Does former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have four “aces in the hole” that could enhance her chances in the general election if she gets her party’s nomination? The Hill’s Brent Budowsky thinks so — and the four he lists are intriguing:
Ace No.1: the prospect that Clinton would be the first female president and could do more to champion better pay and greater financial security for women than any presidential candidate or president in the history of American politics.
This has long been a sticking point with me. America has been in the Fred Flintstone age when it comes to a woman holding the country’s highest office. In many countries IT IS NO BIG DEAL — and wasn’t decades ago. (I met one of them: India’s later-assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, when I was a freelance living in New Delhi and the official stringer for the old Chicago Daily News). The fact that this is still considered even remotely an issue in the U.S. is not just surprising — but a disgrace. It is a fact that many women felt Hillary Clinton was better qualified than Barack Obama in 2008. People can debate that, but in campaigns the best campaign wins – and Hillary Clinton’s was a mess for a good part of it. Some who felt they wanted her last time will double up their efforts this time. And, presumably, she won’t make the same mistakes.
Ace No. 2: the GOP’s “pope problem,” juxtaposed against Clinton’s support for issues championed by Pope Francis and a majority of voters. This includes reducing income inequality, creating more economic opportunity to lift the economic boats of all Americans, supporting pay equity legislation for women and increasing wages for all workers, establishing fair and just immigration laws, and dealing with the mortal and undeniable threat to the earth from climate change and environment degradation.
The Republicans’ “pope problem” will be made clear when Francis addresses a joint session of Congress in September. He will almost certainly offer teachings in his internationally broadcast remarks that bring smiles to the faces of Clinton and the Democrats he addresses in Congress, while by contrast the expressions of Republicans will tell the story to voters.
Yes, you can hear some on the far right (NOT ALL REPUBLICANS ARE FAR RIGHT) now talking about the Pope already. Can’t you guess? “Liberal..liberal…liberal…liberal…liberal…liberal…liberal” — that increasingly tiresome assumption that conservative is instantaneously intrinsically good or superior, and that anything “liberal” is automatically bad.
But I would say (even though I’m Jewish) that the Pope has a much wiser adviser than many GOP politicians.
Ace No. 3: that by Election Day 2016, Clinton will be campaigning as the only credible and trusted champion of change who vows to name Supreme Court justices who will reverse widely despised court decisions that corrupt our democracy by allowing special interests with unlimited money to buy our elections and dominate our government.
A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals that voters overwhelmingly reject the current system of campaign finance and the corruptions that result from the overpowering influence of special interest money.
In that poll, 46 percent of respondents want to “completely rebuild” the current system, while 39 percent favor “fundamental changes,” meaning 85 percent of voters support Clinton as the candidate of change with reform plans that define her campaign and will shape her presidency.
This is correct, but I contend its a shaky assumption. Democrats BLEW IT (let’s repeat that: BLEW IT) over the years when they’d sit home and not vote because they didn’t think their candidate was liberal enough, or vote for third parties, or teach their party a lesson and not give their support. They taught their party a lesson by giving Republicans the power they needed and could legally and justifiably use to remake the Great Society era court into a court more to their political liking. Democrats have been losing that longterm judicial battle and blaming the mean, old Republicans for using their power is a lame excuse for their own virtual political negligence.
Will we see many Democrats who genuinely like Bernie Sanders decide not to vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination and let the other party come in — and put the finishing touches on transforming the Supreme Court as a legitimate consequence of winning the election?
Ace No. 4: the magic of Bill Clinton and the vast experience of Hillary Clinton, which I discussed at length in a recent column and which no Republican can match.
Still, there is the Good Bill and the Not So Good Bill. Which one will surface during the campaign?
But what difference does any of this make?
It’s clear Donald Trump will run, and win: he says everyone loves him. Trump could win by a (bad) hair.
giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.