When I was a LOT younger, I can remember back in 1976, on the campus of Ohio University (NOT Ohio State!), in Athens, Ohio…as Mo Udall, then a senator from Arizona came to the campus to speak…as a presidential candidate. It was the first time I ever really cared about politics. Back then, we had a kid that wasn’t allowed to play basketball on our college team because he had a glass eye. Udall had a glass eye…so after Udall’s speech, the two of them went to a playground basketball court across the street from my dorm, and played one-on-one. Because of that I wanted Udall to win. Fortunately, he never got the nomination. Some peanut farmer from Georgia did.
In 1980 I can remember saying to my wife that I couldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan because he was a war-monger. I had to vote for Jimmy Carter, even though I didn’t like what he was doing. And I wasn’t going to “throw my vote away” by voting for John Anderson.
My how times have changed! I guess I can understand why, after learning “new information”, you decide to flip-flop on an issue. But my view of the world back forty years ago and today are two vastly different things than Hillary Clinton’s recent “Hillary flops”.
She has changed her view on Planned Parenthood’s videos. She’s changed her views on Iran. She’s changed her views on Iraq. She’s changed her views on the TPP that she herself helped negotiate. She was against “gay marriage” preferring a civil union. Now she’s for it. She was against Bobo’s immigration stand, now says it doesn’t go far enough. She’s flip-flopped on gun control, and how many other things. Hell, she was a Republican before she went off to college!
I can understand someone changing their views, I really can. But to change EVERY view? That’s a bit extreme. So, let me postulate a little here and see if we can agree on WHY Hillary Clinton is coming up with this stuff. I’m sure she’d rather not have to Hillary-flop on every issue out there…but she’s doing it. There are two big questions I have because of it.
First question is why. Why would you flip on every single major issue in American politics today? The answer to that is Bernie Sanders and the left-wing of the Democrat party. It’s because Sanders has moved the party way left…probably a lot more to the left than Clinton would like. But she has to play to the base. Of course, it’s going to cost her in the general election, but isn’t that the successful campaign strategy. Republicans do it to. Play to the base in the primaries, and move to the center once you have the nomination? Only this time the left of her competition is extremely off the left side of the page. Sanders is a nut, and the interesting thing is the number of “middle Americans” who believe that capitalism has failed them, and its time for something new. So, Hillary has to out-progressive a socialist. How’s that working out?
The second question I have is what is Hillary’s REAL view going to be once she wins the nomination? You know if Trump hangs on (or even Ben Carson), they are going to feed her, her lunch on flip-flops. She’s basically going to have to flip-flop again when she moves to the center. It won’t be a pretty picture, because the GOP is going to have a million hours of video of her basically calling herself a socialist, or at least adhering to the doctrine.
The views with either Hillary or Bill have always changed as public opinion changes. That’s their playbook. It’s how they remain popular…well, let me correct that. It’s how Bill remained popular. Hillary has NEVER been popular, and if she actually is nominated, she is going to have to show a side of herself that she hasn’t shown (other than for two hours during a debate). And I seriously doubt it’s in her make up to hold that character together in public for the span of 13 months. Somehow, I don’t think she can pull it off. And it’s a good thing for America that she can’t.
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!