Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Media Drums Beat For Clinton 2016. Can Palinite PUMA's Resist The Siren Song?

Within a week the leftist media has commenced its drumbeat for their second BF, after President Obama of course, and articles like the one below with a salient points extracted, are up and running.

The Buffalo N.Y. News

"Clinton has the leadership to be president

We’ve barely finished a bruising, expensive campaign for president, but it’s not too early to be thinking about who would make an excellent candidate for the presidency in 2016 – particularly if there is a conspicuously capable individual already on the political scene.

There is such a candidate, and it should surprise no one that her name is Hillary Clinton.

She would bring vastly more leadership, experience and judgment to the White House, compared with its current occupant.

For the country’s sake, and because she clearly is the best candidate, we hope the competing factions in national Democratic politics will coalesce to make her the nominee."

PPP Polling (D) has been out in the Iowa polling field and found, as would be expected that Hillary Clinton has a massive lead over other named Dem prospective 2016 presidential candidates. For this to get out of the media concept stage there would of course have to be an indication from Ms Clinton that she would run.

So far her response has been a no, but the other half of the equation (and if she ran you could bet that the "get two for one" slogan would feature prominently) President Clinton has been more circumspect, to whit:

President Clinton (Bill, lets not get ahead of ourselves here) ran true to form as his "Slick Willie" alter ego with his really hilarious statement that he had "no earthly idea what Hillary would do" vis a vis running in 2016.

No final decision of course but "no earthly idea" pull the other one, it has bells on it. Secretary Clinton joins a growing group of "non-declarers" i.e. potential 2016 candidates who have not said they will run but on the other hand have not said they won't (we'll take Bill's statement as a proxy in this case, which I think is a fair )

Making no bones about it, if she did run she would probably (although 2008 is salutary) win the nomination easily- a Barack Obama doesn't come along too often, and there doesn't appear to be anyone nearly approaching his caliber amongst the  other prospective Dem's at this moment ('this moment" being the operative words of course.

Make no bones about again, if she did run and win the nomination she would be a formidable candidate
against the GOP nominee. Again, that's from this standpoint in time. If there were a Hoover type depression, or some other massive black swan event, then it wouldn't matter who the Democrat candidate was. But all things being equal President Obama's re-election with near 8% unemployment shows that no election is a sure thing.

Here's the rub. Hillary Clinton had a huge amount of support from women who saw her many qualities as ideal in the post-Bush years and that it was time for a woman to run for the top job, and who better than Hillary? That she lost to a part time junior senator, with no business and little administration experience, rankled deeply to these Clinton supporters and the PUMA (Party Organization My Ass)  loosely associated group of activists was formed.

They were strident in their numerous blogs, attacking Obama and what they saw as the corrupt party machine which kept Hillary out of the rightful role as nominee.Over time a number of prominent PUMA's came to support Sarah Palin. Whilst not necessarily agreeing with everything the GOP stood for, and even everything that Palin stood for, they saw in her a strong, principled woman who stood up to the very forces which brought Clinton down.

Their support  for her, and their acting as a shield against the leftist media attacks against her, has been noteworthy, and dedicated and there is the rub. What will they do in light of a Clinton candidacy? Will their rage against the Democratic party machine still be simmering enough  that they will love the person but hate the party and still support Sarah?  Or will their  abiding admiration for Hillary preclude their voting for anyone, else no matter how worthy that woman is?

Their non-support would be a tragedy for Sarah if she ran because, although their numbers may not be large, their influence, intelligence, heart and voice are a powerful element belying their membership.

I can only  ask them, should this difficult situation arise, to consider deeply why they went on to support Sarah, and consider if those reasons will not bind them to her in 2016 even if Hillary is the opposition.

Hillary would be representing the party which overthrew her in 2008, and by supporting her, there would be a back door validation of those forces, no matter how unintentional the act was. perhaps that might be the deciding factor if the flame of righteous anger is still burning bright with a red hot flame.

perhaps I could suggest a compromise? If Hillary ran, support her for the nomination. If She received the nomination and Sarah did not run, or did not receive it, then do as you will.

If they both win their respective nominations then Palin supporters would respect your act of conscience either way it went, but would of course hope it went to Sarah.