Mark Penn writes that Hillary Clinton will run again for president, but this time as a Bernie-style progressive. Will the third time be a charm or a curse?
Hillary Clinton’s Deader Than Dead Candidacy for 2020
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is 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 "2024: Revisited."
19 Comments. Leave new
And if she lives as long as the average US female, Ted, she’ll be able to run – with help of a walker ? – again in 2024 and 2028. What’s not to like ?…
Henri
RE: HRC will run “this time as a Bernie-style progressive.”
Apparently she aiming for both the presidential nomination and an Oscar nomination?
Falco, I am given to understand that the Clintons have lots of friends in Hollywood, so she’ll be a shoo-in (or, as I understand it is called in these latter days, a slam dunk)…. 😉
Henri
Hi Henri,
My question is: will “the Academy” give out
65+ million co-awards for “best deplorable in a supporting role”?
“65+ million co-awards for “best deplorable in a supporting role”
Good one, falco.
I honestly don’t think the Clintons have a single friend. Not in the sense of the word that I was taught.
Like the draft dodging Dan Quayle, who publicly regretted not submitting to the draft during the Vietnam War because of the utility it would have had in his campaign for the vice presidency, Hillary can now regret not partaking in the decades of civil rights activism, as Bernie Sanders did, because of the utility it would have in the reconstruction of her new election campaign image.
Wow. The ultimate iteration of naked ambition and powerlust. She’s like Margaret Thatcher, but without the warmth or core beliefs.
Like the heroic Rodrigo of El Cid, might Hillary’s body be secured to a horse in a heroic riding pose, wearing armor and cape, with an iron frame fitted to a saddle, when her warmth is reduced to that of the post April 8, 2013 Maggie Thatcher?
Show of hands – how many believe that Hillary is really going to become a progressive?
Okay, tough crowd. But one just has to wonder how many of the sheeple will believe.
OMG she has to stop. I don’t think we can take another campaign.
Maybe there is a silver lining here. It shows that The Message has been heard & understood by those who need it most. I don’t expect Hillary to change her spots, but it would suggest that the dem contenders next time around will be trying to position themselves to her left.
It’s not so much her changing her spots–she has done that throughout her career. It’s how she acts like she cares about women (again, Google Clinton and cook stove) when the only women she actually seems to genuinely have even a modicum of concern for are white women who aren’t alleging sexual assault by Bill Clinton and who have made out checks to the Clinton Foundation. It’s how she talks about her concern for the working class but thinks $15 an hour is too high. It’s about her arrogance and duplicity and, frankly, her tiresome perpetual need to play some psychological trauma. If only she wins the presidency and proves she’s the bestest girl in the whole world, then daddy will love her?
She’s spent decades in office or in the corridors of power and she’s done NOTHING except sweetheart deals that benefited Clinton LLC. She may deliver a six figure speech, but she’s small change when it comes to real work.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms Clinton gains the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2020 and defeats Mr Trump in the presidential election on 3 November that year. What would change ? Not much, if I understand this author aright….
I fear Mr Dabashi has hit the nail squarely on the head….
Henri
Thanks Henri.
Only in the pirouettes of Conservative Hocus-Pocus can the founder’s intent be denied.
In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the Founding Slavers attempted to stop slaves from becoming free men by means of escape to another State:
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
Then slavery merely became contingent under the Thirteenth Amendment under state’s law and was never abolished, although the word “abolished” continues to be mouthed with moral pride by Americans in the northern states.
Oh, give it a fucking rest, Glenn.
You like to compare this argument to religion.
I’ve argued with many people who insist that the founders were all devout Christians. It doesn’t matter that Franklin and Jefferson both SAID they were deists, or that Adams SAID he was a Unitarian, these bozos insists I should take their word over the men’s own words.
You know, like you insist I should take your word over the men’s own on their opposition to slavery.
They point at the date “the year of our lord” and say SEE? That proves they were Christians. No – it proves the speakers are ignorant of history, that’s simply how dates were done on official documents of the day. They’re unaware that Deism was popular among the intelligentsia at the time.
You know, like you’re ignorant of the history of the Great Compromise, or the fact that five of the thirteen colonies outright outlawed slavery, or that the Great Compromise included the provision that one Free State be admitted for every slave state.
They try to creatively interpret the First Amendment, insisting that it merely prohibits the establishment of a state church when it’s perfectly obvious that it prohibits interference with a religious establishment.
You know, like you insist that a sentence which penalizes slave states is somehow an endorsement of slavery.
They ignore any other well documented FACTS which contradict their pre-conceived notions, insisting that their faith outweighs any possible evidence.
You know … like you?
“You know, like you insist that a sentence which penalizes slave states is somehow an endorsement of slavery.”
No.
Slave states were given an advantage in the number of lawmakers representing slave states in the House of Representatives.
One should easily recognize that a constitution that favored slavery and rewarded slave states with more representation would want to, and did, make it easier for them to pass more laws that favor slavery.
Slave states were not penalized, they were rewarded.
But you can’t see that, and it’s not my job to convince you.
Pro-slavery Americans also love to celebrate the genocide that so inspired Hitler.
So have a Happy Thanksgiving.
> slave states were given a …
… disadvantage in taxes. Right there in the very same sentence. Yet for some reason, you can only see the advantage. (see “creative interpretation” above)
> Pro-slavery Americans also love to celebrate the genocide that so inspired Hitler.
Hitler? Seriously? Well, you’ve already called me a conservative, I suppose that’s the next “logical” step.
Hillary Clinton says Europe needs to curb migration to counter nationalism
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/22/europe/hillary-clinton-migration-europe-intl/index.html
oooo-kay. In order to defeat the nationalists, we need to give in to the nationalists. Somehow that just doesn’t sound right to me.
Of course, we could stop inspiring refugees by … oh, I dunno … stop bombing the shit out of their home countries? But that’s just crazy talk …