Hillary Clinton

Dems, GOP Giving Hillary Clinton All She Wants for Christmas

She's a terrible candidate, but the parties seem to be in a race to the bottom.


Credit: marcn / photo on flickr

It must have been tough for Bill Clinton to come up with a good Christmas present for his wife this year. She didn't have to ask for much from him or Santa, because the political gods have already given her just about all she could want. 

Hillary Clinton has never been an ideal candidate for president. If she were, she'd be looking forward to her final year in the White House instead of reacquainting herself with the charms of a New Hampshire winter. The flaws that sank her against Barack Obama remain: She's a wooden campaigner. She has a maddening penchant for secrecy and dissembling. She has accumulated a long record of scandals and dubious choices during her decades in public life. She voted for the Iraq War. 

Four years as secretary of state yielded more minuses—the failed Russia "reset," Benghazi, her private email server—than pluses. Carly Fiorina landed a telling blow when she said, "If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Mrs. Clinton's." If elected, she'd be the second-oldest person ever inaugurated. 

But none of these vulnerabilities has derailed her campaign. On the contrary, they have been turned into irrelevancies or even assets. Almost everything that has happened in the past six months has worked to Clinton's advantage. 

First is the weak field of other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders' grim demeanor, leftist policies and modest debating skills have kept him a distant second in national polls. He's close in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, but even if he were to win those contests, it's hard to see his route to the nomination against an opponent with a heavy advantage in funding and organization elsewhere. 

Martin O'Malley, offering a younger, more liberal alternative to Clinton, has found few takers. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee barely registered before leaving the race. 

There was one person who posed a real threat: Elizabeth Warren, whose populist message and pugnacious style enthrall Democrats in a way Clinton never has. On top of that, the senator from Massachusetts would have neutralized the historic potential of Clinton as the first female president. When Warren decided against a race, she gave Clinton an open highway. 

Second is the weak field of candidates for the Republican nomination. Clinton had to worry that someone with appeal beyond the GOP base would rise to the top—Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie or John Kasich. 

Bush, a fluent Spanish speaker whose wife was born in Mexico, or Rubio, a Cuban-American, also had the chance to recapture Hispanics who have abandoned the GOP. Clinton faced the difficulty of persuading voters to give the same party three consecutive terms in the White House—something accomplished only once since 1953. 

But the GOP has done its best to come to her aid. The leading candidate, Donald Trump, has the highest unfavorable rating of anyone in either party's race. His campaign is brilliantly engineered to drive Latinos, blacks and Muslims into the Democratic camp—along with women, 56 percent of whom voted Democratic in the 2012 presidential election. His closest rival, Ted Cruz, has run a cartoonishly ideological campaign that is bound to alienate everyone except Tea Party stalwarts. 

If you assume his Cuban heritage would help him with Hispanics, keep in mind that the other senator from Texas, John Cornyn, got a considerably bigger share of the Latino vote in 2014 than Cruz did in 2012. Note also Cruz's latest attempt at humor: "The new politically correct term is no longer 'illegal aliens'; it's 'undocumented Democrats.'" Hispanics will take the hint that their place is not in the GOP. 

Not only do Trump and Cruz have serious liabilities for the general election but their flaws help to hide Clinton's. Next to their incendiary rhetoric, her stolid manner and tedious oratory make her look serious. Juxtaposed with their vast inexperience in foreign affairs, her years of diplomacy convey that she knows her way around a perilous world. On the ultimate presidential question—"Whom would you trust with the nuclear button?"—Trump and Cruz represent the ultimate risk. Cruz has even hinted at nuking the Islamic State. Clinton manages to connote sobriety and safety. 

There are many good reasons she should not be president. But the way it's shaping up, this campaign could make Americans forget them. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Clint Eastwood on GOP Field: "Any One of Them Would Be Better Than What We Got"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hillary Clinton supports the War on Women who smoke Weed.

  2. Don’t you dare bash Cruz on these pages! The comentariat will have your head because for some deluded reason they think he’s one of them…

    1. He’s not. But he’s also no monster. I don’t see him as someone who wants to rule like a king either. He’s far from flawless, but I see him as a gigantic improvement over the Lightbringer.

      And so we’re clear, I have no desire for your head.

  3. Are we pretending there’s no free pass Hillary Clinton generally earns with those covering the campaigns?

  4. Her husband and Obama were blessed in their enemies. She has the same ones.

    She’s going to be a terrible President.

  5. Hillary Clinton is a fraud! The other candidates are not much better. I’ll be holding my nose when I vote. What a sad state of affairs we face when the dregs of the earth are what we have to choose from for the highest office in the country.

    1. The current political class illustrates the best reasons to have limited government. Do you really want these people to have this much power over you?

  6. Where to begin.
    First, it should be mentioned that the “weak” opposition candidates–Cruz and Trump–are assumed by the chattering classes to be losers to Clinton. This from the same commentariat who assumed Trump would be out in a few months and that Cruz never had a chance. This election was supposed to be a Bush or Rubio or some other establishment Republican as the main driver, after all. Since the prior argument that Trump lacked staying power has been proven false, now the argument shifts to one of support by “rubes with little education who probably won’t vote anyway”. Poor argument, I’d say, and simply more wishful thinking on the part of “elites”. The truth is, the Democratic side of the aisle has a fair number of blue-collar, non-college educated voters as well and that these people could quite easily move to the Trump side. Remember Reagan democrats, anyone? If you don’t see a path to a Trump presidency in a general election, you’re simply not paying attention.

    And if Ted Cruz should manage to prevail? He is a relative unknown, politically, as opposed to the completely known Hillary quantity. And Hill’s underwater (less than 50%) against this relative unknown. His path to prevailing in a general election is quite realistic and should be obvious. (Full disclosure: I’m a Cruz supporter).

    In short, the idea of the Rebubs “handing” a gift to Clinton is seriously delusional and based entirely on the elite’s idea of what a “good Rebublican candidate” looks like.

    1. “rubes with little education who probably won’t vote anyway”. Poor argument, I’d say, and simply more wishful thinking on the part of “elites”.

      This is what got Obama elected, so…

      1. Exactly. The difference is the Dems will actually bus otherwise non-voters to the polls to get their numbers up. There’s no political party officially backing Trump.

        But Trump supporters are Trump supporters for real reasons, and their hatred for the establishment is perhaps the biggest. That hatred could drive them to the polls, too.

    2. And FWIW, Rassmussen has new poll numbers of today showing Trump and Cankles in a dead heat.


      Ironic timing for Chapman to blather on about unelectable Trump is supposed to be.

  7. As to the Dem “gift”, the Dems remind me of an NFL team that showed great promise at the beginning of the year (2006) but has since been decimated by career ending injuries. Hill is what is left of the Dem bench–a bench that was far from deep in the first place.

    And Hillary (“herself”)? You talk about Cruz’ “cartoonish ideological campaign” (whatever that means). At least it’s based on ideology rather than questionable moral foundations. In the end–in a society where liberty still means something–Ted Cruz will not be prosecuted for his beliefs. Hillary, on the other hand, has serious legal issues that could lead to indictment. I’d call her a bit more than a “flawed” candidate.

  8. You know, whenever I read “articles” like this, I wonder to myself, “what, exactly, is the libertarian argument here?”.

    1. Chapman isn’t a libertarian. So there isn’t one. He’s a moderate Democrat who leans towards liberty on a few issues, but will ultimately cast his ballot for team blue election after election.

      1. No commiecrats “lean toward liberty”. They are shutting down liberty through regulation. They have installed a fascist government because pure socialism isn’t profitable enough for them, as in it doesn’t throw off enough bribes. Reason has become a hellhole of fascism supporting trolls. It is really past sucking and the stench is almost unbearable.

      2. It’s my experience generally with the writers on this website that that is a pretty common theme: Dems that think of themselves as leaning toward liberty. I know of no Dems who actually lean toward liberty though. Today’s Democrat appears mostly to be the antithesis of liberty.

  9. Don’t underestimate Trump with Hispanics.
    Even my nephew-in-law’s Puerto Rican mother supports him.

    1. Puerto Ricans and Cubans are “real” Hispanics. Just ask any Leftist.

  10. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  11. “And if you think ISIS is dangerous now, wait till the children orphaned by American bombs grow up.”

    Yeah! Just like the children of all the Germans killed in WWII….oh, wait…

  12. Hey Chapman, how’s it feel sucking that Hillary Clinton dick? Feel good?

  13. Which one is the giant douche and which the shit-sandwich?

    1. Trump is just the anti-establishment, non-politician diarrhea milkshake this country needs!

  14. Former Head of DHS – Trump is right.

    1. Why would anyone regard a head of DHS as a reliable source? How many times have they lied to us?

  15. If you go to democrat discussion forums, you’ll see that they hate Hillary, too.

    They’re basically big Bernie Sanders circle jerks, stopping only to give any vocal Hillary supporters a good two minutes hate.

    Once she wins the primary, though, it will stop being about hating Hillary, and start being about hating whoever the republican is.

    See? Democracy works!

  16. When Hillary becomes President, she will create a new cabinet-level post of Secretary of Public Information, and i’m betting that Steve hopes he will get that job.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.