Hillary Clinton--if she wins--won't have a mandate for legislative change. She will have a mandate not to be Trump.
 |
| So what? |
It probably won't matter. Why? Because what is obvious to anyone is that Hillary was an adept practitioner in the pay-to-play world of political power and access. Hillary supporters know this about her and support her anyway.
Hillary has a defense. It isn't to deny pay-to-play revolving door politics and fundraising and special donors. It is to pull Donald Trump into the same Tar Pit. Donald Trump can claim he knows it is sleazy, that he was a practitioner of it, but now wants to reform it. Trump is no Bernie Sanders. Trump, like Hillary, has to be in the morass if he wants to campaign. He needs the RNC and its donors. He needs SuperPACS. He cannot condemn the very people and process that allows the RNC and his Senate supporters to survive. And his top staff make the vivid proof of Trump's lack of purity. His former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski when fired moved directly to Fox News, a revolving door that circled within one news cycle, and by Lewandowski's successor Paul Manafort, who allegedly got some $12 million in cash for helping Ukraine--or Russia; the actual facts don't matter because what matters is that the Clinton campaign is asserting equivalence and dark cash money from more-or-less Russia looks sleazy and corrupting.
 |
| Even Fox version admits poll problem |
Hillary's real defense against Trump is Trump's behavior. Trump is erratic and newsworthy and interesting. He lacks caution and self-discipline--two traits that are essential in a president. Hillary's ads and speeches focus on Trump. Hillary isn't Trump.
Trump has just today extended the Trump-is-crazy meme. He has announced another campaign shakeup, demoting the new manager, Manafort, who pushed the notion of reset and discipline, and installing a free-spirited pugilist.
 |
| Liberal media says "crazy" |
The only apparent policy choice that partisans can point to with assurance is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would certainly choose different Supreme Court judges. Republicans asserted that the new president should have the right to name the judge to fill the vacancy. If Republicans control the Senate then that story will change to "the new president has the right to nominate but the people have spoken on the Senate and we retain the right to advise and consent and we demand a conservative."
But aside from the Supreme Court nomination what real issue would Hillary have advocated for whose passage would have the mandate of popular election? Does yes or no on student loan refinance hand on this election? If Hillary Clinton is elected is there a clear mandate for Wall Street reform or re-regulation? Is there any greater chance of immigration reform under President HRC than under Obama?
I do not see any changes under HRC other than filling the Supreme Court with a moderate or liberal to replace Justice Scalia. The primary meaning of a Hillary Clinton election is that Trump is not elected.
For a great many Americans that will be a relief and enough.
2 comments:
I think it goes a little beyond that. Within the next 4 years, you might see other judges retire/die. She could pack the court for years.
On one hand, I agree with Peter, that under a HRC administration, very little will change, if anything. Her selection of the Colorado Fracking enthusiast to head her transition team is disturbing for progressives, to say the least, whats next, Robert Rubin as chief economic advisor? But the importance of wresting the SCOTUS away from the corporatists like John Roberts cannot be emphasized enough, possibly even ending the abomination known as Citizens United, which she has pledged to pursue.
Post a Comment