Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

That’s the question that would-be Obama advisor and cut and paste specialist Fareed Zakaria is debating in the Washington Post

Some of the candidates had an easier time distancing themselves from unpopular presidents. McCain was clearly a rival and opponent of George W. Bush. Stevenson was very different from Harry Truman, but he was, in effect, asking for not a third term for the Democrats but a sixth term — after 20 years of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Truman. Shortly before the 1952 election, Stevenson wrote to the Oregon Journal that “the thesis ‘time for a change’ is the principal obstacle ahead” for his campaign. After all, if the country wants change, it will probably vote for the other party. “It’s time for a change” was Dwight Eisenhower’s official campaign slogan in 1952.

The most awkward circumstance has been for vice presidents trying to distance themselves from their bosses. Humphrey tried mightily to explain that he was different from Lyndon Johnson without criticizing the latter. “One does not repudiate his family in order to establish his own identity,” he would say. Gore faced the same problem in 2000, though many believe that he should not have tried to distance himself so much from a popular president who had presided over good times. As Michael Kinsley noted, Gore’s often fiery and populist campaign seemed to have as its slogan: “You’ve never had it so good, and I’m mad as hell about it.”

The latter is a slogan that Fareed would be happy to plagiarize.

But what exactly would Hillary do differently than Obama? She oversaw his foreign policy during four disastrous years culminating in Benghazi and Putin’s power grab of Ukraine, and Obamacare is simply Hillarycare that escaped from its laboratory.

Of course, the media are seeking real continuity with Obama and his toxic, but MSM-approved combination of punitive corporatism and identity politics, which may just leave the “inevitable” Hillary in the dust once again.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Even if Hillary wanted to do something differently, she can't say she wants to do something differently, other than to say she wants to pass all of Obama's programs that the evil House Republicans are blocking.

She may want to run as her husband's third term, but even if Team Hillary were to come up with as mild a slogan as the "Kinder, gentler" government George H.W. Bush promised in 1988, doing that in the primary season would create a crescendo of anger (real and fabricated) on the left over her insinuating that there was anything wrong with the Obama Administration other than the fact the Republicans controlled half of Congress for the final six years (or all or Congress in the final two).
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
What could Hillary possibly do differently? She is, by ALL available evidence, a lying, incompetent, ravenously ambitious ideologue. She is a leftist zombie. She has no emotional connection with the American people whatsoever, except possibly in the elitist precincts of Marin County, the Hamptons, and Martha's Vineyard. The interests of America are not her interests. She is utterly tone deaf and uncreative. She wouldn't know a just, workable, and realistic policy of any sort if it ran her over. Who do the Democrats have who is any different than this?

The only electoral problem with all this is that the Republicans work night and day to corner the market on stupidity and betrayal.
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
OK, in 3, 2, 1.... WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?????
16 weeks ago
16 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “‘Hillary Clinton’s Truly Hard Choice: Change or Continuity?’”