The Corner

Of Clarity and Blurriness in the Fall of 2016

Say what you will about a Cruz nomination, that would be one clear race: Cruz vs. Hillary. By that I mean, the philosophical lines, the contrast, would be very, very clear. Stark. Something like A and Z.

What about Trump vs. Hillary? Pretty blurry, actually. On such issues as Planned Parenthood and entitlements, the nominees would not have much to argue about. Health care, too. Trump calls Ted Cruz “heartless.” Hillary Clinton couldn’t put it better, or differently.

Kasich vs. Hillary? Less blurry than Trump-Hillary, I think, and blurrier than Cruz-Hillary.

Cruz-Hillary would almost be a laboratory of philosophical difference. Cruz-Sanders, of course — that would be like a cage match between Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

I think the American people would be Smith-leaning, still. But, after what we’ve seen the last half-century, I wouldn’t bet the ranch of them (us) . . .

P.S. On Saturday, Trump said, “Right now I’m catering to the Republicans.” Hmmm. Whom will he cater to later? Why would a party want to nominate for president a man who is “catering to” them “right now”?

In the fall, I don’t want a race between a longtime Clinton donor and a longtime Clinton (though occasionally she has been a Rodham). I don’t want a race between Donald Trump and his marquee wedding guest (unless that was Bill). I want Cruz-Hillary — Clarity City, baby.



The Latest