If Hillary Clinton wants the Democratic nomination in 2016 (and why wouldn’t she, given that basically everything she’s ever done since roughly 1975, when she agreed to defend a child rapist as a "favor" for an Arkansas prosecutor, has been calculated to maximize her political power and/or personal fortune?) it would seem to be hers for the taking.
No matter what. There is not a damn thing committed liberals—the ones whose primary consideration for choosing a president is something other than "That would be really cool because she’s a woman"—can do about it. Is there?
Hillary knows this, and must find it incredibly amusing. Because at this point, she is basically trolling the left.
Some are beginning to doubt her inevitability because she said some mean things about President Obama, and questioned the efficacy of a foreign policy based on hope and sternly-worded lectures. Some, such as Ezra Klein, don’t like the fact that she is "focused on the expansive ambitions of radical jihadists." Because a true liberal would focus on more important aspects of the Islamic State—its economic policies, for example, such as the tax on infidels.
But these liberals are only kidding themselves. There’s nothing they can do about it because there is no viable alternative. The Clinton political empire has already annihilated Hillary's potential competitors via preemptive strike—you know, like the kind she voted for in Iraq as a senator in 2003. The folks at MoveOn.org are still upset about that. Remember when they used to be semi-relevant?
What about 2012? Remember that? Remember how Mitt Romney was too rich and out of touch to be president? Those were much simpler times. Now, thanks to Hillary, the same people who cheered Occupy Wall Street, the same people who protested a New York City hospital for taking money from a rich conservative, are going to spend the next several years falling all over themselves to defend a voracious wealth-seeker whose idea of downsizing is a 5-bedroom mansion in the Hamptons that rents for only $33,000 per week.
Hillary’s beclowning of the left reached new heights with this Las Vegas Review-Journal report on her speaking contract with the (publicly funded) University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Clinton, who has sought public sympathy for the financial hardship she and her husband endured while "struggling" to finance the purchase of two mansions, insists on being put up in the "presidential suite" in a luxury hotel of her choosing. She requires that her hosts pay for her travel on a private jet that can accommodate no less than 16 passengers.
The Review-Journals notes that Clinton’s $225,000 fee for her speech at a UNLV fundraiser in October "is something of a cut-rate" for Hillary.
Documents obtained by the newspaper show that she initially asked for $300,000 and reveal that she insists on controlling every detail of the private event, large and small, to ensure that she will be the center of attention.
"It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks," according to the May 13 contract the Harry Walker Agency signed for Clinton’s keynote address at the Bellagio.
According to her standard speaking contract, Clinton will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people; and won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech.
Hillary, who has raked in at least $12 million since quitting her job as Secretary of State, eventually agreed to donate her UNLV speaking fee to charity, but only after students protested. However, rather than donate her fee back to UNLV, as students demanded, Hillary chose to give the money to the Clinton Foundation, the organization that employs her daughter, Chelsea, and that has facilitated the Clinton's efforts to embed themselves among the global corporate and financial elites.
Sounds like something a heartless bastard like Mitt Romney might do. And that’s why it’s such a brilliant troll on Clinton’s part. Most liberals are going to support her regardless, and will leap to her defense by writing hackish blog posts about "Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Really Have a Mitt Romney Problem" because she (presumably) agrees with liberal elites on which economic policies (i.e. raising taxes) are best for helping the poor and middle class.
They'll keep insisting that the elderly muumuu-wearing public speaker who hasn't driven a car in decades and "earns" roughly five times the median annual income by saying words in rooms with corporate executives is in touch with the average American. Get used to it.