As long as Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democrat nominee, we won’t see the same exuberance from crowds that we witnessed when the wide-eyed flocked to see Barack Obama. But Hillary is a female, and, if anything, the Left should love their chance to be on the “right side of history”. After all, they’re the progressive, enlightened ones who keep reminding us it’s 2015 and it’s time for a girl. If you’ve noticed, though, there is not really a widespread and passionate following for Mrs. Clinton. Obligation to one’s political party exists, yes, but not rabid fans like those who watched the “chosen one” stand between Greek columns to meet his destiny back in 2008. Can you picture Hillary receiving such genuine (albeit nauseating) adoration? It is close to impossible. She’s just so underwhelming.
If Clinton is nominated, however, I’ll be sad that the Democratic Party missed a historic moment to nominate someone capable of the bold, transformative leadership the nation still needs. Based on her 2008 candidacy and her tenure as secretary of state, there’s not much about Clinton that is bold or transformative.
To me, at least, she embodies the past (and that has nothing to do with her age). She simply exudes “privileged Democratic establishment.”
As a candidate, she is wooden in manner and instinctively cautious and guarded. I’m not sure whom she inspires, but it’s not me.
I doubt the “H” logo festooned with an arrow or the roadtrip in a Scooby Doo van awakened the support she seeks. Her campaign roll-out surely didn’t inspire the middle class masses, and it clearly did not strike a chord among bigger donors, like those in Hollywood, that we’re used to seeing. As reported In Politico:
“Here’s the deal,” said one such donor. “I have to tell you, there is such a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary it’s really kind of stunning. We’re raising our $2,700, but that’s all we’re doing. Nobody’s called us. I mean, in the ’90s, we gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton and the party and the congressional committees. Hundreds of thousands. We might have been minor players compared to George Soros, but nobody’s called us.”
The Clintons of the 2010s are not the Clintons of the 1990s. In between then and now they’ve had scandals and stagnant tenures in public office, but that’s not the main issue. The central political figure of this power couple is now Hillary, not charming Bill. More importantly, going from a president who is a young, black, community organizer to the older, established, wealthy, and white doesn’t really sound like the word “progressive” to me. And we know how the Left just loves that branding.