2016: Clinton vs. Christie vs. Paul vs. . . . Carlos Danger?

Hillary Clinton has been busy the past two decades. She was active—too much so, some might say—in the executive branch when she lived in the White House in the ’90s. The taxpayer-funded life was glorious, and when her husband left the presidency at the start of the 21st century, she didn’t want to join us, the lowly masses, in the private sector; that would have been too much work and come with none of the power she so yearned.

No, she had a higher ambition, but it would require another stepping stone. Thus she ran for and was elected to the US Senate by the either equally corrupt or otherwise ignorant citizens of New York. From here, the legislative branch, she could write the rules that the rest of her countrymen would have to follow. It was a delicious taste of the control she ultimately sought, and it only fueled her desire to be America’s Boss.

After a failed attempt in 2008 to be more popular than the new, young, black hipster on the scene—a man whom she and her husband did not even try to hide their deep personal loathing for—she, ever the opportunist, accepted the man’s offer to be his underling for the next four years, and he, in exchange, providing that she would not challenge his office in 2012, would endorse her for president in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton, a rotten person, a habitual liar, and hungry for power as only a Clinton can be, is nevertheless one of the most qualified persons at this time to be the president. But that doesn’t mean she should be president or would make a good president. Sixty-three percent of Democrats disagree, however, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll (the same group, by the way, that last week put Obama’s approval rating at 41 percent). In that poll, Clinton comes in first place among Democrats who were asked whom their preferred presidential candidate was, with the second-place spot falling far behind (13 percent) and going to Vice President Joe “I’m Not Quite All There” Biden.

Among Republicans asked whom their preferred presidential candidate was, the most common response (25 percent) was uncertainty, followed by 15 percent who chose New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In 5th place, with only nine percent of the vote, came Senator Rand Paul. (By the way, I just received my totally free “Rand Paul for President 2016” bumper sticker in the mail yesterday; I like to get a head start on things.)

I’ve said before that if Clinton does run—which she will—then I don’t want Rand Paul to run because she would almost surely defeat him, and then he’ll be damaged goods in 2020. And given that Chris Christie is so popular (let’s face it, he is), even among high-profile Democrats, he actually might stand a chance at beating Clinton. But then, do we want Clinton beat, or do we want to let the country experience further the woes of liberalism? In 2019, after being president for three years and after things still haven’t begun looking up, would she accept responsibility or would she blame the previous administration (Barack Obama’s)? It would mean blaming liberalism. She could try blaming things on Bush even still, but at that point the public might have become aware of such an absurdity.

Do I want Clinton? Do I want Christie? Do I want Paul? Whom do you, the readers, want to run, and why? Count me among those 25 percent who say they’re unsure. Or better yet, scratch that; Carlos Danger for President 2016! We deserve it.