Hillary Clinton ticks me off

I'm getting very tired of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Instead of acting like a candidate, she acts like a Queen who decides what questions to answer and how to answer them.

While having experience is a necessary prerequisite to running for president, being a First Lady and then using that "experience" to get a Senate seat and an appointment as Secretary of State is a nepotistic way to get ahead, and that should not be rewarded either.

But that is a fair thing for voters to judge on their own. What isn't fair is to listen to her pretend that using a private email server as head of the State Department (!) to conduct her email communications is fine because it didn't "break the law." Since when is that the yardstick by which we judge character and acts?

We can only speculate what was in her mind when she setup this mickey-mouse system. Perhaps she believed her email communications were not subject to Freedom of Information requests, or she truly didn't want to have a "work" email on a secure work computer and a "personal" email for her private communications. Of course, this is exactly what millions of people do everyday, but being a multi-millionaire and having a foundation with billions of dollars of dubious donations from people looking for future favors from the Clintons makes her immune to criticism, or so she believes.

The media is afraid of crossing her, but if they were doing their jobs, they would stop taking "no comment" for an answer. If papers like the New York Times are satisfied with her responses, that goes to show how much in the tank they are for her candidacy. And if they admit to not being satisfied, then she should either answer their questions to their complete satisfaction or they should stop covering her campaign, and instead just run stories on how she refuses to answer their questions. (If she thinks she can win the Presidency without the media backing her, she is surely mistaken.)

She keeps repeating that these are just partisan attacks, and her supporters are vested in her candidacy in so many ways that I guess they believe her. This can only happen because her media backers refuse to take the ball and run with it. If the Democrats had to keep promoting Watergate instead of the Washington Post, Nixon would never have resigned. So the media have to decide if our system of government and the special role that the media plays in a free society is worth protecting more than a specific candidate during a specific election. My guess is that the media will continue to support Clinton and just repeat her denials, fabrications, and political spin, because they don't want to irreparably damage her candidacy. But it is better to take her out now than to wait until the uphill climb for another candidate is too steep.

This reminds me of the competing interests that Democrats in Congress have when it comes to dealing with the unlawful overreaches practiced by our President. Do they let him get away with stuff because they support what he is trying to do, or do they uphold the institution and power of the legislative branch because they are representatives? So far, they do the former. They would rather participate and help in the transformation of the country into a socialist utopia with open borders, free government money for everybody, and staggering deficits and debts than protect the turf of their organization and the Constitutional checks and balances system.

I would never support Hillary Clinton for President because she did such a poor job of protecting our personnel in Bengazi. She exercised extremely poor judgment in setting up a private email server to conduct official business, over which at least several dozen classified emails were sent. How much of her email was hacked by the Chinese or Russians is anybody's guess. And accepting millions of dollars into her "private" foundation which could then be used to influence her as Secretary of State, let alone President, is a clear disqualifier. It doesn't matter if the foundation does good work: what matters is whether there is any personal investiture in the foundation's success for the Clintons, and there clearly is. Why else would so many foreign governments be "donating" millions of dollars (!) to their private charity? It is absurd on its face.

The Democrats still have time to nominate a candidate without so many disqualifying blemishes. Hillary Clinton may be an improvement policy-wise from the current occupant of the Oval Office, but these types of transgressions cannot be overlooked nor should they be.

Our country is large enough that we should be able to field credible, experienced candidates for President of the United States without having to accept seriously flawed candidates with disqualifying background issues.

While I am unlikely to support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, I do believe in having two qualified individuals running for the position so that voters are given a clear choice, which they can make on policy and not on personal character. Both candidates should have impeachable character and credentials, period. And then if the voters want to continue down the socialist path with free healthcare, free college, free housing, free student loan forgiveness, free food, free nursing home care, etc., then we will go further down that road and see where it leads us.

I think it would be a travesty if Clinton gets the nomination and then whoever the Republicans nominate ends up winning by default. That is no way to elect our President. That could cause permanent damage to our democracy versus what (I hope) is short-term damage from socialist policies.

By the way, I read an unintentionally funny piece in the Wall Street Journal today by a Federal Reserve bank president from Minnesota, who argued that the Fed should not be increasing interest rates anytime soon because it could affect our economy in a negative way. Higher interest rates could slow down the housing recovery, could increase inflation, could make the dollar even stronger, could slow job growth, could make our debt repayments higher, etc., etc., etc. I guess eight years of zero interest rates to stimulate the economy simply isn't enough time. Maybe we need a 50- or 100-year horizon of zero interest rates so that our economy never suffers another downturn again! And while we are at it, why not keep borrowing and spending more too, because whenever we need to stop borrowing and spending, it will certainly negatively affect our economy as well. This guy is brilliant. Here is his Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Kocherlakota

Subscribe to the Acton Forum and get our newsletters emailed to you -- FREE! Click on http://www.actonforum.com/subscribe-actonforum-newsletter

Comments

HOLDING HILLARY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING

Politicians do two things almost with perfection, take care of themselves financially and insure their fellow pols are taken care of as best as possible. Hillary will be the candidate of her party for the next presidential election unless she chooses not to run. Why? Because she is too rich and powerful to be treated as less than a modern day queen and because her party believes she can win. Remember, it is better to elect your devil than the oppositions angel. Win at any cost is a motto of all political parties, in my opinion.

Who will win the next presidential election? Of today's contestants I hope for Obama to get four more years. As inept as he has proven himself to be he is better than what we are currently being offered.

A passing word on the Fed not raising interest rates. The deep recession is not over -- although those of us who are working may think it is. The real unemployment rate -- the % of people out of work who want and need to work, in my opinion, is about 15%. The pols have yet to balance the trade rules which send jobs overseas. Those of us who are living on SS and retirement plans know how quickly prices are rising. The Fed has a lot yet to do regarding the economy. If it takes 50 years of zero interest rates and a doubling of our debt so what. Don't balance the country's books on the backs of the working class at least until the working class is working.