Is Hillary Clinton inevitable?

Hillary Clinton has almost been anointed by the media as the next president, and she certainly looks that way in the polls right now.  I suspect that the Democratic nomination is hers if she wants it, which she surely will.  But I think Mrs. Clinton will not wear well when the general public is exposed to her over and over again in a presidential campaign.  She lacks, I believe, the likeable factor.  And as her book tour is showing, she is gaffe-prone and tone-deaf.  Also, her big area of experience–running American foreign policy, as Secretary of State–is the most obvious disaster-area of the Obama administration.

Tom Bevan doesn’t even think she will run, giving 5 reasons why she won’t, after the jump.  His points show specific weaknesses in her as a candidate.  What do you think? [Read more...]

Anti-Obama but pro-Hillary

President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting, and Democrats’ prospects for the House and Senate look bleak.  And yet in presidential polls, Hillary Clinton still beats all Republican candidates by far.  So a substantial demographic does not like President Obama but does like Hillary Clinton.  These are mostly blue collar workers and white Southerners, including many who do not describe themselves as liberal and quite a few evangelicals.  In other words, the old Democratic constituency that had been taken away by Ronald Reagan.  See a sample of E. J. Dionne’s discussion of this phenomenon after the jump. [Read more...]

Back to the social gospel

Hillary Clinton cited her commitment to the “social gospel” in a speech to United Methodists.   That goes back to the 19th century when many Protestants said that instead of emphasizing the gospel of eternal salvation in Heaven through Christ, they should emphasize a gospel of building the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The social gospel, which inspired all kinds of social reforms and progressive political activism,  became the hallmark of liberal theology.   After World War II, even in liberal theological circles, neo-orthodoxy reacted against the utopianism of the social gospel, though in the 1960s it came back with liberation theology.  Conservative theologies, of course, rejected the social gospel, but today there is arguably a social gospel of the right. [Read more...]

The Democrats’ schism

Democrats are facing a schism in the post-Obama era between its establishment politicians and newly-energetic leftwing progressives.  So say political reporters Dan Balz and Philip Rucker.

Conservatives shouldn’t get too excited:  both factions support Hillary Clinton as their next presidential nominee.

Do you think an overtly leftist agenda could elect Mrs. Clinton?  What programs do you see that kind of administration pushing? [Read more...]

Might Democrats pick Elizabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton?

The Democratic wing of the Democratic party is starting to assert itself, wanting to bring back old-fashioned liberalism into the Wall Street-dominated party of drone-strikes, civil liberties violations, and corporate bailouts.  What annoys them about the Obama administration they trace back to Bill Clinton.  And although many people assume that the Democratic nomination for president is Hillary Clinton’s for the taking, more and more Democrats are pinning their hopes on someone else to be the first woman president:  Elizabeth Warren. [Read more...]

Those lazy, shiftless, non-productive rich people

When countries (and, as we have seen, states) raise taxes on “the rich,” the rich have been escaping to jurisdictions with lower taxes.  Thus, ever since Maryland has increased taxes on its wealthiest citizens, those citizens have been moving to lower-tax Virginia.  The co-founder of Facebook has renounced his American citizenship and is now a citizen of Singapore.  This is happening in other countries as well.

So our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is calling on all countries to raise taxes on the rich so as to give them no place to hide.  From The Motley Fool‘s Rich Smith:

A rich guy can always decide to “pull a Facebook” — follow in the footsteps of Facebook (FB) co-founder Eduardo Saverin, renounce U.S. citizenship, and fly away to someplace with a more lenient tax code. (It’s not just U.S. citizens going this route, either. Last month, Bernard Arnault, France’s richest man and the CEO of luxury-goods maker LVMH, responded to French plans to hike taxes on the rich by emigrating and seeking Belgian citizenship.)

Enter Secretary Clinton, with a novel solution to the problem: Tax everyone, everywhere, and especially the rich.

Clinton first floated her proposal at the Clinton Global Initiative conclave in New York last month: “It is a fact that the elites in every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.”

So far, mainstream commentary on the speech has painted it as a simple expression of the American-centric worldview: We think raising taxes on our richest 1% is a pretty keen idea, and you other countries should, too.

But there may be something more subtle afoot. The real purpose behind Clinton’s salvo could be to send a shot across the bow of would-be Saverin and Arnault imitators: If you think you can avoid higher taxes by simply switching citizenship, think again.

via Hillary Clinton Wants to Tax the Rich — Here, There and Everywhere – DailyFinance.

I don’t understand this part:  “There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.”  Really, Hillary?  Rich people do not contribute to the growth of their countries?  You think the only way countries can grow is for the government to rake in more taxes?  You don’t think economic growth has anything to do with people having money?  But if you do believe the rich are such shiftless, lazy freeloaders why should any country want them to stay around?  (Notice how some liberals look at the rich the same way some conservatives look at the poor!)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X