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.