Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
2020 Hindsight
In the New York Post, Michael Goodwin says Hillary Clinton is onto something.
I believe he’s onto something. It started in 1998. It was always hard for me to believe Hillary was actually planning to run for President. Yet it always seemed vaguely plausible. That is, until it was obvious.
Why did First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton want to become a Senator from New York? The obvious reason would be to establish a track record to run for higher office, but Hillary the future Presidential candidate, seemed far-fetched. She denied it, dismissed it and laughed about it. She was focused on helping downtrodden upstate New Yorkers get jobs and feed their families. That’s all. It didn’t ring true, but could she really become President? She ran for re-election in 2006 winning her seat easily and in that contest remained taciturn about a Presidential run in 2008.
But of course she ran, and lost to Obama and many of us thought that it was probably over for her. 2016 looked like a futuristic world and surely Democrats would have moved on by then.
However, it began to look again more likely after she left her duties to the Empire Staters to enhance her resume as Secretary of State. As the years passed it looked pretty clear she was preparing a 2016 run. That time, we knew.
But following her ignominious and wholly unexpected defeat – which seems like yesterday – many of us thought her career was over for sure this time. She was falling down, seizing up, blaming, shaming and defaming everywhere. She was hated by many Democrats for running a bad campaign, for her treatment of Bernie Sanders in the primaries, and for losing to the clown Trump.
Like the modern audience watching a horror film, we know that the motionless psychopath submerged in the bathtub will bolt upright any second now to continue her blood-thirsty rampage. The timing of these scenes have shortened considerably over the years, the audience can’t be given too much time to catch the setup. Long enough to have them believe it’s finally over, but not too long. “Of course!” We say to ourselves, “and there’s 20 minutes left in playing time!” But we love to be fooled. That’s why they call it the willing suspension of disbelief.
There are several other reasons why it makes sense for Hillary to undertake another run: the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative both rely on the idea that a Clinton might just someday become President in order to leverage funding and influence. (It’s not going to be Chealsea anytime soon…) Without that prospect, why should anyone donate? There are all kinds of worthy charities out there.
She’s feeling the loss of transactional power already. Impending candidacy is necessary to use as an intimidation mechanism to discourage attacks from disillusioned allies.
And who in the Democratic Party has the inside track for 2020 that would be formidable? Joe Biden? A few considerably less experienced women? Who in her center-left lane can mount a serious challenge?
And she wants it. She wants it badly.
So the horror film, coming soon to an election near you, will be another sequel, and like all sequels, coming with a new angle. This time the psychopath goes after her own family in a vindictive narcissistic rage.
Will there be another sequel in the franchise? (working title – Hillary III: Vengeance is Mine)
How will this play out for the Democrat party?
Published in General, Politics
Bloomberg would be happy to run an independent spoiler candidacy to draw Republican votes from Trump.
He doesn’t have it in him to go full Democrat. The current Democrat coalition needs to be held together and brought out to vote. For a normal politician to do that he has to fan the flames delusional rage of its various components. Is Bloomberg going to inflame the BLM rage against police and inflame reconquista rioters?
My worry is that they get someone else who can take Trump voters away and motivate Democrats without needing to go full blown BLM, etc. Perhaps an ex athlete.
I agree with this analysis and also believe that a “celebrity” candidate will be in the dnc wings.
Back to 2016, I honestly think Team Jeb! visited Donald Trump early on to get $$. And they ‘told’ DJT of their war chest and how they would run rampant over the field. DJT probably told them what his vision was and what he wanted Jeb! to do to gain his support … and they laughed at him. He told them he was thinking about running himself. They laughed even harder at him.
I think Jeb! sealed the deal that Trump himself would run.
Against what, exactly? (This is a serious question.) What has Trump done in office that worries you so?
The alternative to Hillary could be Michele Obama, or Kamela Harris. (In reality land, not media-hype land.)
I think that Hillary has to continue to run, as election laws with regards to campaign funds mean you need to return the monies to the Party if you are not longer going to be seeking office, and you and I both know how much The Clintons love money.
Your statement that the Clinton Foundation also needs to have an established perception that HRC will be the President in 2020 is a statement that rings true.
Aye, and both sides; this tug-of-war has been going on for forty years with maximum grunts and strain and minimal movement. Abortion will be a thing until people themselves become angels. I get why religious people eat their livers over it, but this is almost certainly one of those pray-for-serenity deals.*
____________________
*Yeah, I know it’s not Biblical.
To the editor of this post:
Thank you for promoting and editing my post. You left everything important intact and thank you for that. It could have been improved I’m sure, I’m happy it was considered adequate as is.
However there are two little things.
Michael Goodwin said Hillary was “up to something”. I said I thought Goodwin was onto something. Kind of word-play.
Also I recognize the correct grammar is “badly”, but I was going for something else, which is why I italicized the word “bad”. “She wants it bad” has a different feeling and there’s a subtle pun involved, meaning bad things will come from her desire. Prelude to my horror theme…
Honest mistakes/differences.
Cheers! Franco
Now if like the young characters in that one Geico commercial, she would just decide to hide behind the chainsaws…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5FWIUqu20
How long until we start seeing op-eds floating the idea that the 35-year minimum is outdated and ageist and thus ought to be repealed?
Good point. However I would like to see mandatory retirement for Senators at 80. Unreasonable?
Why does she have to fight it? The Constitutional requirements don’t seem to have that much sway. She can claim to be 28-and-holding like a lot of women lie about their age, but maybe older. If someone challenges her age, she can call them racists and misogynists.
Please do not give the leaders of the Pol Pot youth any new ideas!
Good point, we’ve already established that asking to see a birth certificate is outrageously racist.
Or conversely, she could just identify as a 35-year-old.
Yeah. The Constitution only has two requirements to hold the office of the president. Why is it bad to ask for proof that a candidate meets those two simple requirements?
Charlottesville. Intemperate bullying. Trade wars. North Korea. NATO. NAFTA. TPP. Putin. Those are eight areas that concern me.
Moderator Note:
off topicCharlottesville concerns you. Why? A group of brain addled Antifa’s storm into a town, and demand the uprooting of Civil War era statues. These statues had recently been voted on by the local populace, with over 60% of voters saying the statues were historic and needed to stay.Here is a page from pinterest that depicts the type of graffiti, language and costume styling of the Antifa-types who were there in Charlotte. Some Antifas also turned common spray cans into mini flame throwers and heckled those who marched for the flag and for the statues. Remarkably, no one marching with the flag bit on the bait and hassled the “protesters” back.https://www.pinterest.com/j_spears0803/leftist-violence/Moderator Note:
Gary, this is off-topic.GFHandle asked and I responded.
I remember Charlottesville as Trump dog whistles describing “good people” on both sides, including White Supremacists was part of very fine people on both sides. Given Trump’s alleged lack of knowing who David Duke was in the primary, and his execrable Birtherism, I find Trump to be a racialist, and I cannot abide that, and look forward to the Trump tower of cards to come tumbling down.A corollary is how Trump has lost hundreds of children. How can this be in America?I am with the Senate who sided with NATO over Trump by a 97-2 vote.Funny how dog whistles are only heard by people they are not meant for.
Moderator Note:
off topicThe only thing more ludicrous than Birtherism is the notion that there’s anything racial about it.
Moderator Note:
Off topicFalse.
“These children are not ‘lost’; their sponsors — who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them — simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made,” HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan said in a May 28 statement.Furthermore, “HHS’s interpretation of the law is that it’s not legally responsible for children once they are under a sponsor’s care.”If it is alleged, how can it be a ‘given’?
How many more Russians does the Trump administration to kill to prove he isn’t whatever you are accusing him of being?
Once again Gary is all over my post swinging wild accusations.
The post is about Hillary. And the Democrats.
We used to have an ignore button.
Moderator Note:
off topicBirtherism was weaponized and perfected by Trump. If only a Republican at the first debate had said outright at the first debate that he or she could not support a nominee who was a Birther.Looking at Trump actively destroying NATO this morning, I would question if Hillary would have been better than Trump. I mean, even Bernie voted with the 97-2 Senate majority last night condemning Trump’s attacks on NATO.I’m nipping this in the bud. We’re getting back on topic.
When was that?
JD … may I call you JD? … I love it when you get rough.
Ricochet 1.0 ish