Former Clinton Adviser Predicts 'Hillary 4.0' run in 2020

And no, he does not imply that ‘Hillary 4.0’ is a robot

Hillary Clinton lost both the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, and the general election in 2016

Hillary Clinton lost both the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, and the general election in 2016

11/12/18, 5:35 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from Republic of Buzz

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, adviser and pollster for the Clintons from 1995-2008 Mark Penn has predicted a 2020 run for the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate based primarily and ostentatiously on the assumption that she’ll kick major ass, bro and because she deserves it. Because if the country wasn’t divided enough for one of the most divisive candidates in modern American history in 2016, it surely is now.

Has the strive for revenge ever helped anyone outside of the person doing the striving? (Have you read Harry Potter?) (And this clearly can’t go for Trump in any way.) If you want to get people to get riled up, please: write an article like this one. Then again, if you’re trying to get people riled about thinking for themselves, maybe this is not the best option. If Clinton is going to run in 2020, then we can talk about that, but that’s not what this ‘prediction’ is about.

It’s about partisan politics, clicks, and /> taking revenge.

Losing to Donald Trump of all people leaves a bad taste for a wildly abnormally large amount of time (I’m right there with you), but this is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was one of the most divisive candidates in modern American history not because she ‘was a woman’, but because she tried to use that card to gain power seemingly primary for its own sake. She may have had a fair amount of good thoughts and ideas, but she appeared willing at any moment to sacrifice those thoughts and ideas if she thought that it would help her on her way to the top (or: is that what the 4.0 means? She’s already been through 2.0 and 3.0??).

Here’s my prediction if she runs and wins: a far more divided world than we have now. This is because there’s no way that that election would be very nice, if that has anything to do with it, which it does, because we’re all human and we’re all striving for the same thing: the best lives we can live. And while there might be discrepancies on which paths to take as we make our ways through it, that’s no reason to give into to fear, or to the illusion of the possibility of ‘safety-from-mind’ (a.k.a. justification of thought police).