Are You Ready For Hillary Derangement Syndrome?

By Susie Madrak — April 13, 2015

Bob Cesca writes about Hillary Derangement Syndrome and has a few observations to offer:

Hillary is Republican-lite.

No, no she’s not, actually. Admittedly, she’s not Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) either. Then again, Bernie Sanders would be unelectable nationally. Nevertheless, this caricature of Clinton mainly has to do with her foreign policy positions — at least the ones we know of. And other than her 2002 vote in support of the Iraq Authorization for Use of Force (AUMF), she’s largely in line with President Obama on predator drones, intervention, NSA operations and so forth.

That aside, watch carefully to see if any Republicans release a video favorably showing two men holding hands. Elsewhere, Clinton will likely appoint center-left justices to the Supreme Court; she’ll veto any legislation to repeal Obamacare; and she’ll continue the Obama administration’s approach to the climate crisis. All of that aside, the whole “GOP-lite” meme is just another version of the “both parties are the same” meme — it’s good for some RTs on Twitter, but makes little sense in terms of a break-down of Clinton’s positions on the issues. Indeed, when Clinton served in the Senate, she was considered the 11th most liberal senator. That’s basically in the top 20 percentile in terms of liberal votes. That’s lightyears away from being a DINO.

Elizabeth Warren and Dr. Jill Stein are better.

This particular observation is one we’ll be seeing for a long, long time. And while both candidates are more liberal than Clinton, one of them isn’t running and the other is unelectable because she’s running as a third party, and third party candidates don’t have a shot at winning. By that very measure, Clinton is obviously a better candidate because she’s running and she can win.

I’ve never quite understood the penchant for fapping away over candidates who don’t have a prayer, either because they refuse to run or because they’ve marginalized themselves to the sideshow of the campaign. So why, then, are they deserving of time and energy? I personally think Warren would make a fantastic candidate, but using her non-candidacy as a cudgel against the one Democrat who’s currently defeating each of the GOP frontrunners in their home states is counterproductive. It’s like refusing to pursue relationships with anyone who’s not Jennifer Lawrence or Ryan Gosling. Good for you if one of those two is into you, but they’re probably not.

Frankly, the activist left doesn’t have a particularly strong track record of picking solid primary contenders. Both Howard Dean in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008 crashed and burned in spectacular fashion.

We need a primary, not a coronation.

Having a largely uncontested primary doesn’t by default mean a “coronation.” Sometimes it works out like this because American politics. There’s no rule that says every presidential primary has to feature a cast of thousands. Sometimes it’s a big fat clown car, sometimes it’s not. In recent memory, Al Gore was only challenged by Bill Bradley in 2000. Every poll in the field shows Clinton with roughly a 48 point lead over other potential Democratic candidates. In other words, Democratic voters believe Clinton is the best bet — today — to beat the Republican nominee. A smoke-filled room at the DNC can’t manufacture those numbers. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be other candidates. There should be. What happens if Clinton gets into serious trouble? Who’s playing second string? And will he or she be able to step up and beat the Republican nominee? The party should be planning for this possibility, if it isn’t already.