The Hillary conundrum

Though it isn't a guarantee, the odds are that if Hillary Clinton chooses to run for President in 2016 both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency itself are hers to lose.  Bernie Sanders has intimated that he may run--while he would get my vote in the Michigan primary of 2016, I harbor no illusions that he will actually win the nomination.  I'd just be hoping he would pull Clinton more to the left.  I can see no circumstance that would cause Elizabeth Warren to run (you can be sure to thank me when she does--I was also certain that Sarah Palin would be the republican nominee in 2012).

There are those who think Sec. Clinton's nomination would be a boon for Democrats down ticket--allowing us to elect more Liberal candidates who would sweep along to victory with her in 2016 (and presumably bide their time until a true Progressive occupies the White House).  There are those who wonder if Hillary Clinton can be a Progressive champion or if she will follow in husband Bill's post-Presidential footsteps and wallow in the trough that is Wall Street.  And then there are those like Glenn Greenwald who look upon Hillary with the disgust most of us would show for someone who regularly dined on puppies.

While I hope that the first observation above is correct, the House has been so gerrymandered that Jesus could run as a Democrat and I'm not sure we could take back the House (though as noted in the link she could be a huge asset in taking filibuster-proof control of the Senate).  I have no doubt she would be a Third Way  champion as President, hoping that the magic Bill Clinton didn't create but nonetheless is credited with for our economic boom in the 1990s would rub off on her--i.e., things probably won't get worse economically (as they most certainly would under republican stewardship, see also Reagan, Ronald, Bush, George H.W., and Bush, George W.) but they probably will only get marginally better (see also Obama, Barack).

The one that bothers me the most, though, is the Greenwald view.  Greenwald is a lawyer and well known political writer who was instrumental in getting Edward Snowden and the NSA revelation to the American public.  He is rightfully praised for his work on civil rights and constitutional issues, and has been known to skewer both political parties for failures to respect both.  But when it comes to the needs of ordinary Americans, there is almost an elitist death wish of those like Greenwald, who seems to somehow believe that only the worst possible outcome can possibly right the ship (I find if hard to believe if the Great Recession couldn't, nothing will).  There seems to be a serious disconnect between that desire and the very real suffering of very real people.  If a republican wins in 2016, Greenwald is not going to go hungry--some publication is going to hire him for his many talents, and he also has a law degree to fall back on (and those assets were well earned and deserved).  Not so the millions of Americans who don't have his gifts (i.e., most of us) and who have suffered monumental economic losses under the last four (might as well throw Nixon in the mix, too) republican Presidential administrations.

I'm not thrilled with Hillary Clinton either, but her winning is a matter of survival not spite for people like me (which is to say, working class Americans).  I truly don't believe working class Americans can survive another four years of a republican administration.  The losses we suffered under Reagan/Bush the Elder were magnified greatly under Bush the Lesser, and the fuckers campaigning now are even more fucking nuts than GWB was.  You might as well just snatch food off of our kids plates.

Frankly, we can keep swimming under eight years of Hillary Clinton--reaching the shore in '24 sure beats the hell out of drowning in '16.

Peace,
emaycee