We Need to Talk About Hillary

By | February 24, 2016

If you turn the news on it’s been wall to wall discussion about how Hillary has pretty much sewn up the Democratic primary. I mean, she tied one state and won another by 5 points. Bernie one won by over 20 points. It’s essentially a rout. In any case, it’s news that everyone seems to think is amazingly happy for the Democrats. We all need to get behind Hillary. And remember, even if we aren’t for her, she’s for us.

Here’s the thing, however. We should not be happy about this. Democrats, looking ahead to the general election against Donald Trump (let’s be honest, he’s the nominee), a candidate that makes President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho appear reasonable, should realize a hard truth: Hillary is a nightmare candidate. Let’s take a closer look.

Now, let me make a few things clear prior to diving in here. I’m going to discuss scandals that many on the left will puff their chest out and say, “But, that’s not true.” Or, “That’s just the Republicans playing dirty.” Guess what: all bets are off in this election. Do you think Donald Trump is going to give a damn about true? Hell no. He will hit her hard, fast and dirty. Over and over again. The Democratic strategists know what is coming, and are saying Hillary will have to go “scorched earth” because of one of the first issues facing her:

In reality, nobody is that excited about Hillary Clinton, and young voters, women and men — the foot soldiers of any Democratic Party movement — aren’t coming around. She lost a resounding 82% of voters under 30 in Nevada. Her campaign now rests on the hope that voters of color like her well enough, if nowhere near as much as they like Obama. And that means that when she faces a Republican, she will have to destroy him — something the people who will be doing the destroying acknowledged when I asked them earlier this month.
“The slogan is ‘Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid,’” said Paul Begala, who is an adviser to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA.

Begala is very right. Hillary is looking to enter the 2016 general election as a candidate most will look at and shrug their shoulders with. In fact, I have a feeling that if there were as many candidates running on the Democrat side as the Republican side that she would have been in a similar position to Jeb Bush.

The Gallup had a recent poll that shows the biggest issue facing Hillary when Americans are prompted with her name and asked to say the first thing that comes to mind. 21% immediately had “Dishonest/ Liar/ Don’t Trust Her/ Poor Character” come to mind. Ouch. Going down the list, things don’t get much better:

In addition to the 21% of responses in the “dishonest/don’t trust her” category, another 7% of Americans use even stronger words in a similar negative vein, including “criminal,” “crooked” and “thief.” Nine percent say they dislike her. Smaller percentages (shown at the end of this article) associate her with Bill Clinton, with the controversy surrounding her use of a private email server while secretary of state and with the Benghazi terrorist attack.

This is not a new issue. Back in 2008, Hillary faced similar issues:

Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign’s aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers’ efforts to deal with the problem — by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes — do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Yeah, she lied about that Bosnia sniper stuff. See, Hillary is her own worst enemy and she continues to get in her own way. Tying into the dishonesty issue is that she continues to insist that others should release their paid speech transcripts, including Republicans, before she will do so. This is in the midst of an election where Wall Street is in the crosshairs and people are suffering nationwide due to income inequality. It plays into the conversation of what she is hiding. When 1 in 5 Americans believe you are dishonest, maybe you should be transparent and let them know what you said behind closed doors to the banks that we had to bail out. Just a suggestion.

Then we go to the email server issue. In a move to make herself more comfortable, saying:

In a press conference at the United Nations earlier this month, Clinton explained that she used a personal email because she only wanted to have one phone, not two.

“When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department,” Clinton said, “because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”

She added: “Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”

Now, if I was Donald Trump I would hit her hard on that. You mean to tell me you put national security at risk so you didn’t have to carry two phones. He’d probably harken back to asking the audience, “You know what I would tell an employee who did that in my company?” and then build up to “You’re fired!”

That’s if he even gets to debate her on it. Hillary has a slew of legal challenges coming at her over the email server issue. Again, let’s stop for a minute looking at these as critical, well-informed Democratic voters and instead view this like those who are on the periphery just turning on the news and seeing it nightly before watching Big Bang Theory and hitting the sack.  I will lay this out in bullets because this is the case against Hillary on one issue:

Let’s think about this for a minute in terms of a Republican fighting Hillary Clinton. In a year where Donald Trump is pointing to getting tough on America’s enemies do we really want to offer him up a former Secretary of State under FBI and Department of Justice investigation and facing a lawsuit over her use of a private email server she created to not have to carry a second phone. Her use of such a server, which contained top secret emails that referred to special access programs and whose release could cause “exceptionally grave” damage to national security if disclosed, was a target of hacking attempts by China, South Korea and Germany. Oh yeah, I left out this:

The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton’s server may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.

That’s right, she had it improperly secured.  Oh, she also had them backed up to the cloud. Yes, we possibly had top secret emails backed up not on a secure government server but backed up to a cloud server.

A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton’s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

Raise your hands if you see how this could be a huge problem in a general election. If you raised your hand, you are following along well. But, we aren’t done.

The State Department has issued subpoenas concerning Huma Abedin who was concurrently employed by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons. This could possibly be tied to criticisms that donations given to the Clinton Foundation allowed special favors and access to the State Department via Hillary. Let’s dig in, again with some bullet points!

So, to sum this part up, there is significant evidence that donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation possibly influenced Hillary’s State Department in granting approvals of weapon deals, sales of uranium and mining concessions. 181 companies who donated to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department under Hillary. While not illegal, it calls into question if there was overlap.

And under ALL of this is the point at the beginning which is people think Hillary is DISHONEST. Let’s think at how this would play out when Trump attacks her about any of this, even a fraction. A populist candidate with growing support who “tells it like it is” would batter her relentlessly.

Of course, they will bring up even more. Benghazi, Bill Clinton’s past indiscretions and the cadre of women ready to support Trump by pointing out how they never supported them, her Wall Street speeches, and countless other scandals tied to the Clintons. Again, will the Republicans play as fair as Bernie?

Here’s the question we all need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to take the candidate I just laid out a portion of the current issues with into a general election? Is this a gamble we should take with the White House on the line? Are you 100% confident in her ability to stand up to relentless attacks with this baggage behind her in the general election?

 

Related Post

  • Meg

    The response to your questions below are YES! DEFINITELY 🙂 .. Because in your part, your arguments are skewed, as you consider many as truth – please do more in-depth research . Just think about it, republicans have done for years things are much worse, and NEVER she was convicted, and for God sake, read a bit – the state department was hacked at all levels during the same time?? Why on Earth they should worry about emails on servers that by all accounts, were not highly secret at the time? Nothing will stick – but people like yourself who consider themselves progressive SHOULD INFORM yourself – get to know her – be more objective and free of your prejudgment and you will realise that by FAR she is the smartest person in this race, with much more in-depth understanding of diverse issues from internal to external affairs and with an outstanding record of excellence .. Please READ diverse issues – not just what you get quicker – do in-depth research 🙂 … and she is as tough as it can get with an amazing resilience and kindness 🙂

    • FleeTheBubble

      Are you kidding? She was the U.S. Secretary of State, probably one of the most sought after targets of foreign intelligence services and Hillary keeping an unsecured email server at home isn’t a liability? I served in the military for seven years and if I had done something like that I would have been separated with a dishonorable discharge. It wasn’t convenience, government email can be forwarded to mobile devices so she is lying there. Hillary chose her desire for confidentiality over security concerns and government record-keeping. If not illegal, highly unethical. She’s the Secretary of State and those communications are preserved for important diplomatic and investigative reasons.

      She’s not the smartest person in the race, sorry. Anyone who reads Foreign Policy or The Economist can just as easily explain the geopolitical situation in a hundred different countries. If you pay attention closely, what Hillary does is name heads of states, organizations and then talks for length about the problems (again, any avid reader knows these details) in a region. She then tops it off with some generic talking point like “we’ve got to keep an eye on that” or “the situation is very complex.”

      I’m sorry, but in my opinion, she doesn’t offer up any sophisticated foreign policy analysis. For people that do not pay attention, I suppose it could seem impressive but she’s no Bismark, that’s for sure. Her decision-making on foreign policy decisions would suggest that her understanding of complex geopolitical issues runs skin deep. Hillary knows the details and some of the history, but she is no great diplomatic mind or profound thinker. And the fact that she is constantly referencing her notes tells me that, rather than doing any deep analysis, she’s simply referencing her typed up talking points and filling in the blanks with King Hussain, Putin, Hamas, etc.

      The smartest person in the race can’t look at Bush/Cheney’s flimsy evidence and then vote YES on the Iraq War. The smartest person in the race doesn’t try and arm the FSA, a figment of hawkish policymakers. This non-existent FSA turned out to be Al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and ISIS. That was in 2014, so she can’t go calling that a one time mistake in 2002. She a pro-corporate warhawk that could run on the GOP ticket if she switched positions on a couple of social issues.

  • FleeTheBubble

    Hillary Clinton is a huge liability and you laid out the case brilliantly. Her electability numbers are horrific and she barely squeaks by Trump at a time when the GOP still has yet to coalesce around the guy.

    Besides, it’s academic. Bernie Sanders is trouncing Trump in the head-to-head polling and Trump’s anti-establishment attack will go nowhere against Sanders. Trump is going to see a ton of deflections from his camp to Sanders once his people hear similar themes on trade, healthcare, and corruption except this time it’s Bernie’s coherent message.

    Any Democrat who tells you that Clinton is the better general election candidate is either lying, or has allowed themselves to be convinced of a fiction. The numbers don’t bear it out and Hillary Clinton running stronger than an independent that gets 25% of the GOP vote in his home state doesn’t pass the smell test for a second.

    The choice is crystal clear? Bernie is the only Democratic candidate that can beat Trump.

  • Donna_RI

    They don’t care about any issue you’ve brought up. They don’t even care that people are signing online agreements to vote for anyone but her should she receive the (dirty?) nomination. Did I say dirty? Yeah, the MSM and DNC has been playing some dirty pool. So much so that many dems are becoming disenfranchised….hence the online agreements. This is a viscous circle and their candidate is standing in the middle of it.

    When she ran in ’08, I was against her and I am against her now. There always seems to be drama swirling around that woman. Her supporters say “they can’t make anything stick.” I say she is creating the drama to keep everyone from focusing on her agenda which is selling out all of us for her gain.

  • Pingback: The Media’s Candidate: How We Were Given Two Choices for President | Progressive Wonk()