I’d like to say a few words about the inevitability of Hillary. Before I do it’s important to clarify that I’m a liberal. I’m not a Democrat but as of late, I DO play one in the voting booth. In the last five elections, I voted for Clinton (Bill), Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Obama. Four out of five wins. (Yeah, I know…)
One can’t talk about the Hillary Presidency without talking about the Bill Presidency. That’s fair, right? After all, one of Hillary’s selling points is that she’s a “two-fer”. If you take Hillary, you get Bill, too! I was a big fan of William Jefferson Clinton III. I very much enjoyed the prosperity the country experienced while he was President and the entire time he was running the show I felt a general feeling of optimism about the direction the country was heading. But, as it turns out, there were a couple of things. (No, not Monica. That was never any of my business…)
It seems a fine point but I distinguish between legislation a President signs and legislation passed by over-riding a Presidential veto. If he signs it, he supports it, even if his support is the result of a compromise. There are three that particularly bother me and they are these: he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which put the final nail in the coffin of American journalism, he signed NAFTA, which put in place the mechanism that prompted the exodus of American industry overseas, and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which allowed the banksters to run rampant over the American – and world – economy.
Now, I say again, I like Bill Clinton…so, I randomly decided he signed these destructive bills by way of compromise. This was, I decided, the “give” so he could “get” the balanced budgets that were benefiting so many Americans – me included. Again, without evidence, I decided he did it because he believed Al Gore would be allowed to serve the Presidency he won (Yeah, I know…) and if things began to go off the rails Al could step in with the proper fix…
But that’s all conjecture. I have no rational basis for believing any of those “explanations” – I just like Bill – so I can’t exactly point to pure speculation as a defense for signing such devastating legislation. Besides, if pure speculation serves, it would be equally fair to randomly assume he signed those bills because somebody promised he would end up tremendously rich and a member of the Bilderberg Group. (Which by the way, he is and he is…)
The one thing I can NOT credit Bill with is the notion that he didn’t understand the potential impact of the bills he was signing. I believe that Bill Clinton is the smartest person in any room he’s in. Certainly he understood the risks of repealing Glass-Steagall. The reason this is relevant is this: if Bill Clinton knew the risks of the bills he was signing – and, being the smartest person in any room he’s in, he did – having him back in the White House on a “two-fer” – even as the “First Gentleman” – might not be the boon to liberalism many on the left believe.
All of which brings us to 2004. By 2004, several things were apparent: the 2000 “election” had been rigged in Florida. The banksters were already running wild without controls imposed by Glass-Steagall. American industry was fleeing – or in some cases being forced – overseas to cheaper labor markets, leaving a devastating hole in the American employment outlook. All signs pointed to yet another rigged election – this one in Ohio – and the corporate media was covering the whole thing over with front page stories of which starlet had the best bikini body…with pictures!
For clarity, when I say the GOP rigged the 2000 and 2004 “elections”, what they did was put their finger on the scale. Their guy doesn’t “win” with 100% of the vote. The “elections” are close. In fact, the “elections” NEED to be close or the technique won’t work. In 2004, there was one candidate with the needed popularity and gravitas to bring enough credibility to the Democratic ticket that it could easily outweigh any GOP fingers on the scale – one: Hillary Clinton.
Liberal America tried to get her to run. We practically begged her to run. But when the chips were down and we needed her most, Hillary said “no”. She was serving in the Senate at the time and she cited as her reason a promise she had made to her constituents that she wouldn’t run for President. In honoring that promise, though, she doomed ALL Americans – her constituents included – to four more years of Bush 43.
Truthfully, I think this is the main reason Barack Obama won in 2008. When liberal America asked Hillary to fight for us, she said no. When liberal America asked Obama to fight for us, he stepped up. As it happens he hasn’t been up to the task but he stepped up.
I’ll tell you this: Clinton supporters will continue to press the inevitability of Hillary and the truth is, if she ended up with the nomination I could vote for her without too many reservations. But her “inevitable” moment passed in 2004 and I’d like to check my options first. After all, it’s hard to put one’s faith in the person who stood idly by and watched while you got your ass kicked…