In a remarkable feat of self-important delusion Hillary Clinton declared herself back in town and a, “part of the resistance.” This comment was made a week ago as she spoke to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in New York City. During that same interview, she claimed to admit “absolute personal responsibility” for her loss to Donald Trump in the presidential election. However, she did go on to state that she “would have won” had it not been for the alleged Russian interference. She also blamed James Comey’s decision to reopen her email investigation after her wrong doings were made public by Wikileaks.
Far from her claims, she lost the election because of the unethical and undemocratic manner in which she carried out her campaign. It is now known that she orchestrated the banishment of the more popular candidate Bernie Sanders from the leadership of the Democratic Party. This is exposed all the more by the legal filings of the Democratic National Committee and former DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in response to a lawsuit filed by Bernie Sander supporters. According to a motion to dismiss, the DNC claims that it has the right to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” They also claimed that the lawsuit is based upon an “internal rule” which can’t be enforced, and that the term “impartial” can’t be defined.
Clinton also lost due to her relationship with the financial aristocracy of Wall Street. The Clinton family, (as is every former president,) is heavily connected to and funded by large banks and financial institutions. This is really nothing new in American politics. But, the family’s very close association with the banks made many voters distrust her. By contrast, Donald Trump (falsely) claimed dissociation from them and railed against their greed and corruption. While Trump lied about his relationship with Wall Street, people still believed him. Clinton, by contrast, was a known close associate of it. Popular anger towards the financial aristocracy and her connections to it seriously harmed her credibility and popularity.
The recent interview she gave was nothing more than a massive distortion of the truth. While the information exposed by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks certainly hurt her campaign, they were only exposing what she had done that was unethical which the public opposed. She has absolutely denied this. Instead, she has claimed that she would have won had it not been for the alleged Russian interference and James Comey’s decision investigate her wrongdoings. She cannot claim she is taking responsibility when she is directly placing blame on others. She was wholly dishonest in her interview where she tried to portray herself as a victim. The truth is that she has victimised Bernie Sanders by preventing him from becoming the head of the Democratic Party.
Despite all of this, she has still declared herself to be a member of the resistance to Donald Trump’s presidency. It was reported by Politico last Friday that she is in the process of building an organisation dedicated to opposing Trump and the Republican Party.
“The former secretary of state is building a new political group to fund organizations working on the resistance to President Donald Trump’s agenda, spending recent weeks in Washington, New York City, and Chappaqua, N.Y., meeting with donors and potential groups to invest in, and recruiting individuals for the group’s board of directors,” the media outlet said.
In the wake of her disastrous presidential election, she has attempted to rebrand herself as a public “resistance” figure. It is clear that there is a great deal of popular sentiment against Donald Trump and his presidency. In Clinton’s eyes, she sees herself as able to take advantage of this sentiment and use it to promote herself and force her way back into the mainstream under a new image. She is beginning to pose herself as someone who is opposed to everything Trump stands for: Wall Street lackey, racist, misogynist, and most importantly, warmonger. Using money collected from interests among the capitalist class opposed to Donald Trump’s presidential agenda, she will try and form a political block against him.
Right now there is no such thing. The Democratic Party has been left in ruins after the failure of the Clinton campaign. A fractured Party is attempting to oppose Republican rule but is having very little effect. There is no real leader of the Party at this moment. Bernie Sanders has been relegated to career backbencher after it was made clear to him by the Party that he is never going to be in a leadership position. Tulsi Gabbard has risen as a rival for Clinton in very much the same populist style as Sanders. It’s mostly made up of anti-Trump, anti-war, pro-single payer health care rhetoric. Her recent gain in popularity is no doubt what has spurred Clinton to make a rebranded comeback so soon.
Right now a rebellious “radical” image is needed to oppose the Trump administration. The rebellious image Trump gave during his campaign has completely collapsed, and has been acknowledged by all but the most hardcore of his supporters. Clinton is attempting to rebrand herself as that rebellious radical. Gabbard has very much the same rhetoric that Bernie Sanders that made him popular. If Clinton doesn’t return to politics soon, she’ll be beaten out by the rising star of Gabbard.
It seems as though there may end up being a power struggle in the party between the two women. Both are jockeying for a position of leadership with similar images in what appears to be a kind of power vacuum in the Democratic Party. Gabbard is attempting to take Clinton’s place as leader, while Clinton is organising to keep it. In all likelihood, Clinton will beat out Gabbard because she will get the funding necessary to carry out the coming political war between the two. Sections of Wall Street have already chosen her as their candidate, and are prepared to give her all the money necessary.
To see Clinton as an outsider, a “part of the resistance” to use her own words, is nothing short of facetious. Clinton has been a Washington insider for decades and has already been the Secretary of State. She simply couldn’t be any more a member of the establishment. This stands in stark contrast to why Trump defeated her in the presidential election, he appeared to be the opposite. Attempting to rebrand herself as opposed to the current order will fail. She is the established order. She is a great companion of Wall Street, she supports a violent imperialist foreign policy and seeks to maintain the status quo.
It seems very unlikely that she will be able to brand herself as Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama originally did. She is too well established within the system as a Wall Street hawk to ever appear otherwise.