Forget the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the greatest gymnastics that you will see next year will be done by Liberals trying to convince themselves to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The contortions have already begun this week with Clinton's on-line video announcement that she is officially continuing the campaign that actually began about ten years ago. Just check out the comments section below any of the New York Times on-line articles about the former First Lady getting into the race. They are a long litany of her faults, her vulnerabilities, and her past actions--however, they also almost always end with a big "But......."
Many wonder if Mrs. Clinton really wants to undo many of the measures that her husband put into place. Would she fight to repeal trade agreements like NAFTA--which the Left blames for the downfall of American manufacturing? Would she repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--both endorsed and signed by her husband? Will she further roll back welfare reforms established during the first Clinton era?
Others decry the Clinton connection to Wall Street and big-money political donors. The Clinton campaign fund goal is $2.5 BILLION. A candidate who can even dream of establishing such a fundraising target surely has no interest in eliminating all money from campaigns (well except tax dollars under public financing plans supported by Liberals).
And then there is the Clinton track record in actual public office. No bills with her name on them during her one term in the Senate. A vote in favor of the Iraq War. Votes in favor of "too big to fail" Wall Street banks and brokerage bailouts. Further escalations of Middle East violence during her term as Secretary of State. And the infamous "I'm going to set up my own email system and then wipe the server clean when people ask to see what's on it" move that popped up earlier this year.
More than a few of the Clinton Complainers wish for another candidate to challenge her in the primary process. Why can't Elizabeth Warren run, or John Kerry or Corey Booker or even Vice President Joe Biden they ask. Where is our "new Barack Obama" to be the Anti-Hillary and allow us to not have to hold our nose as we head to the polls early next year.
And then after spending sentence after sentence and paragraph after paragraph tearing down Clinton as a viable candidate (in their eyes), they follow it up with a "But, she'll be better than anyone the Republicans nominate". Or "But, there will likely be at least two Supreme Court appointments coming up in the next four to eight years--and we can't let a Republican choose those justices." Or "But, she's the only Democrat that can raise the money to win--so we have to give her a chance."
Democrats won't be the only ones finding themselves making excuses to vote for someone next year. Those of us who are fiscal conservatives and social moderates face the same dilemma on the Republican side as well. There's nothing like having to make your decision based on the lesser of two evils every four years.