Here’s why it won’t be Hillary

Y’all have seen them, those bumper stickers saying “I’m Ready for Hillary.” I kinda have to ask, ready for what? I guess I’m not the only one wondering.

As Politico reports, “Hillary Clinton is facing the beginnings of a backlash from rich liberals — wait, I thought only Republicans were rich? — unhappy with her positions on litmus test issues and her team’s efforts to lock up the Democratic presidential nomination before the contest starts. Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but donors are pledging big money to get her to reconsider. Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb have found polite and occasionally receptive audiences among potential sugar daddies. Even Bernie Sanders has support from some wealthy donors.”

You can bet rich progressive socialists are looking for another shiny thing, who will usher in their “fundamental transformation of America” vision — you can bet they’re not happy right now. And remember, you read it here first that it would be Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the far left who would be cajoled into running in 2016.

The far left needs a gimmick to mask its intentions. We got a gimmick with the first black president — an abject failure. So Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley can forget it – they’re just plain old white guys. And Biden can’t go a week without saying something totally embarrassing. Now, Jim Webb would be an interesting choice because of his defense background as a former Secretary of the Navy, combat Marine Officer in Vietnam, and former U.S. Senator — because foreign policy and national security are going to be vital. His credentials are far superior to those of John Kerry.

The question is, will Jim Webb be far left enough for these “rich white liberal progressive socialists” and would the Code Pinko anti-war lefties stomach him? Nah, I don’t believe they would. If it’s not a far Left woman like Warren — it will be a far Left Hispanic, like Julian Castro, currently Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. His ties to radical Hispanic groups, LULAC and La Raza are quite revealing and if Obama could get away with an amnesty program — then Castro may be the guy.

But it certainly seems these white progressive socialists with deep pockets — say it ain’t so — are turned off by Hillary. Politico says “Clinton is seen by some liberals as too hawkish, too close to Wall Street and insufficiently aggressive on fighting climate change, income inequality and the role of money in politics. Those are animating causes for many rich Democrats, and some are eager for a candidate or candidates to challenge Clinton on those issues, if only to force her to the left.”

“I have talked to large donors who are not happy with what Hillary represents,” said Guy Saperstein, a San Francisco lawyer and part owner of the Oakland A’s. “But they’re not going to stick their heads up above the ramparts right now and get shot at.” Saperstein provided seed funding to a super PAC launched this summer to try to draft Warren into the presidential race and pledged $1 million if the Massachusetts senator decides to run. The super PAC is hiring staffers in key primary states and recently enlisted a fundraising firm to solicit donors.”

Now, I thought the progressive socialists wanted big money out of politics and were railing against Super PACs — oops, there I go again forgetting that ol’ duplicitous hypocrisy of the Left. You see, they get mad if the political opposition has money and Super PACs — it is ok for them – that’s their definition of tolerance.

You want proof? Politico says, using a network of big-money groups laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign, including the super PAC Ready for Hillary — which has raised more than $10 million since January 2013 (including at least $1.7 million over the past three months) — Clinton’s allies have collected contributions and pledges of support from an impressive roster of the party’s most generous donors, including Houston trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn, billionaire financier George Soros and medical device heir Jon Stryker.”

So please, spare me and the rest of America, all the “Koch Brothers” scare tactics you progressive socialist hypocrites use — well, not all of you. Here’s one who doesn’t agree.

“I think it’s un-American,” declared Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and a significant donor to progressive candidates and groups — particularly those working to diminish the role of unlimited cash in politics. “The big problem with politics is big money in politics. … I’m talking about the undue influence of corporations and the wealthy. We’ve got them controlling the general elections, we’ve got them controlling the primaries, and now we’re talking about them controlling the pre-primaries.”

Hmm, I’d be interested in checking out ol’ Ben’s FEC report contribution data — something tells me he is not a $25 donor. And let us not forget the top cause-oriented rich liberal donors like San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer who Politico says “has pledged to spend more than $50 million in the 2014 midterms supporting Democrats with aggressive stances on environmental issues, including fighting climate change.” Did I just read “hedge fund billionaire” Tom Steyer? I thought you Occupy Wall Street progressive socialists were all mad at those guys — oops, there I go again, only those guys who are not your guys — my bad!

Well, needless to say, a crushing defeat for the Dems in 2014 will result in many secret closed-door meetings. And those oxymoronic rich white liberal progressives will be trying to figure out their next move. And certainly they will “MoveOn” with another far left whack job but will do their damnedest to market another leftie gimmick with BIG MONEY behind that effort — kinda makes you wonder, who really is the party of the one-percenters, those rich white folks?

30 COMMENTS

  1. . We got a gimmick with the first black president… Yes, we get the gimmick of any black person achieving any type of accomplishment. Like highly decorated army officer or life saving neurosurgeon.

      • Shrillary is ‘electable’? Based on what? Benghazi? Having carpet-bagged her haggard azz into the Senate via NY? Or having rode Bill’s coattails and used condoms from his many ‘bimbos’ to get a sniff at the WH? Tell us all the great things this wretch has done for the nation. She done enough against it.

      • I am convinced you have some sort of reading disability.
        Where, in my comment, did I say anything about Hillary?

        I was responding to someone who suggested a West/Carson ticket. I never mentioned Hillary.
        Go have your imaginary argument with someone else.

      • Really? What did I dodge?
        You asked me to defend Hillary when I never said anything about her.
        you just rant craziness and then throw insults when you realize you’re wrong.
        Go away troll.

      • You dodged the whole subject Brenda. You make a snide comment about West and Carson instead of defending Shrillary who is the subject. But like I said before, I understand how lib-scum operate. They cannot offer a defense of their own candidate so they attack the other. Gutless garbage.

      • I’m not a dem and my comment about West/carson was in direct response. To another comment about West/Carson.
        Try to pay attention.

      • And just who do you think are “electable” democrats? At this point, nearly all democrats should be thrown out of office, starting with Obama and followed closely by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Hilary? She can’t even stand up and tell the truth about a dead ambassador! This country is in big trouble thanks to the current administration and we need some guys with honesty and backbone to lead. And I would vote for a Carson/West or West/Carson ticket in a heartbeat. Can’t you guys SEE that Obama is letting the ISIS gang get away with literal murder while he tries to make us think he’s doing something? Sheesh!

      • There are no leading Democrats I would vote for.
        But West and Carson would be wiped out in the debates. The Republicans putting forward unelectable candidates only helps the dems.

        I’d like to have a major candidate that I can actually support. It’s been a long time.

  2. Rand Paul should be the guy but if he wins the primaries and has to face Ms. Bill, Ms. Bill will win in a landslide. Ms. Bill is more hawk than lots of red guys.

  3. I found the answer to the whole question in the Bible–I believe it is Ecclesiastes 10:2—-“The heart of the wise man is inclined to the right, but that of the fool to the left”. Guess God had it all figured out a long time ago.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here