By Jim Geraghty
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
Here we go again.
You really want this, Hillary Clinton fans? You’re really
itching for the same personalities, arguments, records, scandals, and debates
all over again? Fine. Let’s do it. Let’s have a Clinton–Trump rematch in 2020.
A lot of us dread being faced with those options again,
but Hillary Clinton and a portion of her supporters seem to think that the 2016
election result was just a weird fluke, a historical accident, and that for the
second time in eight years, a combination of unlikely factors have conspired to
unfairly deny Hillary an office that is rightfully hers.
Discussing her loss last week, Clinton said “she takes
full responsibility,” but then added that she thought FBI director James Comey
and Russian meddling were decisive factors.
“Every day that goes by, we learn more about some of the
unprecedented interference, including from a foreign power whose leader is not
a member of my fan club,” she told Christine Amanpour last week. “[Vladimir
Putin] certainly interfered in our election, and it was clear he interfered to
hurt me and to help my opponent.”
“And if you chart my opponent and his campaign’s
statements,” Clinton continued, “they quite coordinated with the goals that
that leader, who shall remain nameless, had.”
Old habits die hard; Clinton referred to President Trump
as “my opponent” five times in that interview. Two words that never escaped
Hillary Clinton’s lips in this sequence: “President Trump.”
When Clinton boasted about winning the national popular
vote, Amanpour joked, “I see a tweet coming.” The former secretary of state
responded, “Better that than interfering in foreign affairs if he wants to
tweet about me!”
Except . . . President Trump isn’t “interfering” in
foreign affairs; whether you voted for him or not, he is the president of the
United States and is implementing a foreign policy. You can love that foreign
policy or hate it, but he’s not some outsider who wandered into the Oval Office
when no one was looking. Despite some generous gestures, such as attending
Trump’s inauguration, Clinton’s real perspective is starting to slip out. Trump
didn’t really win fair and square, and thus, he’s not really president. He’s just some goofball who won by accident and
is “interfering” in the process of governing that is Hillary Clinton’s natural
responsibility.
Oh, and the presidential debate moderators let her down
by not asking the right questions: “You know, I kept waiting for the moment.
I’ve watched a million presidential debates in my life, and I was waiting for
the moment when one of the people asking the questions would have said, well,
so exactly how are you going to create more jobs? Right? I mean, I thought
that, you know, I thought at some moment that would happen.”
Or maybe, Clinton offered, it was just the wrong year:
“You know, it’s very difficult to succeed a two-term president of your own
party,” Clinton said. “That is a historical fact. And Democrats haven’t done it
since, Lord knows, like the 1820s or ’30s. A long time ago.”
In the past weeks, Clinton made clear she expects to
continue to be a leading voice in Democratic-party politics. She’s writing
another book, has announced the launch of a new Super PAC, and says she plans
on being active on the trail helping Democratic candidates in 2018. She
declared, “I’m back to being an activist citizen, and part of the resistance.”
You might have thought that managing to lose to Donald
Trump by 77 electoral votes — after the
Access Hollywood tape broke! — would
persuade anyone that it’s time to depart the national political stage and let
others carry the torch. You might think that more Democrats would say, “Thanks,
but no thanks” to the woman who managed to bobble the easiest layup in American
political history.
You would think wrong, apparently. “I think that
Hillary’s voice is a powerful one in this resistance,” gushed Patti Solis
Doyle, a Democratic political operative. “The resistance needs all the voices
it can have, [and that] it can get, and the fact she can get under his skin, I
think it’s a powerful thing for this resistance.” (Really? How hard is it to
get under Trump’s skin?)
In many Democratic eyes, the 2016 election is one of the
great injustices of modern history, a national tragedy that cannot stand. Peter
Daou, an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, declared
earlier this spring that if “a hostile power helped elect our president,” that
means “Russia tampered with VOTERS” and that “the only fair and just resolution
is to have popular vote winner Hillary Clinton take office. Or to hold a new
election.” Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren contended that President
Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices until the FBI
investigation of his campaign is over.
It’s clear now. In the minds of many Democrats, Donald
Trump wasn’t legitimately elected.
The Russian meddling disqualifies him. A December poll found 52 percent of
Democrats believed Russia had hacked and altered the election vote totals.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, quite a few
Democrats don’t believe that Donald Trump actually beat Hillary Clinton in the
2016 election. The easiest way to dispel this myth is to just do the whole
thing all over again — with Trump enjoying all of the institutional advantages
of incumbency but and also the potential risk of not having made America great
again. The stakes are perfect. If Hillary wins, 2016 was indeed a giant
astronomically unlikely fluke. If Trump wins, Hillary and Bill and Chelsea
should go away and live quiet lives out of the spotlight.
Sorry, every other Democrat with presidential ambitions.
You’ll just have to wait another four years . . . again. This time, Hillary
Clinton and her fans are sure she’s figured it out. If Democrats are dumb
enough to challenge Trump with the one woman in the world who has proven she
can lose to him in a general election, who are we to stop them?
No comments:
Post a Comment