Hillary Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. However, some liberals are beginning to question her inevitability.
Clinton is likely to have at least one challenger in the Democratic primary. Former Senator Jim Webb, for example, announced a 2016 exploratory committee in a retro web video on Wednesday. FiveThiryEight suggests he would make a good "anti-Clinton" candidate.
In the video, Webb describes a Democratic Party that has lost its way and has lost touch with America’s working class. "The Democratic Party used to be the place where people like these could come not for a handout but for an honest handshake, good full-time jobs, quality education, health care they can afford, and the vital, overriding belief that we're all in this together and the system is not rigged," Webb said. "We can get there again."
Other potential "anti-Clinton" candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden, have used similar rhetoric, complaining of a "rigged" system that favors the wealthy and well-connected.
If this is going to be the Democratic Party’s message in 2016, why are they even considering nominating Hillary Clinton, who perfectly embodies the rigged system that is so often the target of populist campaigns?
Clinton has been part of the American political establishment for most of her life, and seems to revel in the professional accumulation of power that comes with it. She is wealthy and well-connected, and has used her political relationships to massively increase her wealth, raking in six-figure speaking fees from corporations, financial firms, and other special interest groups. She gets paid to speak at taxpayer-funded universities, and scoffs when student protestors ask her to return the money. Her wealthy and well-connected daughter earned $600,000 a year to interview cartoon characters for NBC News.
This is who Democrats want to represent them in the fight against the "rigged" system?