Democrats Would Get Rid of Hillary Clinton If They Thought There Was a Scandal

Andrea TantarosI’m writing this before Hillary Clinton testifies before House Select Committee on Benghazi. I don’t expect anything to come from it. None of the Republicans actually want to hear what Clinton has to say, because they aren’t trying to figure out what happened in Benghazi in 2012. We already know this. They are, as usual, just trying to create a lot of smoke. And I’m with Brian Beutler that they will probably be pretty nice to her. At this point, they are more in damage control mode. But it hardly matters. The conservatives of this country are fanatical about this.

Last Wednesday, Crooks & Liars published, Fox News‘ Andrea Tantaros Has Conspiracy Laden Meltdown After Joe Biden Speech. It doesn’t have anything to do with Joe Biden, of course. It is just that it is always a good time to talk about Benghazi! Tantaros went on about a grand conspiracy in the White House and even in the Democratic presidential race (Bernie Sanders is in on it too!) to stop the truth about Clinton’s evil doings from getting out. She said, “They’re all singing on the same song sheet because they’re all in on it!” This is the thinking of the conspiracy mind. Never mind the facts or even any internal consistency.

“They’re all singing on the same song sheet because they’re all in on it!” —Andrea Tantaros

Think about this. Why would the Democratic Party want to protect Hillary Clinton if she had some deep dark secret? The reason that Democrats love Hillary Clinton is actually not personal, except in the sense that she is a woman and we would all like to elect a woman president — all else being equal. But the main reason Democrats like Clinton is because we think she’s a strong candidate. If there was any indication that there were anything behind these allegations, she would lose almost all of her support. Most Democrats can find other candidates that they agree more with.

So what does Tantaros think is going on? That Hillary Clinton is a political time bomb? That the entire Democratic Party — including the people running against her — are willing to cover for her so she can get the nomination and then lose the general election to Donald Trump? That’s madness. What’s more, wouldn’t Joe Biden have already leaked information to sink Hillary Clinton’s campaign? And more important: wouldn’t he have been right to do so?! I have a lot of problems with the modern Democratic Party, but it is well managed. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have become the star of the party if she had any of the baggage that the Republicans claim.

On the other hand, in terms of a political machine, the Republicans are a mess. This is why they allow this kind of stuff. Every time they take a wild swing at Clinton that misses, they look that much more ridiculous. And it makes their claims that much more difficult to accept. In the case of Tantaros, it is crystal clear: her problem is not with anything that Hillary Clinton ever did; her problem is with Hillary Clinton as a formidable presidential candidate. When you make Chris Wallace seem like a sage, you know you’ve gone on tilt.

This entry was posted in Politics by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.
Avatar

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

17 thoughts on “Democrats Would Get Rid of Hillary Clinton If They Thought There Was a Scandal

  1. The Democratic Party will exile someone who does something we in general disapprove of. Look at how fast everyone deserted Anthony Weiner once it became obvious what he was. Meanwhile, someone like David Vitter, who was visiting prostitutes while married, got a standing ovation when he came back to the Senate Republican caucus.

    So Andrea Tantaros is not only spouting a line that is ridiculous on the surface, it is even dumber since if it was true that Clinton did something wrong, we would have long since marginalized her.

    • “The Democratic Party will exile someone who does something we in general disapprove of.”

      Like supporting the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq? That sort of something? Or take your pick of the long list of atrocities that conservative Dems have supported. Have the Democrats become completely like the Republican base in only really caring about symbolic issues?

      It isn’t hard to look good standing next to Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean that Hillary is a good candidate, much less a good choice. As a politician she comes across as secretive, arrogant and entitled. She is disliked by a wide range of people, from right to left, for a variety of reasons. Not least the impersonal fact that she is a dynastic candidate like Jeb Bush.

      My guess is that she would win against the current lineup of Repubs, but it isn’t a sure thing by any means. If she does, it won’t be a victory for progressives, any more than Obama’s sorry reign has been.

      • No argument at all with your saying neither Obama nor either Clinton represents a progressive agenda. They’re Eisenhower Republicans to the core.

        I will argue, no offense meant, that I believe politicians follow movements; they do not create them. Obama didn’t betray the progressives who elected him. Progressives didn’t elect him. People who loathed Bush’s incompetence filled in the little circle next to “D.”

        Now there are more progressives than in 2008. Thanks to OWS, thanks to environmental activists, gay-rights supporters, Black Lives Matter, writers like the author of this site, commenters like Elizabeth, you and I. Bernie is possible because of all of us, not because of Bernie. I adore the guy and I hope he wins, but he didn’t create progressive ideas. We did.

        Every Democratic nomination has a Dennis Kucinich, a Russ Feingold, a “radical leftist” who nobody supports. How come this time the “radical” is drawing attendance at rallies higher than anyone else? Because we’ve been talking to each other and spreading information. We’re actually, by God, creating a movement. I didn’t think it was possible. I don’t know if it’s big enough yet — but I’m starting to believe it’s possible.

        By all means, criticize Hillary to high heaven. Criticize Bernie, too, he’s good but has flaws. Be progressive and proud of it! But I wouldn’t get into the game of imagining Machiavellian plots going on in candidates’ heads to betray liberalism. Obama is what he is because of who elected him. Hillary is what she is because of the support she gets.

        And if Hillary wins, we’re not defeated! Getting the progressive candidate to #2 is a huge achievement! (We’re used to election returns showing them getting 2%.) Keep speaking what truth you know, be as civil about it as you can, and this can happen.

        Sorry to get all Howard Zinn super-optimistic. But the fact that we’re even having the discussion about candidates not being liberal/progressive enough (I won’t use the “s” word) is amazing. 20 years ago, voicing some of these ideas in public made people think you were a crazy person. Now even if they don’t agree with your suggested solutions, they listen to your criticisms of existing wrongs. That’s one hell of a change in 20 years!

        • Sorry to break this to you James but I am more in Clinton’s camp then I am in Sanders. I favor the practical over speeches and I was devastated the last time someone talked a good game then lost.

          But I also think that people like Senator Sanders are important in races like this. Primaries get attention, primaries where someone is loudly advancing policies that bring us left get even more attention. The fact that we had a debate that was all about substance was fantastic. It makes our brand look great and that helps us down ticket.

          • Exactly my overstated point. You believe unrestrained corporate power causes more harm than good. So do I. You think the candidate who’ll at least put some batting doughnuts on corporate greed is more electable than the cranky old white guy who condemns corporate greed overtly.

            That’s fine! Now we’re debating tactics & strategy — not goals. Of course we’ll all disagree on strategy, that’s what leftists do (it’s kind of our trademark!) It’s pretty amazing, though, that we can agree “corporations basically suck at almost everything.” 20 years ago, that was pure heresy.

            • Oddly enough I knew that 20 years ago as a 16 year old just starting to work. I am shocked I did not get fired for being such a radical.

              Unions, unions, unions!

      • I’ll let you and Elizabeth have that fight. But I don’t think there is any question but that Clinton is a good candidate. She’s still totally dominant in the Democratic Party. People really do like her.

    • In Weiner’s case, I think there was a tremendous amount of negativity toward him before that story broke. He was seen as a self promoter and not much of a team player. But overall, I think you are right. I actually admire the Republicans for their loyalty to each other. I think we could learn something from that. But there is no doubt that the establishments of either party would allow someone with a deep dark secret to get the nomination. They would sink the campaign. It’s silly to think otherwise. But I have an article coming out in a couple of days about how the Republicans have no problem dehumanizing us. As lowly as anyone may think of Clinton, do they really think that she was indifferent to people dying in Benghazi? That’s just nonsense. But it appears to be something that Republican politicians at least pretend to believe. And it is something that large sections of the base has been trained to believe.

      • I also think at this point there is nothing we really don’t know about the Clintons. Except maybe the type of toothpaste that they use. We do know what her dad used to do with the cap (and to that I ask, WHY?!) when she forgot to put it back on the tube.

        So essentially the party establishment will throw anyone overboard who the Republicans attack and they think there is fire there. So you are right, we could learn from them on showing some loyalty.

        • Yeah, there has to be a balance. There needs to be loyalty, but you can’t allow that to sink the party. The Democrats could use more loyalty and the Republicans a whole lot less.

          You are right: I can find no solid evidence on Hillary Clinton’s toothpaste. But don’t you just kinda know it’s Tom’s?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *