Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.

[FORD]

Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.
Liz Mair
10.18.18 5:20 AM ET
thedailybeast.com

We’re three weeks out from the 2018 midterm election, and Hillary Clinton is popping up again like a Halloween ghoul who keeps rising from the grave to terrorize the American public; only this time accompanied by the increasingly #MeToo burdened uber-villain, Bubba.

The Clintons, it seems, can’t seem to call it quits, even if it means leaving members of their own party cringing and many more voters ready to “headdesk” themselves into a coma.

This time, it’s happening courtesy of a pay-through-the-nose-to-see-them rehab tour. Because if there’s one thing America hasn’t had enough of over recent decades, it’s efforts by the Clintons to recast themselves as normal, likeable people, as they cash checks and play the victim.

Previous editions of this show have included Hillary’s two Senate runs and two presidential runs, which, depending on one’s perspective, were either an attempt to show independence from her husband or to be compensated for his myriad screw ups.

But despite the last run ending with a loss to Donald Freaking Trump, the most flawed candidate Republicans could conceivably have run in 2016, it appears that nothing will get Hillary out of our political debate once and for all.

Hillary remains caught up in the delusion that the only reason she lost in 2016 was because of Russian interference. She does not seem to have fully processed the fact that she lost the electoral college, the only vote that counts. She touts the fact that she got nearly three million more votes than Trump while conveniently leaving out that her tally of the vote still fell well below 50 percent.

Both of the major party nominees in 2016 were so unlikable, flawed and—let’s be candid—unethical that lots of us just couldn’t pull the lever for her even if we couldn’t stand Trump. According to a study from American National Election Studies, the words most associated by voters with Hillary in 2016 were “experienced liar.” Is it logical that she’d want to rehab her image, given all this? Perhaps. Is it possible? No. Do we need to watch her try? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.


Related in Politics

That might be especially the case if you’re a Democrat.

Hillary’s continual pursuit of limelight and headlines ensures that the image of the Democratic Party remains an outdated, outmoded, and frankly despicable for far too many voters. This comes at a time when leading Democrats are attempting to focus voters’ attention on the future—2020, and beating Trump—and jostling for the role as the new party leader.

It also undercuts Democrats’ positioning as the only party that really cares about #MeToo and that will fight for survivors, a contrast Dems are only too keen to spotlight in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and ongoing allegations about President Trump’s treatment of women. Only sheer partisan convenience could allow someone to insist that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is credible while downplaying the numerous allegations of mistreatment (and worse) made by women against Bill Clinton.

For the Democratic Party, about the best that can come of this latest Clinton revival is that no matter how unpalatable any of its leading lights—Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Cory Booker, or others—are individually, they’ll look like downright appealing the longer Hillary hangs about.

But her doing so does not signal that the Democratic Party is actually living in the present, and focused on beating Trump. Rather, it suggests the party wants to turn American politics into the new edition of Groundhog Day—only with no Bill Murray or actual groundhog. Isn’t it time to let the Democratic Party move on from its Clintonite past, and to give someone else a go?

One of the reasons Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so refreshing isn’t just because the more Democratic Socialist-driven, modern Democratic Party—which is populated to a greater degree by younger voters—wants a younger, more progressive avatar to embrace. It’s also because even Republicans are starting to get weary of bashing the Clintons now; though some of us will undertake it still as a public service.

Clinton is like the target you’ve already shot dead-on so many times the paper has gone to shreds. There are few more column inches to be written, but even Fox News personalities have begun to act a little bored when they dive into Hillary-focused narratives these days.

“For Republicans, too, it’s time to move on—to fresh fights, with fresh adversaries. We want the newest bad guy, not the evildoer from the biggest show in the freaking 1990s.”

All of which suggests that for Republicans, too, it’s time to move on—to fresh fights, with fresh adversaries. We want the newest bad guy, not the evildoer from the biggest show in the freaking 1990s. Maybe in 2020 that will be Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, or Booker, or any one of the other 20-some people that might potentially run for president on the Democratic side. But it’s a dead certainty that it isn’t the lady we’ve seen inveighing against the right wing for stealing things she seems to think she or her husband are inherently entitled to for decades now.

It’s time for Hillary and Bill to get off the stage and quit seeking the public adoration they’re clearly never going to get to the massive degree they crave it. Be content, like so many other party elders who turned out not to be winners, in working behind the scenes to help to deliver wins for other, better, up-and-coming, appealing voices.

Yes, others have stuck around past their primes. Mitt Romney, a candidate with a similar resume of high profile presidential losses, is now running for Senate. But his circumstances are different. He was asked to run for the seat that he will soon occupy by its current occupant and he’s maintained strong ties to Utah. Even then, his continuing presence on the political stage irks a ton of Americans who wish he too would go away quietly.

So, Hillary, ditch the rehab tour. Dispense with TV appearances. Recognize that whether it’s lauded or not, you did make some kind of a difference (yes, even Hillary did a couple of things right in her various terms in public office), and be content to leave it there.

Zombie movies for Halloween are fun. But whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or neither, there’s only so much zombie politics you can take. That’s what the Clintons essentially offer now—a brain-devouring, egocentric version of Democrat-ism lurching and festering onward, seemingly endlessly.

[Kristy]

Oh PLUUUUEEEEEEEEZE.

This isn't solely on Hilary but I have a suspicion that bald "horse-faced" goat fucker Perez is behind this who thinks Taylor Swift is going to blow him any second now. Like I said, the Democrats need to rid themselves of this shit, place Hilary in a nursing home, Bill on a sexual predator watch list and move the fuck on. They will fuck things up more than any one of you Bernie brats ever could - and who thought that was possible?

[FORD]

They already HAVE fucked up this party. The massive losses in the mid term elections of 1994, 2010, 2014, and Hillary's clusterfuck in 2016 are evidence of this.

Bill Clinton won a three way race with 43% of the vote in 1992, and beat a feeble old man as an incumbent in 1996. These fake "Democrats" have deluded themselves into thinking those were great victories and have been hanging onto the Clinton cult ever since, despite losing control of both houses of Congress, more than 1000 elected seats overall, and most embarrassingly, the White House to a living cartoon character in 2016.

The rank and file Democrats - and yes I still consider myself one, despite my lack of use for the national party administration - are well beyond the Clinton cult mentality. And the Clintons know it. That's why they pulled the last minute scam to get SHAFTA Tommy installed as DNC chair, even though the majority of Democrats were supporting Keith Ellison. Scamela Harris & Borey Crooker aren't really any better than Hillary, but they are sure trying to LOOK like they are, and hope they can win the nomination in 2020. Why not? It worked for Barry Obama in 2008. He campaigned as if he were another FDR, and sadly turned out to be Clinton with a little extra melanin in his skin.

Anybody who is sane would certainly hope 2020 doesn't turn out to be another case of "meet the new boss.... same as the old boss".

[Terry]

Obama didn't defer to the Clintons in 2008. That was part of his appeal. To be fair, in terms of straight-up primary votes, Hillary ran a competitive primary race in 2008. It's one thing to lose against Obama, and quite another to have difficulties putting Sanders away in the 2016 primaries, and then going on to lose to Trump even though more people voted for you. Sort of like Gore 2000 all over again: even when Democrats get more votes, they still somehow find away to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama tipping his hands on the scale re: Hillary's 2016 nomination was easily one of the larger mistakes he made during his 2 terms.

I wanted to like her. Throughout the years leading up to and including the 2016 campaign, I really tried to find reasons to like her. Even now - even after 2016 - I like her slightly more than I ever did her husband, who I considered a great retail campaigner able to give decent (not great) campaign speeches, but a mealy-mouthed, unprincipled, spineless President. But that isn't saying much. And in the wake of 2016, she trots out ANOTHER book where she claimed "this time I'm going to lay it all on the line and tell it straight"...for $29.95. She did come to a realization, however late, that she was disliked much more than she had previously imagined. She was tone deaf as to why: with the Clintons, it's always everyone else's fault if they don't like them, never having any relation to what the Clintons themselves have done.

And they WON'T go away. Because there's always the next cash grab to fill the coffers. Always with their outstretched hands asking for more money. Neither of them have anything left to offer, except for a nostalgia trip: remember 1992? THAT was a good year. With no mention of the income stratification that continued under Bill's 2 terms, or the gutting of welfare, or the failure to lead in terms of nuclear disarmament. Or the massive business deregulation under Bill's 2 terms. Or the lack of anything meaningful Hillary achieved in her time as a Senator or as Sec of State (unless one counts her Iraq vote and her Lybian adventure as endeavors reeking of success).

A pair of DINO centrists. All either of them have ever been. Honestly, when one thinks about Bill Clinton's lasting accomplishments as President, he sounds more like a Republican. And Hillary has no definable political core at all, other than fence-sitting.

Booker and Harris? Don't think so. Ditto to Gillibrand. Warren is past it. Biden...I like Joe Biden, but I think he was probably past it even in 2008, never mind two years from now.

Barring a fucked-up war or a major recession, Trump gets re-elected two years from now. Unless [Trump] is removed from office prior to then. The chances of that happening, even if the Dems retook the House AND managed to win a slim majority in the Senate? Well, not knowing what Mueller has as of yet, I wouldn't say it is impossible, but I wouldn't wager any serious money on it.

I WOULD be willing to wager the Democratic Party isn't going to revitalize itself until it breaks the endless cycle of Clinton enabling, stops being inaccurately wistful about the 1990s and starts looking forward to the future (hint: the future DOESN'T include elected office for Chelsea).

[Nitro Express]

Hillary still thinks she can win in 2020. The bitch is mad as a shit house rat but I will give her credit on one thing. She never gives up. What's funny is Hillary had all this money in the Clinton Foundation and the Democrat Party was broke. Hillary bought the Democrat Party threw Bernie under the bus and still couldn't win the presidency.

[Terry]

Hillary still thinks she can win in 2020. The bitch is mad as a shit house rat but I will give her credit on one thing. She never gives up. What's funny is Hillary had all this money in the Clinton Foundation and the Democrat Party was broke. Hillary bought the Democrat Party threw Bernie under the bus and still couldn't win the presidency.

She outspent Trump 2:1 and still couldn't win.

Some of the groundwork lay in the Obama's political braintrust not really mobilizing/organizing that amazing grass roots fundraising of 2008 into a network that could be used for things other than getting Obama elected. All of that was left to wither away in the years subsequent to 2008, as was the national Democratic Party structure. I tend to agree with Hillary that by the time 2015/early 2016 rolled around, the DNC was lacking financial resources. More critically, the DNC was lacking intellectual resources, and there was never a comprehensive fusion between the candidate and the party apparatus. Not helpful when it came to mobilizing GOTV efforts in various states, because the party infrastructure was lacking in direction. You had people in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan who WANTED to start the GOTV efforts for Hillary as soon as it became apparent she would be the nominee. All they got from Hillary's Campaign, instead of funding and support, was silence. By the time Hillary's campaign realized they should have been utilizing these on the ground people in these states and tried to jump-start efforts late in the campaign, it was too late. But that's the whole point: it SHOULDN'T have been left to that late. And it was Election 101 stuff.

Her campaign's problem was they left it too much up to analytics, where the statistics they believed in stated she would in all likelihood win. So, the groupthink was that they didn't NEED to do the work in Michigan...even AFTER Sanders won the primary there. Because they were too busy feeding the media talking points like how Hillary was competitive in Texas. And any other number of red states that haven't went for a Democrat in ages, but said states were where she had racked up easy victories against Sanders in the primaries.

Nobody believed Trump could win, but it was as if they were taking no notice as to the size, fervor and frequency of Trump's rallies. Meanwhile, Hillary couldn't be bothered to campaign hard (and this was well before her bout with pneumonia): she simply didn't work for it as hard as Trump did. She didn't work the retail end of it as hard as Trump did, and she certainly didn't work the press end of it as hard as Trump did. Aloof by comparison.

So, she wasn't an effective retail campaigner, didn't have good relations with the media, didn't like sitting down for interviews, couldn't deliver inspiring speeches...why exactly was she the nominee again? The notion was her actually winning the election would be tough, but once she got into office she would be a good president. However, that rationale was never supported by the decisions she made when she had held elected/appointed office previously. Nor in the 1990s when she was appointed as the Spouse In Chief Health Care Czar.

Previously, she won election to the Senate via a virtual coronation. When she had to run a competitive race in 2008, she lost. She struggled in another competitive race in the 2016 primaries against a self-proclaimed socialist nobody had ever heard of prior to 2015. And she lost later in 2016 to a man who said 8 million wacked out things on the campaign trail, any one of which would have felled anybody else in any other year. Trump had the fortune to be running against somebody voters disliked only slightly less than himself.

She was never a good candidate. Never. While she and her campaign staff may have been unable to see that, it was the job of the DNC and Obama as the functional head of the party to take a hard, cold look at the facts.

While I'm not 100% sure if Sanders would have won the general had he been the nominee - Hillary may well have been the party's best shot in 2016, and what does that say about the party if true? - it wasn't the job of the DNC to function as a conduit to circumvent access by the Sanders campaign to the party resources.

[ZahZoo]

The one benefit of Hillary's tenacity is it's sustaining keeping the the undesirable people at the top of the Democratic party's mess from gaining any political traction among rank and file Democrats. If you keep enough shit stirred no one rises to the top. I'm sure there's some great leaders within the ranks... but until the party can get the current pack of top swamp rats off their thrones the party will continue to lose...

[Kristy]

Hillary still thinks she can win in 2020.

Is this what your "MBA" (or the voices in your head) is telling you?

The bitch is mad as a shit house rat but I will give her credit on one thing. She never gives up. What's funny is Hillary had all this money in the Clinton Foundation and the Democrat Party was broke. Hillary bought the Democrat Party threw Bernie under the bus and still couldn't win the presidency.

Yeah, if she only could afford a phone call to Putin.

[Terry]

The one benefit of Hillary's tenacity is it's sustaining keeping the the undesirable people at the top of the Democratic party's mess from gaining any political traction among rank and file Democrats. If you keep enough shit stirred no one rises to the top. I'm sure there's some great leaders within the ranks... but until the party can get the current pack of top swamp rats off their thrones the party will continue to lose...

The Pelosi/Schumer center of control, inasmuch as there is an actual degree of control, will have its test in a couple of weeks. The results will be easily evident.

If the results aren't at a minimum the control of the House, the Party (such as it is) may want to do a bit more than some mild recalibrating prior to 2020 re: the current leaders within that the Party are taking their cues from.

Sanders should have been a wakeup call.

[FORD]

Should Democrats regain the House, I wouldn't be so sure that Jellyfish Pelosi automatically gets the Speaker seat back. Unfortunately, some of her potential replacements could be even worse. Steny Whore definitely would be. The best choice of anybody with a credible shot at House leadership (since they do go on a "seniority" basis) would be Barbara Lee. Unlike Pelosi and so many other so-called "Democrats" in the house, she's been consistent with actual Democratic values over the years, even taking a stand against the BCE's post 9/11 agenda (illegal wars/patriot act/etc.)

In the slim chance that they take the Senate, I doubt anybody would challenge Cuck Schumer, but I wish they would. If Bernie decides not to run in 2020, he would be perfect for Senate Majority Leader. Because unlike Schumer (or Spineless Harry before him) Bernie would take the words "Majority" and "Leader" seriously.

[Seshmeister]

If Bernie decides not to run in 2020, he would be perfect for Senate Majority Leader. Because unlike Schumer (or Spineless Harry before him) Bernie would take the words "Majority" and "Leader" seriously.

If he won in 2020 He would be 83 at the end of his presidency.

WTF?

[Terry]

If he won in 2020 He would be 83 at the end of his presidency.

WTF?

Sanders running in 2020 is a nice thought.

Even if 2016 hadn't been rigged for Hillary re: the nomination, I still tend to think she would have squeaked out a win over Sanders. It's an uphill battle for people like Sanders or Ellison to seize control of the Party apparatus without a massive voter groundswell (as opposed to merely a very vocal minority) propelling them into a position where they could seize control.

There are simply too many corporate centrists in the donor class who are happy to enjoy Trump's tax cuts AND also happy to promote social equality among the working classes because these donors don't actually live and work among the working classes, but rather in upper class white enclaves. If it came down to a choice between Trump tax cuts and a truly progressive taxation instituted by a Sanders-controlled Democratic Party, these corporate centrist donors would pull a lever for Trump. For, while these donor centrists will read the NYT editorial page over a cup of Starbucks coffee and decry how Trump approaches illegal immigrants and the like, when the rubber meets the road and the prospect of their own wallets being substantially lightened via progressive taxation is a prospective reality, said centrists will suddenly become just as Calvinist or fiscally conservative as Grover Norquist.

[ZahZoo]

The Pelosi/Schumer center of control, inasmuch as there is an actual degree of control, will have its test in a couple of weeks. The results will be easily evident.

If the results aren't at a minimum the control of the House, the Party (such as it is) may want to do a bit more than some mild recalibrating prior to 2020 re: the current leaders within that the Party are taking their cues from.

Sanders should have been a wakeup call.

That's a key point on the Pelosi/Schumer angle. They are not helping unify the party any more than Clinton/Obama adding a hand are bringing a center of control into clearer view. It's all muddying the murky water and making it worse.

I'm also very skeptical with putting much faith in polling results after a lot of the 2016 polling was dead wrong. Technology has fragmented traditional polling to the point where it's no longer a viable gauge of results.

In addition, gauging any candidate's ability to win votes based on money raised is no longer a meaningful measurement by a long shot. Trump's campaign proved that miserably. I'd love to see an actual statistic of how much money was just outright thrown down the drain and utterly wasted on all the losing campaigns from 2016... I suspect it's well up over a billion... I think it would be a real eye opener, especially when people realize that their money could have been spent on something far more productive that may actually improved real life...

[Terry]

That's a key point on the Pelosi/Schumer angle. They are not helping unify the party any more than Clinton/Obama adding a hand are bringing a center of control into clearer view. It's all muddying the murky water and making it worse.

I'm also very skeptical with putting much faith in polling results after a lot of the 2016 polling was dead wrong. Technology has fragmented traditional polling to the point where it's no longer a viable gauge of results.

In addition, gauging any candidate's ability to win votes based on money raised is no longer a meaningful measurement by a long shot. Trump's campaign proved that miserably. I'd love to see an actual statistic of how much money was just outright thrown down the drain and utterly wasted on all the losing campaigns from 2016... I suspect it's well up over a billion... I think it would be a real eye opener, especially when people realize that their money could have been spent on something far more productive that may actually improved real life...

There's a wistful nostalgia about Obama, but perhaps more of this has to do with his individual temperament and graciousness as compared to Trump than his political skills. When you look at the Democratic Party's performance under both of Obama's terms - even from strictly a standpoint of getting Democrats elected in national, state and local races - the results were pretty dismal. By 2016, Obama's support wasn't even strong enough to get Clinton enough votes in the places it ended up mattering to enable her to clear the hurdle.

Pelosi has an appeal in terms of her history of fundraising. Yet, as you say, look at the history of the Democratic Party since she in effect took it over on a Congressional level in 2006: all that fundraising ability hasn't amounted to much when contrasted against the elective gains of the Republican Party over the same period. Look where the Democratic agenda is today as opposed to where it was in 2006 when the likes of Schumer and Pelosi got control of it. Look where Pelosi and Schumer come from: are a couple of aged coastal limousine liberal elites who have been in lockstep with Clintonian Centrism from the start really going to be able to understand the tenor and tone of the condescendingly titled "flyover states" much less adapt to where the nation is now vs. 1996 in terms of the Democratic Party actually making gains in Red States?

Unlike Trump or Sanders, the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand and Booker are only useful in bringing out Democrats who were likely to vote anyway regardless of who the chosen party candidate was. Trump and Sanders mobilized a lot of people who likely wouldn't vote for a typical, run-of-the-mill candidate. When you look at the percentage of eligible voters out there who don't vote in election after election...there's a heckuva lot of 'em out there.

I'd have to think anybody would be skeptical about the poll results after 2016. Not necessarily in terms of such polls being "fake news" in terms of being outright fabricated by those taking the polls, but just the polls themselves being incorrect due to flawed or - as you say - outdated/"traditional" models. Polling data assumes people are giving honest answers to poll questions. The only polls that matter are in the form of votes on Election Day. I wouldn't put money on the Democrats taking back the House.

[ZahZoo]

Part of where the Democrats are failing and where it matters are the same "fly-over" states blamed for getting Trump elected, that hold a lot of rank & file Democrats, but they are written off and assumed not numerous enough when compared to the packed population centers on the coasts. Several of my Democrat friends are completely repulsed by the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand and Booker...

Minorities are also shifting away from the Democratic strongholds as well... too many times they have been portrayed as the "cause" Democrats are fighting for only to be ignored and left empty-handed once election day passes. Trump's "what have you got to lose..?" campaign approach is paying off in the jobs and economy 10 fold. What do Democrats offer... roll back the Trumps taxes and reinstate the job killing regulatory measures... who's gonna seriously buy into that crap..?

Polling used to be fairly decent in predictive measures when it was land-line based and certain geographic centers were reliable predictive elements. Now with land-line usage dropping drastically and massive population shifts, the only place to go is the internet. This weighs poorly due to trolling and social media flies that flock to the smelliest pile shit presented to them... Flies don't show up on voting day...