Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton Will Never Be The President

Got your attention, didn't I? But it's true. It's very simple: If you have some liability, some weakness, you need something powerful to cancel it out. You need goodwill, or humor, or exceptional intelligence. Hillary has at least 2 weaknesses: Her husband President Clinton, and her own unpleasant disposition, magnified by her impressive talent for pathological dishonesty and evasion. In short, people don't like her. People vote for people they like. We might say that the voting public has no good reason to like or trust someone, but if they do, they do. The American people are capable of overlooking a lot if they like you. Bill Clinton committed a felony while in office; did it matter? Nope. The people generally acted like it was the Republicans' fault that we even heard about it.

Reagan could have easily gotten impeached for Iran-Contra; doesn't matter. We liked him.

George W. Bush flat-out lied to us about their use of waterboarding; it won't matter. He'll be more fondly remembered than Clinton. Likability.

I recall in 2008, Hillary had a mildly unexpected primary win in Nevada, I think. I watched her speech. Everybody who wins has a line that touts the growing base of their appeal. They do it to energize supporters, and convince the differently committed that the train is leaving, so to speak. Hillary said something like, "And our coalition includes Republicans who've seen the light." I've never had such a negative reaction to a line, ever. It was tone-deaf. Here she was, trying to suggest that she's going to win, but essentially calling voters she'll need idiots for not supporting her earlier. She acts like she is a gift to the American people, and not the other way around.

I understand that all politicians have huge egos. It comes with the game. But you've got to be able to feign humility believably. She can't. At all. You can't win like that.

Let me say that the people do not resign themselves to their presidents, ordinarily. There has to be a large segment of people who wants to vote for someone. Tell me, which groups of people would find Hillary Clinton compelling that would not also find any other Democrat compelling? I don't see her overcoming the visceral dislike of Republicans. I don't see how she can own Obama's record without being torpedoed by it. (Benghazi, anyone?) She doesn't talk like a president; rooms don't crackle when she enters; she has power, but it's inertia, not the power of individuality.

I said Obama would be president a solid 2 years before the election. You can feel presidents coming, if you pay attention. It's a little more Student Council-ish than we'd like, but it's reality. The game of politics is distinct from the work of governing. Hillary doesn't have "it," and she never really did. Let's be real: if the "front-runner" gets beat by a freshman senator with no real accomplishments whatsoever, how fresh will she seem this time?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...