderate.
It would be evil for me to say I’m glad Scalia is dead. So, instead, I’ll say I’m glad he’s no longer alive. Such a vile, despicable man who felt that ideology should trump constitutional law should never have gotten the seat in the first place. Whoever his replacement, the court will move to the left. (assuming that the pugs don’t have another Manchurian like Roberts waiting in the wings)
A nominee for the supremes should have to pass a test to show s/he actually understands the damned constitution before being allowed to sit on the highest bench in the land. Ditto presidents and congresscritters.
«Sitting on their hands for a year will just make ’em look like obstructionists (Who’d a thunk it?) and could be played to make them look even worse, especially if O’bummer nominates a true moderate.»
But CrazyH, isn’t the appeal of the those who seem to be running the GOP madhouse based in no small degree upon obstructionism – at least when it comes to other matters than choosing which country to invade next ? (In that latter case, rather than engaging in obstructionism, the madmen are more than willing to grease the rails….)
Henri
> isn’t the appeal of the those … based in no small degree upon obstructionism?
To the dittohead bobbleheads absolutely. But they’ll for for whatever idiot their party nominates regardless. They’d vote a blender if it won the GOP nomination.
So it usually comes down to the swing voters, and the worse the GOP looks, the more likely they are to vote the other way.