top of page
  • Fred

Hillary's Sacrifice

At first I was seething.

Earlier this week Hillary Clinton accused U.S. Representative and U.S. Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian Operative. Her proof? Clinton got wind that Gabbard may be considering a third-party run. No hard evidence, just rumor and innuendo, because who would ever want to leave the safety of the Democrat Bosom? Gabbard, who was polling at around 1%, was getting a suspiciously large amount of publicity for a candidate who's currently running in 11th place on the Blue Team.

This attack reeked of 2016 when Clinton pulled the sharp knives out on the Green Party's Jill Stein and the Libertarian Gary Johnson. But why is she attacking someone who could potentially drop out in January?

But then it hit me, Hillary's not that dumb. I, I only graduated from Cleveland State University. Barely graduated. This lowly Blog is an achievement narrowly pulled off by yours truly. Most CSU graduates muddle through middle management at local Burger Kings. Hillary, though, she's a lawyer with degrees from Yale and Wellesley College. She has been a Senator and the Secretary of State.

I think that Hillary still thinks of herself as the Standard-bearer of the the Democrat Party. As such, I speculate that she believes that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are too far to the left to beat Trump. (AND TRUMP MUST BE BEATEN.) Her insight also tells her that Biden lacks the cojones to stand toe-to-toe with a bully. Looking across the Dem candidate list, I believe that Clinton finds that Gabbard would be the perfect replacement for her in next year's election cycle.

But follow me here, if she ENDORSED Gabbard, that would put a huge target on her back. If Clinton creates a rivalry with Gabbard, that generates free publicity for Gabbard, something she genuinely needs. And if Gabbard stands up to Clinton, it gives her traction early. Don't forget, the first Presidential Primaries are still about 4 months away. A Clinton/Gabbard fued would keep Gabbard in the headlines for months. If it is PERCEIVED that Gabbard took the torch from Clinton, instead of received the torch from Clinton, it would take fuel away from Trump in the General Election.

Imagine Trump awkwardly trying to debate a veteran in next fall's debates. A veteran who's fought and clawed her way to the top of the Democratic Pile of Candidates by first defeating 2016's nominee in the court of public opinion. Hillary sacrificing her reputation in order for her opponent to step through a door that she herself opened.

What if Clinton has made peace with herself that she won't be the first woman President, but she created the perfect roadmap for the first woman President? The Gabbard/Clinton friction builds for months. Gabbard rises to #5 in the polls by New Hampshire and Iowa. A surging Gabbard then runs over also-rans on Left side of the Presidential Bracket.

Once away from New Hampshire, Capitalist Gabbard pulls aways from the Socialists and her energy is contagious and palpable compared to Joe Biden. As Biden is further tied to his son's corruption scandals, Gabbard starts winning big by Super Tuesday. By being on the constant upward trajectory, she could secure her party's nomination by summer and leave Donald Trump an opponent without obvious flaws.

(Sanders? Too Heart Attack-y. Warren? Too Shrill and Socialist. Biden? Too Old.)

All because Clinton took one for the team this week to create an absurd smear on a fellow Democrat.


Would I vote for Gabbard, straight up, in a Gabbard/Trump match up. Yes I would. And I'd feel better about it if Clinton DIDN'T endorse Gabbard.

Why is my theory plausible?

Because if Clinton really thought Gabbard was a Russian Agent, she would be an imbecile.

35 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page