Hillary Clinton has yet to declare her candidacy for president, and who can blame her. Campaigns are grinding, brutal, ugly rat races. Besides, she’s the inevitable, already-annointed Democratic nominee.
Unfortunately.
I’ve never been a big Hillary fan.* And now I’m really I hating her “inevitability.” I wish Elizabeth Warren or some other viable Democrat would run so I could vote next year without holding my nose.
And all that was before this week’s revelations about Hillary. What’s with the huge foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation (now the more awkwardly named “Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation”)? They wouldn’t have been a big deal if she weren’t a government official, but they look mighty questionable coming while she was Secretary of State. No, no, of course those foreign governments weren’t trying to buy influence; their donations were purely humanitarian in nature, to do good in the world, to help the Haitian earthquake refugees, etc. Yeah, right. There’s always the Red Cross for that.
It doesn’t matter that said contributions were in accordance with the contorted laws governing such contributions. The mere appearance of impropriety is what matters. That’s what voters will understand and remember. The Clintons could have refused such contributions, but they didn’t. They knew full well that one or both of them might run for office again, but they accepted the money anyway. Not good.
Then yesterday we found out that during her time as Secretary of State, Hillary did not use official government email for her correspondence. She used her private account for all of it. Seriously? There are obvious security concerns; private email accounts are hacked every day. And there are rules about securing and archiving government records, which of course include the Secretary of State’s correspondence. Again, at the very least, there’s the appearance of impropriety.
“What difference –- at this point, what difference does it make?” At this point it makes a big difference. There’s too much impropriety (or possibly worse), too much ammuntion for her opponents. I’m not at all happy with her being the only Democratic candidate and I can’t stomach any of the Republicans currently vying for the GOP nomination.
Sure, a lot could change between now and November 2016. Maybe another Democrat will enter the fray. Maybe Hillary won’t run.
And maybe the sun won’t rise tomorrow.
*Related on Pied Type:
Shame on you, Hillary Clinton! Shame on you
A woman voter assesses Hillary Clinton
Most women supported Hillary, so why didn’t I?
Yep, it’s a day later and Hillary’s speech still lacks grace
Inside Hillary’s head: What is that woman thinking, anyway?
NY Times looks at Hillary’s résumé from WH years
No way, no how, no mailing list
Foreign Money and e-mails a mess. Damn if I don’t think, regarding16, dems toast.
I’m afraid you’re right. Truly dismal to contemplate.
I can tell you what difference it makes now! We have found out BEFORE the up coming Presidential elections some things about Hillary Clinton that I am sure she would have rather been kept private. If she runs,gets nominated and elected,then America will get exactly what we deserve. Can or will she continue her charades and fool a gullible America and a possible Electoral College? Only time will tell.
Yep, can’t say we haven’t been warned. Of course, we’ve been warned about just about everybody in Washington (or who hopes to be in Washington someday). It’s a dirty, dirty business that seems to get dirtier every year.
You’ve nailed and covered it all. Disgusting. Discouraging.
It is terribly discouraging. To think a vote for president of the United States will go to the lesser of two evils, neither of which I want to see in office.
Ditto. I keep hoping somewhere there’s someone… (how many months left? – it’s going to be a looong dreadful stretch…so many will simple turn it all off and walk away hopeless)
I’ll vote, if only in the hope of ensuring we don’t get another conservative named to the Supreme Court. But I expect to be even more disgusted with action (or inaction) in DC than I have been.
The rumor around here is that Steney Hoyer (D-MD) might enter the fray. Although we were huge Hillary supporters 6 years ago, and detested the manner in which the back-room boys got Obama in office…a disaster for our foreign policies I fear….we don’t know what we will do next election. Sometimes, I wish BIBI was our president. As for EW, she know much about money and banking issues, but has no management experience…so no more novices in office…please.
I don’t recall offhand what I’ve heard about Hoyer, but I’ll take a good look at anyone who gets into the race. (Don’t mention Bibi; my opinion of him is scarcely printable.) I’m not sure management experience is essential. A smart person will gather a circle of excellent advisors for those areas where they lack expertise — and I think Warren is very smart.
I too have doubts about Hillary. Too much baggage, plus, I just can’t escape the feeling about her that she wants the office principally for ego. Her new strategy of emphasizing her sex, unlike in 2012, plays right into that notion.
I too like Warren but I hope she does not run because I don’t think she could be effective, and that’s not because she isn’t capable but because of the reality of prejudice and political polarization. Like Obama, her basic nature is going to be a liability. His is race, her’s is sex. That’s just the way the good ole boys’ club is. (They also don’t like certain religions, but that’s another whole discussion.)
What about Martin O’Malley? He’s young, successful, articulate, and as far as I can tell, has no skeletons in his closet. People like a fresh face.
She tried for the 2008 nomination (time flies, doesn’t it?) and I thought both she and the media made a big deal of her gender. You’ll note in some of my linked posts that I greatly resented the assumption that just because she’s a woman, the women’s vote was automatically hers. Her concession speech, when she finally conceded the nomination to Obama, is full of references to women, women’s advances, etc. You may recall her saying:
I think Warren could take advantage of all the groundwork Hillary did to prepare the electorate for a woman president. Of course, if you think gender was Hillary’s downfall, then it would be for Warren, too.
I had to check Wikipedia to jog my memory on O’Malley and he has potential. The sad truth may be that no Democrat can touch Hillary’s name recognition and war chest, and as much as I hate it, I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to take to beat the GOP.
Right. I knew that but didn’t engage brain. My bad.
The Wikipedia page on Clinton’s run has an interesting section on and it covers a lot of the political conversations going around at the time, conversations I was mostly unaware of at the time – that was before I became interested in blogging, which in turn piqued my interest in politics. I was blithely unaware of the most intense sniping, and there was plenty of it according to gender the article.
I do recall reading some commentary lately that Hillary’s emphasis on gender is more so this time than in her previous campaign, but I didn’t bookmark it. In any case, even if she wins I think it will be a distraction that will only deepen the political divide. Hope I’m wrong. I’d vote for her over any of the men in the current GOP listing, just on principle.
I’ll admit it seems like it was only 2012, just a couple of years ago. The years are passing so quickly now …
That section on gender was interesting. Much of it I remembered, as I was following the campaign pretty closely. But I didn’t recall the thing about the Vogue cover and the fear it would make her look “too feminine.” I think it interesting that the editor-in-chief said, “The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. How has our culture come to this?” How has our culture come to this? Really? I grew up and went to work in “this” culture. We haven’t come to it; we’ve never really left it. Not for women who want to be in power positions and have to deal with the good ol’ boys in politics to get there. If you look too femine, you’ll come across as a bimbo (aka Sarah Palin).
I’ve always thought HC had too many liabilities to run for Pres – she was already damaged goods in 2008, damaged by everything from Whitewater to Monica; and in “purple” Virginia, at least, I was very aware of a lot of people who actively despised her. I didn’t believe she could have beat McCain then, even with all the help Bush had provided. So it was a good thing for the Dems when Obama outsmarted and outorganized her for the nomination.
Now for 2016, nothing much has changed. And unfortunately, she does not have her hubby’s sure political instincts. Bill can weasel so smoothly no one realizes he’s doing it; when Hillary weasels, it looks like … well, like she’s just weaseling.
So I agree, it’s too bad she seems to be the heiress apparent. If nominated, could she win purely on demographics (women’s vote, minority votes, etc.)? Perhaps. But it would be preferable if a strong candidate emerged from the field. We don’t see that now, but there is still time for surprises.
I always thought her biggest chunk of baggage was Bill. I couldn’t and don’t see him as someone who”ll stay in the background as just the spouse, the arm candy, the one who stays in the background and hosts garden parties and state dinners. I’m afraid he’ll be an unelected co-president, right there in the Oval Office making decisions with (and maybe even for) Hillary. I don’t want Bill Clinton in the White House again. (And yet, I think I like him better than her.)
Hmm. An interesting perspective. I don’t have that fear. I don’t see her as the docile spouse. In some ways she may be a better thinker than Bill, though with less certain political instincts. Whatever her other faults I think she’d be her own person. And put Bill to work on fundraising if she’s wise.
I don’t see him as the docile spouse either. That’s why I’d prefer neither of them be in the White House.