As recent events so clearly demonstrate, Hillary Clinton is a terrible Presidential candidate, and probably a terrible person.
From her secret email server to her “foundation” to the rigged Democratic primary, her corruption record rivals that of any modern Democrat—no small accomplishment given the level of competition.
In fact, Clinton’s candidacy represents two firsts: the first time a woman has been nominated by a major political party and the first time a nominee running for the highest office in the land has been the target of numerous federal investigations.
Regardless of one’s party allegiances, there is now little denying the growing body of evidence against Clinton’s character. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . perhaps Trump isn’t the only Donald in this election.
But forget about the scandals, at least for the moment. For there is another, equally disqualifying skeleton in Hillary’s political closet, and one that is grossly underreported: she doesn’t seem to stand for anything.
Well, other than the idea that she should be President, of course.
While the other Donald may indeed be a narcissistic buffoon, at least his candidacy is defined by a clear set of objectives around which his supporters can rally. Be it securing the border, bringing ISIS to its knees, or restoring “law and order” to a nation rocked by anti-police violence, Trump’s campaign is framed by clear, distinct themes.
Clinton’s, well, not so much. Her campaign thus far has hinged on the idea that she has spent so much time in government that she is qualified by default to run the country, despite her role in its current decline.
A curious strategy to say the least, particularly given the steady decline of Americans’ faith in government.
While experience is indeed a valuable asset, it is simply not sufficient for the Presidency, particularly in times like these. The Oval Office requires a strategy for solving the nation’s, and the world’s, most pressing problems, not comfortable familiarity; someone who can adjust American interest to a rapidly evolving world, not someone who’s been around long enough to know where they keep the toner and who to call when the soda machine takes your money.
Think about it: Reagan had the restoration of American military and economic strength following just four years of Democratic ineptitude; Hillary’s husband promised to tackle the early 90s recession and accelerate a stagnant economy; and even Obama had ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo Bay, and repairing what he saw as America’s damaged reputation.
Hillary? Well, she has a resume filled with various positions in government.
Her entire campaign has become a sad mishmash of borrowed Bernie policies and a promise to continue the disastrous administration of which she was an integral part—there is no grand vision, no pet cause, and no specific ideas on what is currently right and what is currently wrong with America. And in that regard her campaign closely mirrors her own personal history, one in which Mrs. Clinton’s political form has shape-shifted to best accommodate its own political interests.
From her youthful admiration for activist and radical Saul Alinsky to comparatively moderate First Lady to hawkish Senator to quasi-socialist Presidential candidate, Clinton has proven to be the ultimate ideological chameleon.
It wasn’t that long ago that today’s pantsuit-wearing gay rights champion was a vocal defender of traditional marriage. Or that the woman who now assures us that “black lives matter” stood proudly beside her husband as he passed a crime bill in 1994 many blame for the egregious incarceration rates of African-American males.
For someone who has spent so much time in Washington her lack of vision is appalling. If she hasn’t learned to lead after decades spent among great leaders, it’s doubtful she ever will.
Her conviction, or lack thereof, has always been malleable, and nowhere was this more obvious than in her dramatic leftward shift during the recent Democratic primary, in which her coronation was threatened by a staunch socialist.
Now that Sanders’ socialist policies are en vogue among millennials, the country’s second largest voting bloc, the Queen of Wall Street is adopting some of Sanders’ socialist mantra for herself.
Suddenly the one of the biggest beneficiaries of Citizens United is calling for its repeal; the former anti-union Wal-Mart board member is now championing a dramatic hike in the minimum wage; and the woman who gave secretive speeches to executives at Goldman Sachs is all aboard Sanders’ laughable “free college” train—from Madoff to Mao, just like that.
As Barack Obama famously remarked in 2008, “she will say anything to get elected.” It seems the President isn’t always wrong after all.
Let’s face it: those who seek Presidential power for even the most genuine reasons deserve the utmost skepticism. Those that seek Presidential power for the sake of the power itself should under no circumstances be trusted with the power the office affords. At least not in times like these.
Were this a more tranquil era, perhaps a qualified manager would suffice to run the country for a few years, particularly given the alternative. But the current global chaos demands a candidate with vision, a man or woman with a plan. It requires a President with a clear view of what is right and what is wrong, one who can formulate a strategy to coincide with those core beliefs. It may not be Trump, but it sure as hell isn’t Clinton.
Without conviction, Hillary can’t create that strategy. And that, to me at least, is just as appalling as any one of the numerous scandals peppering her headlines.