Since Hillary Clinton’s official announcement that she’s running for president in 2016, I’ve seen a long list of liberals talking about how they will probably vote for her if she wins the nomination, followed by a list of ideas they think will “bring her more to the left.”
Naturally there are those who have endlessly gone on and on… and on about Elizabeth Warren running. I’m not sure how many times she needs to say no before these people finally stop wasting their time. Besides, I continue to maintain Warren is best suited for the Senate.
Then there are some who honestly believe Bernie Sanders actually stands a chance at being elected. Not to sound rude, but I can’t even entertain those people. I love Bernie, but he’s never going to become president.
Then if you get past those people there are some who want Martin O’Malley to run. Listen, I like him, but he’s not winning the nomination or the presidency in 2016 – though I do think he would make an excellent running mate for Hillary.
Finally we have those who know Warren won’t run, and Sanders can’t win, yet want them to run anyway just to “push Hillary more to the left.” Hey, if that helps you sleep at night, go right on believing that. It’s definitely an idea that sounds great, but what does it really accomplish? A candidate isn’t beholden to anything they say during a campaign, so Hillary can say or do whatever she wants in response to whatever far-left person might run against her, but it’s not going to matter a whole lot once she’s elected.
Besides, none of this addresses the only real way we can bring Hillary “more to the left.” The only way that happens is if liberals show up in huge numbers to vote in 2016, giving her a Congress that will work with her. It doesn’t matter if we elect Hillary, Warren, Sanders, O’Malley or someone so far left they’re damn near falling off the map; if they don’t have a Congress willing to work with them, nothing progressively liberal is going to be passed.
Or have we not learned from our failure to give President Obama a Congress that would have allowed him to be far more progressive than he has been? When liberals complain about this president not being the liberal savior they all hoped he would be, we only have ourselves to blame. If we had showed up to vote in 2010, 2012 and 2014 in the same numbers we did in 2006 and 2008, Obama could have done much more for progressives. But many liberals didn’t, then they chose to whine about the results of their apathy.
Speaking of apathy, I can’t express how sick and tired I am of hearing from people on the left that “liberals need a reason to be energized to vote in 2016.” As if saving this country from the bigoted and ignorant grasp of the Republican party isn’t motivation enough. That’s why liberals lose so damn often. It’s not because conservatives beat us, it’s because we let them win. If liberals would get off their asses and vote every election year, we would win far more often than we would lose. The problem is, when midterms roll around, we usually allow conservatives to show up in greater numbers at the voting booth, then we complain because they continue to gain just enough power to keep holding this country back.
So, when liberals talk about what we can do to “bring Hillary more to the left,” it has nothing to do with who runs against her during the primaries or what she says while she’s campaigning – it’s all about how many of us show up in 2016 and what kind of Congress we give her. Without a Congress that’s going to support liberal legislation, it doesn’t really matter who’s president.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Republican ex-congressman Joe Walsh: We Have a ‘Right to Attack’ Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson - October 24, 2017
- To Everyone Who Opposes Trump: Please Stop Asking This Question About His Supporters - October 23, 2017
- Trump Calls Sgt. Johnson’s Widow a Liar Within Minutes of Her Confirming He Disrespected Her Husband (Video) - October 23, 2017