As a sports fan, I normally don't pay much attention to minor league teams. It's nice that the Hartford Wolf Pack is loaded with prospects, but the only thing that matters to me is whether those prospects will one day help the New York Rangers win a Stanley Cup.
When it comes to politics, I'm no different. I don't have the time nor the inclination to worry about people who are insignificant to the overall big picture. In fact, I find them to be a distraction. In less than nine months, the most consequential general election in our nation's history will take place, and as of now there are five candidates who have a serious chance at becoming the Democratic nominee: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg. That's it. My heart says that Amy Klobuchar still has a shot, but my head says it's time to move on. As a salesman, I've learned the hard way that the numbers don't lie.
But when I read that Tulsi Gabbard was suing Hillary Clinton for $50 million for "smearing her political and personal reputation," I simply couldn't let that pass without opining. First of all, I wasn't aware that Gabbard had much of a political and personal reputation left to smear. Based on her performance during the debates, I would say that ship sailed a while ago. Secondly, fifty million bucks? Are you kidding me? Gabbard hasn't made that much money in her entire career. If she were to win the presidency, she wouldn't earn that much, even over two terms, though I suspect the book deal could get her close. There's always a book deal. Wink, wink.
For those of you who, like me, have a life and were too busy to care about this shit, I'll catch you up to speed. A few months ago, Clinton, in an interview with David Plouffe, said that the Russians were "grooming" someone to run as a third-party candidate, like Jill Stein, to run in 2020 in order to help Trump get reelected. Though she never mention Gabbard by name, to be fair, it was pretty much inferred.
Look, do I think Clinton should've kept her mouth shut? Yes, I do. While she did have some valid points to make - like pointing out the fact that Trump never cracked 48 percent in either Michigan or Wisconsin, and that the Russians aren't done meddling in our elections - none of this is helpful to a Democratic Party that needs to focus on 2020. It's obvious that she's still smarting over her loss in 2016. I can't imagine what it must be like to know that there will forever be an asterisk next to your name. Clinton lost to the most unqualified individual ever to seek elected office in the history of Western Democracy. She will never be able to live that down, and I suspect it will haunt her all the remaining days of her life.
But if Gabbard seriously believes that Clinton was responsible for torpedoing her candidacy, she's as delusional as the people who thought that Stein and fellow space cadet Gary Johnson had an ice-cube's chance in hell of winning the presidency four years ago. I've looked at the polling from RCP and at no point was Gabbard a serious threat to win the nomination. Prior to the Clinton interview, Gabbard was polling at 1.3 percent. She's currently at 1.5 percent. Show me the evidence that Clinton "derailed" her campaign. If anything, the attention she received likely kept her from falling off the cliff into total oblivion.
This is nothing but a stunt by Gabbard, and it's really quite sad. She's borrowing a page out of the Devin Nunes playbook. If you don't like what someone says about you, just sue them in court. It's no wonder that politicians and lawyers are only slightly more popular than serial killers.
Well, at least serial killers don't pretend to be something they're not.
Comments