Tag Archives: hillary clinton

And Then There Were Two*

Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton, a no holds barred cage match to the death**.

This should be fun. Clinton is very much “the devil you know.” She’s the closest thing the Democrats have to Bob Dole in the sense that her candidacy feels as though it’s a result of it being her turn as much as anything. I like Bernie Sanders, but I’d wager that a stronger Democratic candidate would have put him away a long time ago. She’s been in the public eye for decades, but it’s hard to remember any time she’s every received much positive press. It’s hard to point to much in the way of achievements. She’s rightly perceived as elitist and she’s much more comfortable discussing the minutiae of policy than she is delivering a rousing stump speech.

On a broader scale, she gives every indication of being the next in an unbroken line of Reagan-ish presidents. She’s hawkish on defense, fiscally conservative, pro-Wall Street, but generally liberal on social issues. A Clinton presidency would likely look a great deal like a Reagan, Bush, Obama, or, um, Clinton presidency. Probably more like her husband’s terms than any other, not because she isn’t her own person, but because there would be an endless sideshow of fake scandals in the press***. If you like the way things are going now, and have gone for the last 35 years, then a Hillary Clinton presidency looks appealing.

Donald Trump offers a much greater opportunity for amusement. Like Clinton, one gets the impression that a strong opponent would have swept the floor with him. Instead, he squared up against Ted Cruz, whose “I’m Just Like Donald Trump But Not Donald Trump” marketing plan didn’t have any more appeal than the “I’m Ted Cruz” plan.

Trump’s campaign strategy of “saying whatever he thinks people want to hear” has been stunningly effective. There’s no compelling reason to believe that he actually believes anything he’s saying. Remember the jab against Cruz, suggesting that Cruz’ father was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald? Trump flat-out admitted that he didn’t actually believe it; he was just saying it because he thought it would be effective. Some people call that a clever use of “rhetoric,” but c’mon, he’s just lying. That’s what he does.

It’s hard to imagine what a Trump presidency would look like because he has no track record, he dishonest about his beliefs, and there’s little indication either party would work with him. It might just be a ridiculous side show, or it might be a complete train wreck. Sure, Hillary Clinton has been party to war crimes but at least she has the good grace to evade questions about them. Trump has stated that he admires war crimes and wants to commit more. His supporters have suggested that he’s only saying this to get votes, but even if that’s true, that’s hardly a reason to vote for him.

As for the campaign, it’s going to be really weird. Clinton is relatively easy to attack and, while you’d think someone like Trump would be, the fact is that it’s very hard to pin someone down when they’re not constrained by facts. Clinton can attack his terrible record as a businessman and he’ll just say something like “Hillary’s just a loser. I’m the richest, most handsome, most successful businessman in the history of the United states and she knows it.” It’s crap, but it’s really, really hard to deal with in a debate setting, especially when the moderators have been cowed into non-participation in the name of “neutrality.”

We just haven’t seen a candidate like Donald Trump before. Even Ross Perot had beliefs and scruples (not to mention the fact that he was a genuinely successful businessman). My gut feeling is that Trump’s negatives are so enormous, even greater than Clintons, that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would get 40% of the vote against him. That’s a tough starting point. Maybe he can expand his support, maybe he can attack Clinton effectively enough to drag her down with him. There’s not precedent for this so anyone who claims to know how it’s going to play out has a better crystal ball than I do.

I’ll tell you this though: It’s going to be very, very amusing to watch.

* Barring a miraculous comeback by Bernie Sanders. I’m not holding my breath.

** Of one’s or the other’s political career, I expect.

*** While the real scandals are swept under the rug.

5 Comments

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

Questions for the Candidates

It turns out that I’m not a credentialed journalist, or a journalist of any sort, or even a real person at all. That being the case, I’m not likely to be allowed the opportunity to ask the four remaining candidates any questions. That won’t stop me from formulating what I would ask them given the opportunity. Maybe someone else, you know, a real journalist, can pick these up and run with them.

Preferable with lie detectors. And maybe sodium pentothol*.

Bernie Sanders:

Your candidacy has been crippled by being less organized and prepared than that of Hillary Clinton. Was it ever your serious intent to challenge for the nomination, and if so, why were you so far behind in planning and organization? Why would we expect your presidency to be any different?

Ted Cruz:

In the event of a likely apocalypse, would you, as President, you would have the ability to forestall the event? Would you attempt to do so?

Hillary Clinton:

Wealth inequality is a vastly greater threat to the United States than terrorism. What is your plan to combat this problem, and why should we trust you to do so?

Donald Trump:

No small part of your support comes from people who believe that you cannot possibly mean the things you’re saying and that you’ll be much more reasonable if elected. What do you have to say to these people? Do you genuinely intend to make good on your campaign promises?

I’m genuinely interested in the (honest) answers to these questions. Will they ever be asked? I’m not holding my breath.

* WTF Pancakes does not endorse drugging presidential candidates. I’m just making a joke about trying to get the candidates to tell the truth instead of repeat stump speeches. I repeat: Please do not drug the candidates.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

What We Know So Far (post-New Hampshire)

Well, at least it’s going to be interesting, isn’t it?

On the Democratic side, we’ve had a tie in Iowa and a Sanders win in his backyard New Hampshire. This promises to be a long battle. I suspect that this will work to their advantage. For the most part, Clinton and Sanders are espousing the same values; their disagreement is largely about how to achiever their goals, not what the goals are. A long primary will keeps both of them in front of the camera for a long time.

Neither primary result was a big surprise. Sanders has the momentum right now, but if I were a gambler, I’d bet on Clinton’s support within the party, her big supporters, and her near-monopoly of the super-delegates to win the race. Sanders will probably keep her from being able to tack to the center until after the convention. She’ll say a lot of progressive things, although I think it would incredibly naive to put too much faith in her desire to deliver on them*.

The Republicans are a lot more interesting because there’s a good deal more in the blender at this point. Cruz won in Iowa, but managed to turn that in to a plunge in the polls. Rubio finished surprisingly well in Iowa and appeared poised to assume the mantle of “establishment candidate.” Trump, whose entire campaign is based on being a “winner,” desperately needed a big win in New Hampshire, which he got. Kasich took second in NH, and Cruz finished third, less than a thousand votes ahead of Rubio and Jeb!.

So, the front-runner is…who knows? I guess Trump is. Maybe? It’s a very fragile position because he doesn’t really bring anything to the table other than being a bully, and a bully who loses a fight or two isn’t much of a bully. Cruz is trying to position himself to take Trump’s support if Trump implodes by being “the other anti-establishment candidate.” Rubio had a disastrous debate, but he’s still close enough that I wouldn’t write him off. The rest are just jockeying for jobs on Fox News.

How does it look on a national level? The Republicans have to be absolutely salivating at the opportunity to run against either Clinton or Sanders. Sanders is far enough left that the “socialist” tag will stick to him. Clinton, of course, is a Clinton and the Republicans would love to finally beat a Clinton. The second-worst place on the web refers to her as “Hitlery” so you know that they’ll eager to get at her.

You’d think it would look grim for the Democratic party as well, but this is a strange cycle. The best-case for the Democrats would be for Cruz to get the nomination. The more he talks, the more damage he does to the Republican party. There’s a reason that the Democrats were happy to let his faux-filibuster run as long as he wanted. Trump’s easier to attack, but harder to hurt. He’s a very different animal and it’s tough to know how much support he’ll draw from women and minorities when he’s been so openly hostile to them. With both of them, do not underestimate the blow-back against their positions on Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and women in general.

Rubio’s probably the best bet in a general election in that he has the fewest obvious weaknesses. The base might be tepid towards him now, but when he’s up against Clinton or Sanders, bet on a big turnout. If I were going to put a fiver on it, I’d bet on Marco Rubio being the next President. It’s way too early to have any confidence in that prediction. I’m not especially happy about it. The only one of the candidates I really like is Sanders, and there’s essentially no chance he’d be effective if he were elected. I’m not a fan of Clinton as she seems to be ethically compromised.

Trump is a Trump. If that strikes you as presidential, then you’re probably not reading this blog. And Cruz? Cruz is special. He’s as ethically challenged as Clinton, panders like Trump, is as wacky as Rand Paul, and has the charisma of Richard Nixon. I don’t think that Christie’s criticism of Rubio as an “empty suit” was unfair, but that makes him the frightening of the Republicans. I’ll take an empty suit over a suit full of Ted Cruz or Donald Trump any day of the week.

P.S. I hate election season.

P.P.S. I really, really hate election season.

* If Sanders winds up winning the nomination, he’ll have all kinds of desire to follow up on his progressive promises, but “desire” and “ability” are two very different things.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

The Most-Admired People in 2013 (by Americans)

Instead of ending the year with a list, I thought it’d be fun to start with one. It’s either that or I was too lazy to comment on this when it came out and I’ve spent way too much time thinking about it. Anyway, Gallup does an annual poll of The Most Admired Man and Woman by Americans. If you don’t feel like clicking the link, the winners were Barack Obama(16%) and Hillary Clinton (15%). People receiving more than 1% of the vote were:

Men:

  1. Barack Obama (16%)
  2. George W. Bush (4%)
  3. Pope Francis (4%)
  4. Bill Clinton (2%)
  5. Rev. Billy Graham (2%)

Women:

  1. Hillary Clinton (15%)
  2. Oprah Winfrey (6%)
  3. Michelle Obama (5%)
  4. Sarah Palin (5%)
  5. Malala Yousafzai (2%)
  6. Condoleezza Rice (2%)

Hrmph. I am, it appears, wildly out of step with the American public. I figure, if I don’t like their choices, I should probably offer some alternatives. So, I’ve been thinking about it and trying to come up with my own list. It’s a work in progress, but here’s what I’ve got so far (in no particular order):

Men:

  • Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Edward Snowden
  • The Dalai Lama
  • Stephen Colbert
  • Bill Gates

Women:

  • Amanda Palmer
  • Dilma Rousseff
  • Sarah Vowell
  • Aung San Suu Kyi
  • Elizabeth Warren

Essentially, I’m looking for people who are trying to move the world forward, make it better, smarter, more humane….stuff like that. It’s not a perfect list by any means, but it’s a personal list. They’re all people I admire, whether or not they’re, by any objective means, the most admirable people

There are a stack of folks on the periphery of my list: P.Z. Myers? Laurie Penny? Johns Linnell and Flansburgh? Neil Gaiman? Stephen Wolfram? Ted Leo? Jon Stewart? Any other suggestions?

Happy new year, everyone!

Leave a comment

Filed under Personal, Philosophy