Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Hillary Clinton

27 Comments

She’s the candidate that the Democrats, the party of lies, criminality and corruption, deserve:

She enters the general election stage of the campaign as one of the most disliked and distrusted political figures in America, and one of the least popular presidential nominees of all time. Despite his even uglier public image and endless parade of divisiveness and insults, the Republican nominee-in-waiting only trails her by an average of two percentage points at this stage of the race, inside the margin of error. Several weeks ago, a Democratic operative basked in the afterglow of Donald Trump’s effective nomination victory, crowing on Fox News that the GOP had selected “exactly the candidate they deserve.” Ironically, both Trump’s strong backers and detractors on the right would likely agree with this statement, albeit for different reasons. This week, the same formulation applies to the Democrats. They’ve chosen the corrupt, opaque, power hungry, self-serving, aloof, greedy, politically soulless, congenital liar they so richly deserve.

In case it wasn’t sufficiently beaten into your psyche with a rhetorical two-by-four last night, Hillary Clinton has made history. Indeed. She has become the first presidential candidate of either gender to clinch a major party’s nomination while under active FBI investigation. That criminal probe — not a “security review” as she and her campaign have wrongly claimed — continues to produce serious new developments. Based on her deliberate, national security-endangering conduct, as well as a string of clues and actions by federal investigators, it is entirely possible that a recommendation for criminal prosecution will be handed down in the coming weeks. As America’s top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton ordered the implementation of an improper email scheme that predictably culminated in the compromising of thousands of classified documents, including top secret and ‘beyond top secret’ material. She ignored specific, personal warnings from State Department security officials about her reckless arrangement in 2009 and 2011, using her shockingly unsecure system throughout her four-year tenure as a means of thwarting public records requests and wielding total control over her correspondence. When the existence of her private server was revealed, Clinton and her attorneys unilaterally deleted tens of thousands of messages, falsely stating that none of them were work-related. She has verifiably and flagrantly lied about virtually every aspect of this scandal from the very beginning.

But other than that, she’s great.

The 90s and the Clintons were the last straw for me and Democrats.

[Thursday-morning update]

Hillary Clinton’s truth problem:

Reading through the interview transcripts and stories, I found nuggets buried deep in the coverage that offer a less flattering portrait of Clinton—that would suggest her presidency might lack transparency, candor, and accountability.

Gee, Ron, ya think?

27 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton”

    1. That’s an interesting opinion considering Trump smashed the record by 1.4 million the votes for a Republican candidate in the GOP primary. Conversely, Hillary received fewer this year than in 2008, over million less. In addition, the DNC had 8 million fewer primary voters in 2016 than 2008 for a race that went all the way to California to be decided.

      1. Leland,

        But do we know who those voters were? How many were Democrats who like Trump?

        How many were democrats who voted for Trump to assure getting the opponent they wanted?

        I think an analysis of the voting demo needs to be done.

        1. Feel free to do the analysis. I got my data from here via Wikipedia and Breitbart. Draw your own conclusions.

          1. Leland,
            I wasn’t asking you to do it 😉

            I went to the web page you pointed out. It’s very handy but it doesn’t tell us the party pf the voters.

            The “Political Party” columns is, I believe, the party of the candidate.

            I suspect a LOT of Dems for in Ma voted for Trump because they think he’s the easiest to beat and Ma. is in the bag for the Dems.

            But I don’t have the data to prove that.

          2. I understand Gregg, and I’m not going to defend Trump. However, before I accept the #NeverTrump argument (not saying it’s Vladslaw’s) that Trump is pushing away more Republicans; I have to see data that supports it. The data I can find suggests he’s building a bigger tent. He may be doing it by knocking down the left wall and expanding it (though some claim, even on the right, that it is the far right wall), but the tent still seems more conservative and even liberterian than Hillary or Bernie.

            The same data I have suggests Hillary is doing worse than in 2008. She’s winning the nomination because the DNC is doing much worse.

            Consider; Obama won 2008 by 20 million votes. They had 17 million more votes in the Primary than the GOP in 2008. This year the difference between the GOP and DNC is within 100,000 votes with the DNC halving the distance with 8 million fewer votes.

            If anyone is driving away voters, let’s talk about Hillary.

        1. So I’m told. Let’s call it a theory. Do you have supporting data to validate? I would love to see it. I know I didn’t vote for Trump.

          1. I know that prior to Tuesday, about 55% of primary voters voted for someone else. That could have changed this week, since there was no one else to vote for. It was a shame that Cruz didn’t stay in until CA.

          4. The idea that everyone would have supported anyone but Trump if only there were less candidates splitting the vote, didn’t hold true. The voting data supports this. Trump picked up voters and the remaining candidates got weaker, except for Kasich.

            Who knows how things would have gone in a less crowded field early on but we know how things sent in a less crowded field later on.

          5. Rand, how many non-Republican supporters did Trump bring in? Do you have numbers?

            I’m not contesting that he didn’t reach a majority, certainly not when he was contested. But if we want to make a todo about it, he was also in a much wider election contest. Few people, in any election worldwide, when a majority when there are 3 or more candidates. Trump still nearly doubled his nearest competitor. Did he bring in 6 million non-Republican voters? Will he lose at least that many Republican voters? Maybe so, but let’s test the theory.

          6. Rand, how many non-Republican supporters did Trump bring in? Do you have numbers?

            No, I only know that it’s creating a party with no discernible political principles whatsoever, other than ignorant populism.

  3. For me the last straw came in the 90s, too, but not from the Clintons. That was when I read Jerry Pournelle’s post on the Vietnam war, how we had won it, and how the Democrats in Congress threw it away because it was their way to punish Nixon. The 100,000 slaughtered in the next 2 years of “peace” were merely unfortunate eggs for their omelet.

    1. Not to mention the ultimate sacrifice of 58,000 Americans the democrats pi$$ed on and pi$$ed away. Then Obama repeated that debacle by nullifying the ultimate sacrifice of over 4000 Americans in Iraq, creating ISIS and all that has followed. Just as the “idiot” George W. Bush said would happen.

  4. But her sewing up the Democratic nomination is historic! (Like we haven’t heard that word enough in the past eight years.)

    1. It is indeed historic that someone who should be under indictment on multiple felony charges gets the nomination to be President. Far more so than the detail of gender, or race of the last “historic” occupier of the White House.

    2. That’s a sexist attack against America’s mother. Hillary doesn’t sew, she has people do it for her.

  6. The 90s and the Clintons were the last straw for me and Democrats.

    That’s funny, the 90s and the Clintons made me a Democrat (I’d been a Reagan conservative in the 80s). We should only be so lucky as to see a repeat of the peace and prosperity we had the last time there was a Clinton in the White House.

    1. There’s of course no way to prove you were either a Reagan conservative or not, but I have yet to meet a Reagan conservative that would believe the peace experienced in the 90’s was due in any way to Bill “Let’s fight a war in Serbia!” Clinton.

      As for prosperity, the personal computer and internet was created before Bill had sex with interns in the White House. The tech boom came about due to things set in motion before Gore could invent his meme of creating the internet.

      1. I don’t think Clinton snapped his fingers and created peace and prosperity. But the predictions of the pundits on the right — the people I’d grown up reading and looking to for political wisdom, people like William Buckley and the rest of the National Review, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, George Gilder, George Will — was that Clinton would be a disaster. His tax hikes would kill the economy. His military cuts would lead to war. His morals would bring on social decay. Instead we got the best economy in decades, less war, and positive movement on a wide range of social indicators (crime, abortion, teen pregnancy, etc.). The right’s model of how the world works — that you need to lower taxes and regulations, beef up the military, and police citizens’ moral choices in order to improve life in America — was put to the test in the 90s, and it failed utterly.

  7. ” There’s of course no way to prove you were either a Reagan conservative or not . . . ”

    And of course, it’s Jim . . . and, well you know. . . .

Comments are closed.