HillaryClinton1

Could Electing Hillary in 2016 Assure a Republican President in 2020?

HillaryClinton1

There is no question that Hillary Clinton will come into the 2016 Presidential campaign (yes Virginia, she’s running) with many powerful advantages. She’s enlightened about the Presidency from her husband’s years as President, she’s famous, she’s a former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, she’ll have a massive war chest of money and a huge army of political supporters. Maybe the most potent aspect of her run for President though is that she could be the first woman President in American History.

There are many legitimate arguments to make about how her alleged inevitability to be the Democrats’ candidate is overstated and ignores recent history (as late as December 2007, Hillary had 80% in the polls against all other Dems running for the nomination…including Barack Obama). For the sake of argument though, let’s say that all the popular predictions are correct, Hillary wins the Dem primary and she goes on to win the Presidency against a Rand Paul or Jeb Bush.

Could the blowback from wanting to see the first woman President of the US, result in making the first woman President a one termer? Might Hillary be the wrong person to be the first woman President?

Hillary Clinton has already revealed that her primary strategy to win the Presidency is to court moderate and even conservative Republicans at the expense of Democrats and Progressives. She openly ridiculed and criticized Obama, beat the drums for war with great enthusiasm and had nothing but pandering and pleasantries for Republicans and Republican voters, often equating Democrats and Republicans as equally to blame for issues in the nation.

Hillary ran into trouble with this strategy recently when the push back came swiftly from the Obama Administration and loud voices on the Progressive side. She responded by trying to make nice with Obama and Progressives and get back on her best behavior towards them. But how genuine is this? The initial pursuit of Republican approval was a peek into Hillary’s General Election campaign (possibly her primary campaign) and her possible Presidency. And that is what may foreshadow the drawbacks for her having a two-term Presidency if elected.

For many voters, the prospect of being able to vote in the first woman President is in itself a reason to be committed to vote for Hillary. My mother was a Hillary supporter in 2008 and it took a number of conversations to make the case with her that Obama was the better, more Progressive choice. She eventually agreed and switched to Obama (especially after Hillary’s and Bill’s racial-themed attacks on Obama) but for 2016, she has renewed excitement about being able to vote for and see in her lifetime, the first woman President.

That will be a powerful selling tool for Hillary in her campaign for the White House but if she was to win, that won’t remain such a prominent factor in a re-election run.

Seeing someone be the first at anything can be enticing. Though the Right Wing used this as part of the racial attacks on President Obama, he did not win the Presidency because people wanted to see the first black President, he won because George W. Bush had so destroyed the nation’s faith in the GOP and McCain’s running with Sarah Palin put the withered cherry on top of the Republicans’ melted sundae, the prospect of Hope and Change personified by the man who would also be the first African American President was a winning combination.

Hillary is not offering hope and change though. Her campaign so far seems to be, “I’m superior to the others so I’ll be a better President”. Less about what she’ll do than who she is. She offers an important symbolic achievement in possibly being the first woman President but going backwards to conservative economics and war-hawkish policies of years past runs counter to most women’s policy views. If she is elected in 2016 and she pursues the conservative course she’s already been promoting…could she end up the first woman President who only serves one term, an achievement and a setback for women at the same time?

Let’s try an experiment. Imagine a male candidate named Harold Clanton. He is a financially conservative Dem with deep Wall Street and corporate ties who wants to reduce regulations on them, very pro-war, he supports gay rights and women’s rights, he supports oil companies drilling and fracking more and is not very driven on combating climate change. He is very politically calculating, won’t step in on racial issues unless pressed or stand firm on any issues of principle that would be a political negative. His family has been in the White House before and oversaw a conservative push on the nation, sending jobs overseas, tightening welfare restrictions and loosening regulations on banks that led to a devastating financial crash.

The experiment here is, if one removes the aspect of Hillary’s being the first woman President from her as a candidate, as a re-election would, might she not be the most supportable and electable candidate? Thus, might electing Hillary in 2016…turn out to be voting to elect a Republican President in 2020?

Why might that be? Why wouldn’t Hillary have a good shot at re-election?

First of all, Hillary has made it pretty clear that she is not a Progressive when it comes to the economy or international affairs (war). By coming out of the box ignoring Progressives and trying to appeal to Conservatives, Hillary revealed a political calculation, that is, by pursuing Republicans, Hillary is saying to Democrats, “Why do I need to appeal to you and your issues, who else are you going to vote for?”

And this is the trap of hubris that could await a Hillary Presidency. In her pursuit of attracting conservative and Republican support and taking Democrats for granted, she could end up without enthusiastic support on either side of the political fence in a re-election and hand the White House to a Republican.

If Democrats and Progressive voters’ agendas are ignored by Hillary, they may either support a Dem challenger to her re-election which would be destructive to Dems winning the White House or simply not turnout for her re-election. And no matter how she may pander to Conservatives and Republicans, they will always prefer to vote for their own Republican candidate than Hillary Clinton.

So the election of Hillary in 2016 could turn out to be a package deal in electing a Republican President in 2020. Many Americans want to finally see a woman in the White House but it does matter who that woman is (or we might have heard every State of the Union speech end with, “You betcha!”). Maybe it’s best to be open to “firsts” but put them aside to genuinely assess candidates. With that being the case, Dem voters might be best off to look past the historical aspect of electing the first woman President and ask themselves before supporting her, “Who is Hillary really, what exactly does she really stand for and are those things representative of what I believe?”

gavel

Boehner Has Clung Desperately to His Gavel: That’s All He’s Got to Show for His Efforts

Boehner Gavel

John Boehner has had one goal during his Speakership: Keep the Speaker’s Gavel. The Summer Recess ends in Victory for the Speaker. He is still Speaker!

That’s it. He does what must be done or not done to avoid a vote of confidence on his Speakership. You see, it is really pretty easy to remove the Speaker IF he/she does not have control of his/her Party. And Boehner clearly does not.

For Boehner, his legacy comes down to one thing: Can he hold the Gavel until he is willing to put it down.

The Speaker can be removed By a Simple Majority

Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Speaker is chosen by a majority of the membership. There is no term of office. The Rules Manual for the House of Representatives provides for the removal of a seated Speaker, during session, for the purposes of preserving the “dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings” under the constitutional prerogative of its function with respect to impeachment.  Any member of the House can bring forth a resolution presenting a question of privilege to declare the Speakership vacant based on this provision. That’s it. A majority declares the seat to be empty and then a majority chooses a new Speaker.

gavel

Boehner’s Fundamental Strategy

John Boehner had a plan early last week to address the border crisis: The House would pass what the leadership of the House thought was an extremely right-wing bill in two votes, then the House would leave town and blame the Senate for failing to pass its bill and the President for failing to lead. This is Boehner’s plan for addressing every crisis. Do as little as possible and pass on the blame to Obama and the Democrats for whatever happens. Count on the automatic antipathy of your base for all things Obaman and Democratic and the two primary GOP base characteristics: calculated ignorance and invincible arrogance. But then the thing that always happens to Boehner’s plans happened.

Someone threw a wrench into it. Or rather the GOTP threw in a bunch of wrenches.

Enter Ted Cruz and the Tea Party Spoilers

Ted Cruz (with Pete Sessions at his side) met with the core group of House Teapublicans who he controls as the leader of the Tea Party movement on The Hill.  They made it clear that Boehner would not be able to pass his bills with GOP votes (and Nancy Pelosi was having nothing to do with them). Boehner was forced to pull his bills from the floor and to extend the work week (oh, the horror!)

The thing is that in normal times Boehner’s strategy would almost always work. The House is designed to be a highly autocratic chamber that traditionally passes almost anything the leadership of its majority party wants to pass. The Tea Party has changed everything by bringing to Washington a large enough bloc of Republicans who don’t want to vote for anything that they can bring down- even when those bills are far too conservative to be passed into law. That’s why House Republicans have had to pull bills to lift the debt ceiling, fix the ACA, extend tax cuts, extend farm subsidies, fund highway repair and reopen the government.

Thus in Boehner’s House, failure, seemingly materializing out of nowhere,  is always just a moment away. Last week his grand plan  went “POOF!” with the wave of Cruz’s hand.

In the wake of the defeat of the two bill scenario, House Republican leadership decided to skip town without passing anything issuing this official message with a familiar theme: “It’s Obama’s fault.”

“This situation shows the intense concern within our conference – and among the American people – about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws.  There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.  For the past month, the House has been engaged in intensive efforts to pass legislation that would compel the president to do his job and ensure it can be done as quickly and compassionately as possible.  Through an inclusive process, a border bill was built by listening to members and the American people that has the support not just of a majority of the majority in the House, but most of the House Republican Conference.  We will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country.”

The best part of this message is its demand that Obama act “without the need for congressional action.” They just decided to sue him for doing exactly that and now they are urging him to act in their stead. Amazing.

We now know that the leadership rethought this bit of impromptu speech and kept the members in session while they cobbled together something they could pass knowing it was stillborn. The bills that passed were, in fact, far more strident than the first set, crafted with the TP approval at every step.

Boehner Only Succeeds By Busting His Own Caucus

The fact is that the only time that Boehner succeeds is when he breaks the Hastert Rule that Bills must pass with his GOP majority. The (Speaker of the House) Hastert Rule is the GOP rubric that states that House Leadership ONLY puts on the floor those bills that they can pass with GOP votes exclusively. It’s a nice way of saying: “We don’t need no stinkin’ Democrats.”

But to get the First Fiscal Cliff Resolution, the Violence Against Women Act, Hurricane Sandy Aid; to Reopen the Government and Raise the Debt Ceiling Boehner had to have Democratic Help. He had to enlist the Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. He had to break the Hastert Rule (while not saying he had).

Of course, Boehner is in the right when he does because in doing so he acknowledges that the Speaker is Speaker of the HOUSE, not just his/her PARTY. That’s why the House leadership has a Majority Leader and a Minority Leader. The Speaker is meant to be a national leader befitting the person second in line for the Presidency immediately after the Vice-President.

The most famous example of a Speaker who understood his role as a leader who transcended party is that of Democrat Tip O’Neill (Speaker from January 4, 1977 – January 3, 1987) and the Social Security Reform of 1983 done in partnership alliance  with Pres. Ronald Reagan. The two put together the bipartisan Greenspan Commission and then sponsored a series of amendments through their surrogates in 1983 that increased the solvency of the entire system. The Dems had 272 seats in the House with the GOP holding 163. Since 218 votes were needed for passage Democratic support was necessary. The final vote: 163 Dems and 80 GOP voted yes. 54 Dems and 48 GOP voted No. Bipartisanship on both sides of the vote.

While O’Neill was staunchly opposed to many GOP policies and positions, he knew how to compromise and how to work with the opposing party. He also led a diverse Democratic party with a mixture of liberals, centrists and even a few conservatives, and dealt with an equally diverse GOP of strong conservatives and moderates.

But therein lies the problem for today’s House…the GOP is controlled by its most ideological and militant reactionary elements.

Boehner Nearly Lost his Bid for a Lousy Second Term

Bottom line: He won because no one else with real influence wanted the job and was virtually unopposed. Even so he was nearly humiliated by the threat of a virtually unheard of second ballot.

He won his second term by a very close vote with just 220 votes (when 218 was needed) votes  – exceeding the number required to become Speaker by only four votes. BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A LOT CLOSER.

Coming in second to Boehner was Minority Leader and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with 192 votes. Another 15 members abstained from voting or voted for someone else. If Boehner had not won the vote during the first round, a second round of voting would have taken place- there hasn’t been a second ballot for Speaker since 1923!

For a few moments, it seemed as if voting would move to a second ballot, as Boehner was several votes shy of reaching the number necessary to claim victory outright as the vote came to a close. The chair, an ally of Boehner, suspended the regular order and allowed the voting to continue without an announced closure time. Boehner ended up receiving 216 votes at the end of the first call to vote. The members abstaining were thus given a second opportunity to vote. Four Republicans changed their votes, bringing Beohner’s total vote count to 220.

After symbolically abstaining from voting in the initial call, Tea Party Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) changed their votes to “Boehner.” Thus Boehner OWED his Speakership to several Tea Party Republicans.

WHAT A PROUD MOMENT FOR THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE SPEAKER IN THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Elected by a bare majority because no one else wanted the job (and they still had to fix the game.)

POLL:

TAKE YOUR PICK AND POST ITS NUMBER IN YOUR COMMENT….For the sake of his legacy as Speaker of the House, what should John Boehner do?

  1. Continue in his present course reflecting the will of his party.
  2. Seek to shift his party to a more pragmatic and moderate stance.
  3. Resign, assemble a new majority of pragmatic members and elect a compromise candidate.
  4. Decline a run for a third term as speaker but remain in the House.
  5. Not run for reelection. Retire.

Boehner You Like Me          ACTUALLY- Not so much, not much at all.

References:
Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives
Bipartisanship under Reagan and O’Neill
A Close Call Reelecting Boehner to the Speakership
Hastert Rule
John Boehner narrowly re-elected House Speaker

CROSSPOSTED TO: http://www.dailykos.com/ and http://all-len-all.com/ and https://www.yabberz.com/mystream

image

GOP Rep. Fights Against “War on Whites”

image The classic commercial for the United Negro College Fund coined the phrase, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” A portion of the Republican Party apparently begs to differ with that proposition as well as what it and the organization that promoted it represented.

The real issue here is that when you criticize white people in power for using their power to further oppress black people, you’re being racist. After all, aren’t you attacking only white people when you do so? You might as well have separate unemployment rates, incarceration rates and separate political parties for white people and black people to join! GOP Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama has a mind like a steel trap…that has been left in an Alabama swamp and rusted shut…and declared today on that fountain of racial tolerance, The Laura Ingraham Show that:

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

He is so right! First off, we all know that Democrats aren’t white, otherwise, how could Democrats be on one side of a war and white people be on the other side? And making such a statement in itself, that all white people are under attack by a political party with a substantial minority base, couldn’t be blatant racism…at least within most communities where crosses keep catching fire.

I mean, it’s not like he’s generalizing and stereotyping, right? And how can you think of racial division and bigotry and not think of white people in the Republican party and Barack Obama? I mean, come on, haven’t white men been attacked enough already…just for attacking minorities, women and 99% of Americans? Is nothing sacred? It’s clear that the terrible prejudice of Democrats comes from still holding onto resentments from what they perceive as wrongs in the distant past. Well, voter suppression laws to prevent black and minority citizens from voting were passed over a year ago, can’t we move on already?

In fact, here are some suggestions for legislation The House can pass to protect white people from the institutionalized racism that poor people and minorities have been using to oppress them:

 

The Voting Whites Act

This bill protects white voters from intimidation by making it illegal for up to three black people to dress up as “The New Black Panthers”  and stand in front of a mostly black polling place. It also gives white voters the right to vote multiple times on behalf of any neighbors, relatives or imaginary friends who would have voted for the same candidate(s) if they could have. And to counterbalance unfair over-voting by minorities, each white vote will be democratically multiplied by two.

 

The Trolls to the Polls Act

In order to encourage voter turnout in white areas, an increased number of polling places will be set up in their districts, early voting will apply just to them and absentee ballots will be sent out to all white voters only. To prevent minority voters from oppressing the white vote, crocodile moats will encircle all polling places in their districts, ballots will be made out of edible rice paper and they will be pre-marked with the superior white-favored candidates selected. Black people must prove their citizenship and right to vote if they do somehow make it to the polls, only official Republican National Committee membership IDs will be accepted as proof of citizenship.

 

The Apart Tide Act

In the pursuit of combating those behind the tide of pulling Americans apart from each other, this law would protect all racial communities by setting up protective barriers around those communities most under siege. This would apply to all white communities. Those who are not white and want to enter these communities will be required to have papers that document their identity and allow authorities to track their white-oppressing activities. Special buses that only have seats at the back of the bus will be exclusively provided for non-whites traveling in these communities and in case of an attack on the community, a Ted Nugent song will be played over the town’s loudspeakers to quickly evacuate whites from their homes and get them running for the hills.

Too bad Congress is on vacation for this entire month, it’s iffy whether white people will be able to survive until they return and pass theses laws.

softball coaches

The Brutal Politics of 10 Year Old Girls’ Softball Teams

softball coaches

Like a Presidential Inauguration, girls’ softball seasons are inaugurated with parades, joy and ceremonies. And like the world of politics, the hope and optimism that launches the season is often invaded by those adults who are driven by their own selfishness.

There are many parallels between a season in a 10 year old girls’ softball league and the world of politics. Whenever there are two or more people involved in anything together, you automatically have politics but when there are many more people involved in a group and the realistic and unrealistic hopes of parents (dads especially) are in play, a remarkable echo of our country’s politics can be witnessed.

The girls are rarely the problem, they may reflect troublesome sensibilities of their parents but for the most part, they are there to play softball, bond with the other girls on the team and hopefully have a great time doing so.

One could however, classify the parents and other adults in political terms.

THE SOFTBALL DEMOCRATS

This political category generally represents the majority of parents on a team, their manager and coaches. Generous, caring, volunteering, fundraising and very supportive of their daughters and the whole team. They gladly help out in practices, bring snacks and treats for the girls and lend an atmosphere of love and pride to the team. They support the entire team 100%.

THE SOFTBALL TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS

They are often the parents of pitchers (some of whom have molded their daughters into difficult to deal with and emotionally fragile prima donnas) and surprisingly, often the parents of lesser-skilled girls. They can be intolerant, selfish and willing to sacrifice what’s best for the team as long as they get the position or “incumbency” (playing time) they want for their daughter. They can be openly prejudiced against other players (especially those that outperform and get more playing time than their daughters) and amazingly self-deluded about reality when it comes to the performance and ability of their daughters. They can be loud, aggressive and compulsively critical of all but themselves and their daughters.

THE SOFTBALL INDEPENDENTS

Rarely contributing with any enthusiasm to the team, sometimes late for practices or games, undependable and minimally supportive in general. They don’t pitch in to help so much but also don’t project negativity onto the team except in a passive way by not being greatly supportive. You’ll often find them texting on their phone or Instagramming on their iPad while the rest of the parents are cheering the most exciting plays in the game.

Of course, the most fascinating group to me are the “Tea Party Republican” parents (perhaps because they cause all the conflict). Just as with their actual namesakes, they live in their own bubble of reality. Where everyone else on the team may see a girl who plays mediocre or poorly, their parents see a superstar who is the best player on the team. If their daughter pitches walks, “Great pitch!” If they strike out, “Great at-bat!” If they make an error in the field, “Great play!” (this really happens!).

When a manager bats the daughters of such parents lower in the order because of their low average or at a less desirable position because they don’t field very well, these parents pound their chest at how they and their superstar daughter are being victimized. This victimhood mentality festers within them until it eventually bursts out in the form of self-justified hostility vented at The Manager, the team or other parents.

After that, for the rest of the season, the political battle lines are drawn. The hostile “Tea Party Republican” parents, banding together or operating independently, mount an ongoing protest against the “Democrats” in office (the manager and coaches) and the status quo, content to damage the whole team in their pursuit to get what they want. And in the cases where they get what they want but their daughter’s lack of skills lead to  losses, they console their daughters that they did everything right and someone else is to blame (Obama?).

Such tough politics can seep into the girls and their play, sometimes they play well despite it and other times it handicaps them and their ability to achieve successes in their games.

In a severe scenario, The Tea Party Republican parents can be willing to threaten a total shutdown of the team by pulling their daughters off of it so there won’t be enough players left to field a team and sometimes they can follow through on it to form their own party…er…team. They may take a great deal of satisfaction at harming or sinking the team they used to be on, uncaring about how they hurt the many girls that used to be their daughters’ friends and teammates (ask Eric Cantor about that).

There is one very important rule though that these Tea Party Republican parents never learn…some people should never be put in charge of anything. To revise the old quote from the movie, Animal House, “Being hostile, selfish and delusional is no way to go through a softball season.”

Now that these Tea Party Republicans have what they want, being in charge of their own team and having the power to push their lesser-skilled daughters into the top positions, they get behind them and promote them aggressively, totally blind to their chances for success and how they can bring the whole team down. Once again, they view their daughters through Tea Party Glasses, everything they do is great and if things don’t work out, it was because the other team didn’t play fair, the umpires were against them or other players on their team undermined their daughters (“She shouldn’t have had to step out of the batter’s box and declare to the crowd that she isn’t a witch!”).

And these Tea Party Republican Parents are prone to getting upset at rules and fair calls that go against them, they view rules as only needing to apply to other parents and the other team in order to benefit them. So they can often be witnessed verbally attacking (“trolling”) umpires when a call is made against their team.

Not all girls softball teams go through this political turmoil, many run smoothly with a minimal degree of politics and a positive and real sense of community (that’s been our experience in most years).

It is enlightening though, how the mixture of people’s emotional needs and competition with others can take the most innocent and altruistic activities and turn them into fierce political conflicts. For parents who see the big picture and recognize that egos should be checked at the door when trying to do something good for a group, softball can be a quite fun and positive experience for girls.

For those who are using it to try to salve their own damaged ego or a stunted sense of self-worth, needing to have their daughters viewed as superior players whether they are or aren’t…softball can be an intense Tea Party Republican primary challenge that touches all of the basest bases.

And that’s foul indeed.

Hillary Clinton2

Could Hillary Clinton Become the Next Republican President?

Hillary Clinton2

For those who harbor concerns about Hillary Clinton becoming the triangulating, Republican agenda empowering candidate that Bill was as President, looks like those concerns may be well grounded:

Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.

Mrs. Clinton gave a gentle account of their policy differences in her new book, “Hard Choices,” though she wrote that she would have armed moderate Syrian rebels at a much earlier point in the country’s bloody civil war.

In another contrast, Mrs. Clinton has said U.S. presidents must never stop courting Congress. Mr. Obama has questioned whether such efforts make any difference. Mrs. Clinton expressed skepticism of candidates with “beautiful vision,” while Mr. Obama still hammers on his 2008 campaign mantra: “Hope.”

“I mean, some people can paint a beautiful vision,” she said at a CNN event last month. “And, thankfully, we can all learn from that. But then, can you, with the tenacity, the persistence, the getting-knocked down/getting-back-up resilience, can you lead us there?”

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/hillary-clinton-begins-to-move-away-from-obama-ahead-of-2016-1404691988-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNzEwNDcyWj

The recent tactics from Hillary seem to be revealing the same mercenary, conservative/non-Progressive sensibilities we saw from Hillary in 2008. I’m not going to rely on one article to define Hillary but I am prepared for the possibility of seeing Hillary continue down this road of Republicanism under the guise of “working for bipartisanship” and “reaching out to Republicans”…just as Bill did.

Bill Clinton’s years were a boon for many key Repub agendas, destroying unions while outsourcing jobs via NAFTA, killing Glass-Steagall and setting the country on a course for Wall Street to rob the 99% and crash the economy and forcing a work requirement on those on Welfare.

Anyone who’s become a bit familiar with Bill Clinton and his foundation knows that it’s all about networking with the wealthiest people to get them to back his projects. Bill has extremely close relationships with the same wealthy Republican throwing millions into elections to elect Republicans by hook or by crook (with an emphasis on the “crook”). Chelsea Clinton worked for a hedge fund, her husband ran a hedge fund and the Clintons have a net worth somewhere between $55-$80 million dollars.

Now that may not be Romney cheddar but how many people do you know who have $55 million and think most about those who are struggling? In between their catered benefits and galas?

Bill Clinton makes $200,000 per speech (that’s more than $200,000/hour since his speeches don’t last as long as an hour…so maybe $200,000/half hour?) and in total, he’s made over $100 million just for giving speeches.

Hillary Clinton received a $14 million advance on her recent book, Hard Choices and receives the same average of $200,000 for her speaking fee (guess taking that kind of money for just speaking isn’t a Hard Choice). She claims that all of the money she gets from college speaking fees (that doesn’t include fundraising, corporate and other speaking fees) go to the Clinton Foundation, not to her. Er, isn’t her last name Clinton?

The Clintons are incredibly wealthy people who move in the circles of the same wealthy and powerful people who have inordinate control over our democracy and society, they are friends and peers with them…so is it most likely that if elected, she’s going to hammer her best friends to help “the others”?

Her quickness and lack of hesitation or conscience to spin and stab Obama in the back as referenced at the top of this article and her dishonesty about her and Bill leaving the White House “dead broke” revive that creepy feeling in me that I had about her in 2008…that she may be what we used to call…”A Republican”.

While he was President, it was argued that Bill Clinton was one of the better Republican Presidents. Hillary Clinton seems like she can hardly contain herself when it comes to saber rattling, anxious to prove she doesn’t think “like a girl” and would happily send our troops into harm’s way if given the chance (this hawk aspect of Hillary is primarily what opened the door for Obama in 2008).

Because the Republican Party has moved so far to the lunatic fringe, in comparison, a Hillary Clinton who wants limited new wars, wants to support bills to which Republicans are sympathetic and is beginning to run against Obama as part of her campaign may not seem to be the definition of today’s GOP but think back a decade or two, wouldn’t a Republican in the 1990’s have similar positions?

It is probable that whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be, would be far more toxic for our nation than Hillary. In a General Election against Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, she would be the better choice…but since it still wouldn’t be voting for a Progressive, it would be more a situation of voting for the lesser  of two Republicans.

I make predictions here from time to time, my batting average ain’t so bad but of course it’s not perfect (I was so sure that aqua was going to be the new black this season!). I do think this is an easy one though since she’s already seemed to tip her hand a bit. I expect Hillary to run philosophically as a moderate Republican. That is, she will support the social issues that most Dems support, the right to contraception and abortion, immigration reform, gay marriage, etc., but she will also support the financial and international issues that Republicans support, aggressive involvement in world conflicts, minimizing regulations on corporations and supporting tax benefits for the wealthy (“to encourage investment”) and framing Obama and his successes as failures.

You couldn’t blame Hillary for being convinced by those in her bubble and the MSM that she’s entitled to win the Presidency and make history as the first woman President. You couldn’t be surprised by her taking the Progressive base for granted (“Who are they going to vote for anyway?”) and appealing to conservatives and RWs to win the election in a mandate landslide. And she shouldn’t be surprised that a presently unlikely candidate for the Dem nomination may run to her left and give her a run for her money (which would be quite a run)…and maybe even beat her.

Hillary seems to be ready to start off as running for the General Election instead of running to win the Dem primary and that is the same slippery slope she slid down in 2008. It wouldn’t be strange if an actually Progressive candidate started gaining ground on her in the primaries. I could imagine her suddenly adopting that candidate’s Progressive values while attacking that candidate as ruthlessly as she attacked Obama (we all remember how vicious she and Bill were towards Obama when he started looking stronger…both throwing around the race card with Reverend Wright and other racial statements, it was Hillary supporters who started the Birther accusations against Obama, Hillary attacked Obama as unAmerican for his “ties” to Bill Ayers and of course Hillary just outright lied about her and Chelsea being shot at on a runway by a Bosnian sniper to seem more heroic than Obama).

Counting on a leopard to change its spots is not the best bet to make in Vegas. Bill and Hillary breathe the same rarefied air that the mostly Republican 1% breathe, they fly in the same private jets, they’ve supported the same policies and agendas and they “pal around” with the same financial terrorists who destroyed our economy and cracked economic inequity wide open for the 99% (far more than Obama “palled around” with Bill Ayers). So does she really look like she’ll be the champion of the 99% over the 1% if she becomes President?

We should never crown Presidents in America. Hillary doesn’t have a right to become President, she should have to compete against worthy opponents and earn the nomination if she’s to have it. I’m hoping to see a very spirited Democratic Primary in 2016 and I will support whoever wins that primary against whatever lying nihilist likely comes out of the GOP’s primary…but let’s have a real Primary race and elect the Democrat who best reflects Progressive values.