Election 2016: V. The Case Against Hillary Clinton

This is the fourth part of a five (or maybe seven) part series I will do this week making the case for and against each of the major candidates, with a wrap-up on the weekend. I did this in 2012 and I will observe the same ground rule I did then: making the case for a candidate means making the case for a candidate, not a case against the opponent. That’s the subject of later posts. So “he’s not Hillary” is not a reason I will list for voting for Trump and “she’s not Trump” is not a reason I will list for voting for Clinton. Each one of them will get their own special post all to themselves about they don’t deserve our votes.

Today I write a post that summarizes a lot of what I’ve been saying for the last eight years: that Hillary Clinton is a poor choice for President.

Hillary Clinton is not like Bill; she has laid out a far left agenda. I’ve done this before, but here is a list of positions Clinton has put forward: “free” college, a $15 minimum wage, mandated paid maternity leave, expanded Obamacare, expanded Medicaid, subsidized daycare, cardcheck, massive “investment”, rejecting TPP, tax hikes, gun control, more education spending, expanded Social Security, $60 billion on alternative energy, more job training, more infrastructure spending. I mentioned earlier this week that Trump falsely claimed that Clinton was running a campaign without policy. That’s the opposite of the real problem — Clinton’s policies are listed on her website in the link above. She has tons of policies, most of them bad.

Keep in mind … we have problems paying for the stuff we’re already committed to. This year will see the deficit increase for the first time in six years. It is projected to increase dramatically over the next ten years, piling on another ten trillion in debt. We don’t have the money for this. Without spending cuts, we will have to max out this nation’s tax bill just to keep our heads above water. Where’s the money going to come from for this?

And jobs? Clinton says she’s going to bring jobs back to America by … killing free trade, enacting card check, “investing” in spending and paying out subsidies to favored business. This is on top of the slew of regulations she wants to pass and a near doubling of the minimum wage.

Now it is true that most of this wish list will never happen. But a significant amount could happen, especially if she has a Democratic Congress. And our economy and our budget are already straining under the weight.

Clinton’s “massive experience” isn’t all its cracked up to be. Let’s review the experience that Clinton brings to the table. As first lady, she authored a health care reform proposal that was byzantine, forged in secret and instantly unpopular. She jumped on the superpredator panic and wrote off all of her husband’s misdeeds as a vast right wing conspiracy. Yes, she organized some good things as First Lady. That’s not being President.

Handed a Senate seat on a golden platter, she went onto a fairly undistinguished career, supporting popular causes but never really taking a stand or crafting any major legislation. Even her own website sees her big accomplishment as getting funds to help first responders, which was important but not something she played the key role in.

As Secretary of State, Clinton tried to “reset” our relationship with Russia, which worked our poorly. She also was a huge proponent of our attack on Libya, which worked out poorly. She made no progress on Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan or North Korea. And while Benghazi has been a bit overblown, there’s no question that, as Secretary of State, she bears responsibility for the poor state of defense of our assets in Libya.

Sorry, but her health is a concern. It always was. She’s turning 69 soon.

We can expect four more years of bullshit Let’s step back a bit. Suppose when the e-mail scandal had broken, Clinton had said something like this:

Look, I wanted to have easy access to e-mail and I wanted to have it outside the State Department. We made the decision to have our own server after many consultations. In retrospect, this was a poor decision. While we don’t think we were hacked, we left ourselves vulnerable. And while it wasn’t on purpose, we have mishandled some classified information. I take responsibility for this messup and, as President, I will take the initiative in tightening down our protocols on internet security.

That would not necessarily have been true, of course. But it would have defused the scandal instantly. The same is true of the Clinton Foundation. Or her health scare. Or any scandal involving the Clintons over the last 25 years.

The polls have tightened lately. The biggest shift has been among young people abandoning Clinton for Johnson and Stein. And the biggest reason for that is that they see Clinton as untrustworthy. The Clintons lie — frequently, flagrantly, fluently and reflexively. They lie when the truth would suit them way better. At least 70% of the scandals with which they have been “besieged” over the last 25 years could have been defused if they’d just answered a few questions honestly and forthrightly. You think that’s going to get better when she’s President?

Something else. Remember what she said in the first debate: that she was proud of having made so many enemies. Clinton has nursed grudges against Republicans for 25 years. Even if you posit that all of that was Republican evilness — and I don’t think it was — aren’t you a bit worried about Clinton wanting some payback? Aren’t you a bit worried about someone who boasts about the enemies she’s made having the power to attack them? A few weeks ago, Vox ran an alarmist article about how Trump could abuse the power of the Presidency against his enemies. But these methods will be available to Clinton too.

She has shown no ability to learn from her mistakes. As the War in Iraq has grown less popular, Clinton has admitted that voting for it was a mistake. As mass incarceration has grown less popular, Clinton has admitted that her role in the superpredator panic was a mistake. Normally, that would be a good thing in a politician.

But … Clinton has shown no ability to learn from her mistakes. Yeah, she’ll say that Iraq was a mistake. She still supported intervening in Libya and Syria, unleashing massive chaos. Yeah, she’ll say the superpredator panic was a mistake. She’s still jumping on the current moral panic of sex trafficking.

As with Trump, this post could be much longer. But notice, as with Trump, I haven’t commented (much) about her personality or manner or bearing. She can be as unlikable as she wants. What concerns me more is having a President with a long history of deception and evasion, armed with a big government agenda who has shown no ability to adapt in the light of new information.

16 comments:

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    Hillary brings all the baggage of decades of corruption and cronyism with her. The Clinton Foundation has been revealed to be a scam, and she has shown that she would be for sale to the highest bidder. If her health really is that bad, that will leave her even more open for manipulation and possibly blackmail. Even an army of loyal surrogates and eunuchs won’t be able to protect her from the shitstorm that a sick Hillary could create if she can’t respond to a crisis or a scandal within her administration.

    Last time around, I was in devil’s mode advocate, this time, it’s a lot easier not to be.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000 *

    The Clinton Foundation has been revealed to be a scam

    Well, not entirely.  Both charity watchdogs rate it highly and it directs most of its money to well-established causes. There is a serious problem with donations to the Foundation being used to gain access to Clinton herself and State Department grants.  If she’s elected, the Clintons, at minimum, have to suspend all ties to the Foundation and donors to the Foundation should be excluded from government grants.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Iconoclast

    …if she can’t respond to a crisis or a scandal…

    Irrelevant.  A crisis will be a not-crisis, and we will be called Islamophobes or racists for even implying there is one.  Scandal?  What scandal?  It’s just those damned Republicans on another witch hunt.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    This is Hillary, nay the current credentialed political class, but especially those from the left side, that look down on the plebes and their revolt in a nutshell.

    People used to be able to respect their leaders. The ones we have today suck ass, but a few quick polls with rigged questions, and presto! They are popular.. Fuck that.

    Thumb up 0

  5. RonK

    just like we are still feeling the effect of Jimmy Carters ME policies the world is going to be reeling from the missteps this administration has done we don’t need 4 more years of the same bull shit, the bad thing is Trump will be 4 more years but a lesser amount.  I don’t think any of the 20 give or take candidates that started running for the presidency would make that much difference on the end result.  bottom line the American people specifically and the world in general are screw.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    just like we are still feeling the effect of Jimmy Carters ME policies the world is going to be reeling from the missteps this administration

    Yeah I think illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq, the project of your last President might also have been a ‘mis-step’ and provides the entire context of where we are now. But no, even though it’s of prime relevance in ANY discussion about what is happening now, it SHALL NOT BE MENTIONED. FFS.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Iconoclast

    Yeah I think illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq……

    Yeah, you’re gonna beat that dead horse until you go to your grave, ain’t’cha?

    It’s entirely possible that, without JC’s screwing up the ME, there would have been no Iranian “Revolution”, no American hostages, no Ayatollah Khomeini in power, no 9/11, and therefore, no Iraq invasion.

     …..it SHALL NOT BE MENTIONED.

    On the contrary, as long as you’re still sucking air, it will ALWAYS BE MENTIONED.

    FFS.

    Indeed.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Iconoclast

    Also, without Obama’s yanking us out of Iraq to fulfill his campaign promise, it’s still possible, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, that ISIS would simply not be as powerful as it is,  or have any power at all.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    While in hindsight going into Iraq might leave one with doubts considering the left did everything it could to make sure a costly victory was lost after they had personally gained from it, there is no doubt that the only problem CM, and people on the left in general, have with Iraq, is that Boosh did it. Had Clinton done it they would be defending it as an act of courage (they still do his aspirin factory bombing in Somalia to divert from lying gate). Remember that the same idiots that tell us how bad going into Iraq was wanted us to commit troops to Rwanda under much of the same arguments made by Boosh. And then there is Egypt, Libya, Syria, and while it has not happened yet, it will be because of them, Turkey, that all have gone south because of Obama’s actions (all of them without any attempt to either seek permission from Congress or the entity the left loves to suck cock from, the UN , mind you).

    You see CM ever point out how bad that shit is or is gonna get and lay it down at Obama (or Clinton whom I feel compelled to point out unlike Boosh which the left accused of doing so, but never did, pushed us into Libya so her palls could steal oil and make money)? Nah, in typical fashion CM is still stuck on the same lame and idiotic Iraq speech like the Alec Baldwin puppet in team America was stucj on the usual leftist platitudes and diatribes after the awesome dicks, pussies, and assholes speech.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    Yeah, you’re gonna beat that dead horse until you go to your grave, ain’t’cha?

    Yeah you’re just going to keep proving my point, ain’t’cha – downplay or outright ignore the huge significance of it. Blame people for mentioning it.

    It’s entirely possible that, without JC’s screwing up the ME, there would have been no Iranian “Revolution”, no American hostages, no Ayatollah Khomeini in power, no 9/11, and therefore, no Iraq invasion.

    Right yeah, sure, anyone can play that game with any President or leader if they really want to (pretty much all problems in the modern Middle East can be traced back to the the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire). But the major avoidable Western fuck-up in the Middle East was that invasion of Iraq. That was a war of choice. Nothing preceding it, and certainly not 9/11, justified it. It’s as cynically deceitful as it gets.

    On the contrary, as long as you’re still sucking air, it will ALWAYS BE MENTIONED.

    Again you’re proving my point. I shouldn’t be the only one mentioning it when it’s of significant relevance to a point or discussion.

    Also, without Obama’s yanking us out of Iraq to fulfill his campaign promise, it’s still possible, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, that ISIS would simply not be as powerful as it is,  or have any power at all.

    Wow, still misrepresenting on that whole ‘leaving Iraq’ thing, huh. The reality is of course, as we’ve been over in detail before, that Bush arranged to leave, and the Iraqi’s wouldn’t allow troops to stay beyond that with the appropriate protections in place. What was he going to do, re-invade? And no, the Iraqi parliament did not have the will or support of the public to enable them provide those protections. People had had enough. That’s all reality. Irrespective of what Obama promised.

    Yes, if the US had maintained a significant force, it might have delayed the formation and growth of ISIS. But you’re kidding yourself if you think it wouldn’t have taken another form, or simply happened a little later. The seeds were well and truly sown by the time the US troops left Iraq. The anti-Western propaganda would not have been weaker if US troops had stayed longer, particularly against the wishes of the Iraqi parliament and people. It was the invasion of Iraq that gave them their initial power, and the resultant chaos and instability resulting from the invasion and ongoing fuck-up that drove so many to them. Prior to that Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was insignificant (certainly between 1999 and 2003 until they started re-branding to give themselves an Iraqi flavour).

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    And then there is Egypt, Libya, Syria

    Egypt, Libya and Syria are significantly different to Iraq. Obama didn’t undermine 50 years of international diplomacy and security for a senseless war of choice.

    Had Clinton done it they would be defending it as an act of courage (they still do his aspirin factory bombing in Somalia to divert from lying gate).

    Not me, so try again. Try actually responding to what someone has said.

    Nah, in typical fashion CM is still stuck on the same lame and idiotic Iraq speech 

    There we go – just as I said. Bringing up Iraq is FAR worse than the entire ever-giving cluster-fuck of invading Iraq (in just about every-which way it could be). Thank you for proving my point as well (in amongst your ramblings).

    Thumb up 1

  12. Iconoclast

    But the major avoidable Western fuck-up in the Middle East was that invasion of Iraq.

    And prior to that, the major avoidable Western fuck-up was letting the Shah of Iran fall from power, allowing the  Ayatollah Khomeini to rise to power.

    But do keep on evading the point.  It’s what you do.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Iconoclast

    The seeds were well and truly sown by the time the US troops left Iraq.

    Hell, I can play your game and say the seeds were well and truly sown during the the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply