THAT’S the big question in political circles of late… I can recall telling friends during the 2008 campaign that I didn’t trust Hillary Clinton. There was just something…sinister…about her. I still don’t..and there probably still is. Witness the Benghazi fiasco, where she simply walked away. Because, as you know, “what difference does it make?” I’m wondering how things may have proceeded with her winning the nomination and the election that year. Despite what I feel are significant shortcomings, I suspect the past 5 plus years would have proceeded in a more productive fashion, as opposed to the disastrous, disaffected Barack Obama.
As for 2016, there doesn’t seem to be a viable Republican challenger on the horizon. Especially with Chris Christie and Marco Rubio seemingly bending over backwards to slight conservative supporters anywhere they can. They may as well just apply the (D) designation after their names. Especially the combative New Jersey governor.
Back to my original point, I found Charles Hurt’s piece in The Washington Times right on target. He takes a look at what may lie ahead for Mrs. Clinton. That, and the difference it will DEFINITELY make for YOU!
HILLARY 2016 – WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
“The Clintons are getting the old band back together again for one last geriatric tour.
Hillary 2016. Because 22 years of Clintons dominating the Beltway isn’t enough.
Her campaign slogan: “Vote for me. I am a woman. What difference does it make?”
The Draft Hillary movement is really taking off. There hasn’t been this much excitement behind a Draft Hillary movement since, well, the last there was aDraft Hillary movement.
Remember that? Back in 2008? When she was the “inevitable nominee”? She was the “most electable” Democrat running? She was the only one who could beat the Republicans?
Didn’t exactly out as advertised. But this being the Clintons, there is no more shame in that than there is in the incident with the intern, sketchy stories about cattle futures or missing law firm records magically reappearing.
They’re not even changing the talking points. Once again, the nomination is hers for the asking. She is inevitable — again. It is time for a woman in theWhite House — again. She is the only electable Democrat in the mix — again.
She’s even picked up a Twitter handle and describes herself as a “glass ceiling cracker.” You go, girl!
Deep down, she’s got to be having flashbacks and night sweats thinking to herself: “I have seen this movie before and I really didn’t like how it ended.”
But what difference does it make? She’s Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The last time, her exhausting quest ended with her defeated and broke. Then she had to muster up the energy to dine on some seriously rancid crow and become the single most visible employee of the man who had beaten her.
He beat her because she had a history and he did not. He beat her because she had made very public decisions that he had not faced. He beat her because she supported a military action overseas that he was able to blithely campaign against. In the end, he beat her because people wanted something . They wanted change.
What difference does it make? In that , it was the difference between winning and losing.
So, what will have happened in eight years to make her not less, but more, appealing to voters? Absolutely nothing.
It is just eight years more of fraught Clinton history. Eight more years of public decisions that will be mercilessly picked apart. Eight more years further and further away from being something new. She will be a calcified statue representing the very opposite of change.
She will be forced to answer endless questions about the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi. We will see the endless loop of her baring her teeth during a congressional hearing and angrily shouting: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Cruelest of all: She will be blamed and pay the political price for every single unpopular foreign military action the current president has launched during his tenure. She got beaten last time for being a war hawk. She’ll get beaten this time because President Obama became the drone-loving war hawk he had campaigned against.
In 2008, Mrs. Clinton cut an ad showing children asleep. The phone at the White House rings at 3 a.m. announcing some serious national security threat. The narrator intoned: “Who do you want answering the phone?”
Without mentioning Mr. Obama’s name, it was a bid to paint his lack of world experience as a frightening liability.
Well, Mrs. Clinton certainly does not share any such liability. But eight years on, we now know exactly what she will say if she ever does have to answer that phone at 3 a.m. in the White House .
What difference does it make.”
• Charles Hurt can be reached at email@example.com or on Twitter @charleshurt.