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:
- Hillary had a private server for her own convenience as she did not want to carry two phones.
- Hillary had an account setup on ClassNet, a workstation setup at the State Department to view classified materials. She never used it.
- The current Secretary of State John Kerry says he would NOT allow an employee to use a private server.
- Hillary is currently under FBI investigation for her use of a private email server.
- Attorney General Loretta Lynch says “career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice” are also investigating the use of a private email server by Hillary
- A judge is allowing discovery to move forward on a court case involving Hillary’s private email server. He did this due to a “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.
- Twenty-two of the emails were classified as top secret because they concerned special access programs, and this classification “reserved for information that can cause “exceptionally grave” damage to national security if disclosed.
- U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton’s home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as “top secret” because their wording matched sections of some of the government’s most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.
- “Hillary Clinton’s private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.”
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!
- Prior to Hillary becoming Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2011, Hillary’s State Department approved the sale of $29 billion of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. This is despite Israel, a strong ally to the US, complained to the Obama administration how this would disrupt the balance of power in the region as well as conflicting with the State Department’s previous concerns over the repressive policies of Saudi Arabia.
- 181 companies donated to the Clinton Foundation and later lobbied the State Department led by Hillary Clinton.
- Hillary Clinton had made an agreement with the Obama administration to publicly disclose all donors to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. She broke this several times. Let’s look at a few notable ones. Hillary’s State Department was one of 9 agencies involved with approving the sale of a company named Uranium One to the Russian government. The New York Times reported that this sale “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Uranium executives involved in the sale gave a total of $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
- The Clinton Foundation again kept secret a foreign donation of 2 million shares of stock from a Canadian mining executive that came before Hillary’s State Department and received a open pit mining concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh.
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?