Hillary Clinton for President? . . . Seriously?

June 13th, 2013

Every recent public opinion poll indicates that Hillary Clinton is the clear favorite to win the White House in 2016.

I have a question.


I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.  I know that some people yearn for the economy of the 1990s and think that bringing Hillary back would bring back Bill. Personally, I was never a Bill Clinton fan, but I realize that the electorate often suffers short memories and so they only remember an economy on fire during that decade and forget the scandals that plagued the Clinton administration.

My hope is that because it’s still early in the game, people will soon wake up from the Hillary is inevitable fog they’ve been driving through and think about what a Hillary Clinton presidency might mean.

For one thing, I think anyone who has studied Bill and Hillary knows that of the two, Hillary is a huge committed progressive/liberal.  Bill, coming from Arkansas, fundamentally realizes that sometimes you have to move to the center and so as president he governed a bit more to the middle than Hillary ever would.

Still, some people might think that Bill could influence Hillary to temper her natural leftist leanings in the White House.  To that, I can only guess that these poor souls are inhaling the very substance Bill claimed he didn’t.  It’s not going to happen.  While Bill might prove to be an influential advisor to Hillary, I think she’s more than confident that she can handle the job herself. Besides, it’s doubtful they agree on much.

Hopefully, potential ’16 voters will soon start carefully thinking about the “qualifications” Hillary Clinton brings to the table.

She served as a United States Senator for a brief time from a state she barely lived in before being elected. After that, she was Secretary of State. It’s on that record we can take a close look at the kind of executive she’d be.

First, there is Benghazi. Even I, your humble blogger, could have figured that any anniversary of September 11th is going to potentially problematic.  It seems to me that such an occasion would warrant extra security.  Instead, it appears that the State Department under Secretary Clinton authorized less. After the death of four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, the State Department seemed intent on covering its tracks (i.e., its series of egregious errors).

The entire Benghazi affair should be enough to give one pause.

Unfortunately, that may prove just the beginning. Now it appears that Hillary Clinton ran a very undisciplined State Department. With drug abuse and sexual misconduct among the illicit activities at play, Secretary Clinton and her staff evidently took tremendous pains to cover it all up.  Clearly, such incompetence wouldn’t play well in a general election campaign.

By the time 2016 rolls around, we’ll need a strong executive who knows how to effectively lead us out of the mess we’re in.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely NOT that leader.


One Comment

  1. choiceone
    Posted Jun 19 2013 at 2:27 am | Permalink

    Hillar Clinton was a very popular senator here in New York, the state she represented, because she traveled all over the state to various towns as well as cities and spoke not to but with people who came to the meetings, asking people what their major concerns were. Then, when she got to the Senate, she made an effort to represent the concerns people had voiced to her.

    Her main weakness, in 2008 her real downfall, is that she voted for the release of funds to be used for invasion of Iraq if it became necessary in view of the so-called evidence, withheld from Congress, that Iraq was probably stockpiling WMDs. That’s the key reason why Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008.

    On the State Department –
    Hillary is the main reason we were able to rehabilitate the international reputation of the US after it was virtually destroyed by George Bush, Jr. She traveled everywhere and made a totally wonderful impression and restored respect for our country.

    One reason that happened is that she had been one of the pioneer champions for international development’s best proven successful strategy for helping communities out of poverty and into a productive economic situation – helping women because they help their whole families and neighborhoods [instead of helping men, who usually just help themselves without regard to family and neighborhood].

    The same Republicans who diss the State Department over Benghazi are the ones tho have screamed foul and created a phony IRS scandal. Issa is furious that Cummings has now released a full transcript of the interview with the seminal IRS person in Cincinatti in the non-profit investigations. That person is a self-described conservative Republican who merely used “tea party” and “patriot” as shorthand for the file of both left-wing and right-wing non-profits to be investigated. There is not a shred of evidence that the investigation targeted the right wing or Obama’s political enemies, and Issa has now been publicly proven to have lied to the public about the IRS in Cincinatti.

    It’s no different with Benghazi. The House Republicans cut the budget for Embassy security and the ambassador to Libya, warned to be careful and aware of the security problems in Benghazi, should not have visited in person. That was a tragedy, not mismanagement by Clinton. As for the public talking points afterward, that was clearly and reasonably explained along a timeline that made perfect sense to any well-educated non-partisan. The fact that you don’t know that shows your lack of sound thinking, not a State Department scandal.

    Clinton will win even if you run Christie.