Supposedly she wrote this herself, though nothing the Clinton camp says can be taken with anything more than a grain of salt…
In the days leading up to her campaign relaunch Saturday at New York City’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, Clinton’s staff put out word that she would stress the theme of herself as a fighter. “Her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, often refers to Mrs. Clinton as a ‘tenacious fighter,’ a theme that will echo throughout the speech and her campaign,” the New York Times reported.
Indeed, in her speech, the former secretary of state suggested that she is so much a fighter that she will fight not one, not two, not three, but four fights on behalf of the American people. “If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you,” Clinton told the crowd. Those fights are: 1) the fight “to make the economy work for everyday Americans”; 2) the fight “to strengthen America’s families”; 3) the fight “to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity”; and 4) the fight for “reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy.”
Within the speech Clinton also dropped an irony bomb which could have taken out half of New York…
“We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.”
She continued, “We need justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections. If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That’s why I proposed universal, automatic registration, and expanded early voting.”
This from the Clinton Foundation principal who can’t disclose foreign donations and the effect they had on State Department policy when she was in a position to make it.
The speech was essentially a paean to the Hard Left which makes up the Democrat Party’s activist base, and it should have disqualified Clinton as a mainstream presidential candidate.
“So you have to wonder,” Clinton thundered. “When does my hard work pay off? When does my family get ahead? When?
“I say now,” she announced.
She ran through a list of ideas: rewriting the tax code to encourage US investment; paid family leave; corporate profit-sharing; and cutting student debt.
In a shout-out to the left, Clinton pushed reproductive freedom for women, equal pay, and gay marriage.
Clinton’s real fights are two: she’s going to try to insulate herself from criticism of a record which renders her completely unfit for any high office by making such criticism partisan and sexist, and she’s going to try to assume the same role her predecessor did of an empty vessel people can pour whatever hopes for the presidency into. In this she will attempt to assume the Barack Obama role as “groundbreaker” and present the public with the opportunity to elect the first female president.
Nothing else matters, you see. Elect the first female president and all of America’s problems will go away, because Girl Power.
Forget about the fact that Hillary Clinton’s entire political career lacks a single accomplishment that doesn’t flow from being married to Bill Clinton. Forget about the fact that nothing in Hillary Clinton’s record demonstrates fitness to create widespread economic advancement, promote two-parent families, further American exceptionalism or reform government; she has been a retrograde force on all four fronts. All that really matters is she’s Not A Man, and it’s time for Not A Man to be president.
Couple that with an adequate arsenal of leftist bromides to placate the socialist crowd who served as Obama’s foot soldiers in 2008 and 2012 and you have a campaign.
The problem with this is twofold. First, while Obama’s history was available to those willing to research it, and that history was disqualifying, he had no record in government to speak of. Therefore Obama could run as an empty vessel, and people could believe anything they wanted about him without readily-available evidence to knock it down. But Hillary has a record, and a clear one, which negates most of her claims about being fresh, new or desirable to the public.
And second, what Obama won on, at least in 2008, was novelty. People wanted the first black president because they thought putting him in office would, if nothing else, alleviate racial tensions and move the country away from the slavery and segregation in its past. That the Republican nominee that year refused to expose Obama as an anti-American leftist who was likely to exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the problem of race in America only fueled his candidacy. And now, in his seventh year in office 96 percent of the American people believe we’ll have a Long Hot Summer of racial unrest.
That is not an environment conducive to experimentation with candidates based on identity politics. Hillary’s Four Fights rhetoric is going to fall flat unless she can actually win the argument for them.
But there has to be a Republican nominee willing to do what it takes to discredit her – if she is in fact the nominee. As we’ve said, that is less certain than it appears this far from the primaries. If the Republicans nominate someone who isn’t willing to indict Hillary as a paragon of political greed and dishonesty, and wrap the seven deadly sins around her neck as the worst possible candidate for America in a time of crisis, she might get away with the mindless Four Fights rhetoric.
The bet here is she won’t, and it won’t be the Republicans who beat her. She’ll beat herself before she even gets the nomination, because she can’t credibly make the case for any of the arguments she presents for herself.
Other than that she’s female, of course. And that’s simply not enough.