Over the Hil
Increasingly Democrats are “getting over” Hillary Clinton. Indeed, if polling data is accurate, the majority of Democrats distrust Hillary, are to the left of her, and think her an establishment politician who will not deliver. Those impressions make Bernie Sanders increasingly a winner among Democrats; his ideological purity makes him more, not less, attractive compared to Hillary because it evinces an honesty and integrity she lacks. Hillary Clinton believes she will be protected from defeat by a “firewall” in the South, but it is more likely that her “firewall” is tissue paper thin and that Sanders can shred it.
Hillary Clinton has contended that conservative Southern Democrats together with Blacks and Hispanics in the South will overwhelmingly favor her over Sanders. She takes that position in part because of the broad appeal in those communities that her husband enjoys. Unfortunately for Hillary, however, she is no Bill Clinton and more and more Democrats are disappointed by that realization. She lacks his affability, apparent compassion, and glib nature. She cannot “roll with the punches” but has a brittle and angry aspect that makes her unlikeable. If Bill Clinton was “the first Black president,” as some in the minority community have called him, Hillary Clinton is hopelessly white by comparison. Bill could “feel the pain” of those who were suffering, including or most especially minorities, or so goes his image. Hillary appears to feel no pain but her own and to react to that not with affability but with irritability. She lacks her husband’s vibrance and love for others.
She is wooden, staged, and indistinguishable from other establishment politicians that the public presently hates. She lacks personal appeal and charisma. Her speeches fall flat because they are rehearsed and delivered robotically; they lack depth, are expressed without emotion or apparent sincerity, and, most importantly, reveal obvious pandering to constituencies from which she needs votes. Yet, Hillary’s record in public office reveals the delivery of nothing of consequence for those constituencies.
A perfect political storm now surrounds Hillary, all of her own making, and it threatens to envelop and overwhelm her campaign. The fact that at any moment FBI Director James Comey could send Attorney General Lynch a recommendation for issuance of a bill of indictment for numerous violations of the laws governing classified information and for public corruption is a very dark cloud over her head that follows her everywhere. The fact that her connections with Wall Street, receipt of huge speaking fees, and pandering to firms who would later support her campaign all feed into Bernie Sanders’ narrative about her are undeniable elements of her history that the public despises. Making matters worse, rather than admit to any fact of adverse political consequence to her, she responds by falsely denying the existence of the facts and by broadcasting staged lines that attempt to equal or outflank Sanders on the left. Increasingly Democrats are coming to the realization that Hillary cannot be trusted to deliver what she promises, precisely because she lies with such consistency that her integrity is always in doubt; her history is one of self-aggrandizement even if that means tying the knot with leading financial interests; she has used many people to achieve personal aims only to abandon them and be disloyal to them if the association is inconvenient; and she lacks a record of any significant achievement.
When Sanders’ history of civil rights activism comes to the forefront and as he increasingly embraces the causes of Black and Hispanic activists, he will undoubtedly cut into Hillary’s support, perhaps decisively. That quest is made easier by virtue of the fact that Hillary is distrusted based on her constant reinvention and near pathological recitation of false statements. When in the polling booth and Democratic voters are contemplating who they can trust to pursue their agenda, many will find the impulse to vote against Hillary and for Sanders irresistible.
In the end, Bernie Sanders rises because his reputation for honesty and integrity is high and his political message resonates with the far left who dominate the Democratic party. Hillary falls because she cannot be trusted and, as a result, no one knows whether she believes in what she says let alone whether she will fight to achieve what she promises. Sanders, by contrast, is a true believer, a genuine socialist who admits he is such. In an environment where Democrats have no problem calling themselves socialists, that far left position does not alienate Sanders but only elevates him. Hillary, by contrast, has no apparent ideology, no conscience that makes truth her lodestone, and no shame associated with the endless shifts in her political positions that litter her past, even her recent past.
Consequently, while it may be that Joe Biden will step in and secure the nomination if Hillary is indicted or drops like a rock due to a recommendation from Director Comey that she be indicted, until then it is likely that more and more Democrats will refuse to hold their noses and vote for Hillary. They will instead choose Bernie, because at least they know where he stands and can trust him; moreover they need not fear that he will be indicted or prosecuted during the general election. In short, a burgeoning majority of Democrats nationwide are “over the Hil” and are “feeling the Bern.”
© 2016 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved
