Don’t say I haven’t been warning you that Hillary Clinton’s desire for the White House is akin to Gollum’s obsession with the One Ring of power. If you need some weekend amusement, check out Salon‘s case for Hillary in 2020:
1. Hillary Clinton is the Winston Churchill to Vladimir Putin’s Adolf Hitler.
I agree with the basic principle of Godwin’s Law: The first person to invoke Hitler in a political debate should normally lose. The exception, of course, has to be when someone has genuine Hitler-like qualities. A foreign despot who has invaded neighboring countries and has a right-wing nationalist agenda is about as Nazi-like as you can get.
This is where Clinton offers a quality that no politician in America can beat. While Republicans are trying to tar her with a bogus scandal connecting her to Russia (and anyone who believes Clinton did something wrong in the Uranium One deal lacks credibility on all matters political), the reality is that no candidate can be better described as Russia’s nemesis than Clinton. Putin has always hated Clinton because of his innate sexism, which has manifested in his policies, and she certainly didn’t endear herself to him by publicly criticizing Russian corruption in 2011. As the ample connections between the Trump campaign and Russia or its water-carriers like WikiLeaks clearly demonstrate, the one person we know we can trust more than anyone is the candidate who Putin very obviously did not want to see as America’s president.
2. Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what’s not to like about that?
I can’t think of a single political figure in recent American history who has been hated as deeply, or for as long, as Hillary Clinton. From the moment she emerged on the national stage in 1992 as a distinctly feminist prospective first lady, she has been the target of right-wing wrath woefully out of proportion to anything she has ever said or done.
The reason for this is sexism. It’s not the chic thing to say right now, but no other explanation really makes sense. Yes, Hillary Clinton is more centrist than either party likes these days, but why is she singled out for opprobrium here when her husband — who actually served as president — remains popular despite holding the exact same views? The same point can be made about the claim that she is corrupt or too establishment. To the extent that these accusations are valid, they are no more true of Clinton than of the vast majority of politicians from both parties (especially Trump).
There’s much more, but you get the idea. I really can’t tell whether this piece is an attempt at droll satire, but Salon isn’t very good at satire, so I expect this is meant seriously.
I hope she runs. My long position on popcorn futures will come in yuuge.