Judgment and fiscal responsibility. Something we must demand in the next President of the United States.
Two elements that Hillary Clinton has campaigned aggressively for and injected in her candidacy, letting the American public know she will be reponsible, if she is elected.
I agree totally. If I have to be accountable with my check book, credit cards, and life, then I would only expect the same from any person running for President of the United States.
I also expect sound judgment, an ear to listen, and the surrounding of competent officials to run the day-to-day workings of the government. Since, George W. Bush this is of uttermost importance while we select the Democratic Nominee for the presidency.
So, what happened in Hillaryland? This moniker is used because the campaign uses it. So, no slight or pun intended.
Hillary Clinton has run a tight ship since entering the race for the Democratic Nomination, last year. A ship many have admired and have been impressed with. So, it is of dismay that we see the crumbling of the campaign’s inner workings and much of this was caused by Clinton’s lack of judgment.
First off, Hillary Clinton has raised since conception of her senate bid, $175M dollars. This is not only a large sum of money, but an astounding feat. This shows and proves the depth and breadth of what the Clinton Name brings and mean to many in this country.
I will never forget in fall of 2006 when kos threw a tidbit up on the front page about an email he received from Hillary Clinton explaining the "right wing attack machine is after me, I need your support." Code words for, "I need money. Send me a check now. Click the donate button." Well, he laughed this off and it should have been. Why? Can you remember who Clinton ran against in 2006? Better yet, was it even important? I bring this up because of this:
Overall, during her senate reelection campaign, Senator Clinton raised $50 million and spent $37 million, even though compared to 2000, it was a cakewalk.
Now, why did Clinton spend 37M against an opponent whom no one can remember? Clinton could have spent .37 on her campaign and still won it effortlessly. This all opens to question, why spend that money? Clinton looked at having at least 30M to transfer over to her presidential bid, but ended up with 10M. If you run the numbers that would have been a sign of "WTF happened to the money?"
The first public sign of this came just after Clinton’s reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton’s Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration—and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary’s inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.
The sign was there but dismissed due to Hillary Clinton’s total belief of loyalty and blind trust. A bad judgment call by Hillary. Why? Look at where Clinton is now fiscally in her own presidential campaign. How can you not ask the hard questions about money? It is apparent, the questions were not asked. Now you get it. That wasted 37M could be used right now to mount her campaign against Barack Obama, but it was spent recklessly and loosely on a senate campaign that she could have spent ZERO dollars on a NOTHING CANDIDATE.
So now we know how Clinton went broke by Iowa, had to loan her campaign 5M to make it through January and how Bill Clinton was angry. No accountability for the money, no fiscal responsibility. When a campaign spends half a million on parking issues, what conclusion do you come up with but, "What the Hell are you doing?"
How did all this come to fruition? Simple. Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline.
For a campaign to come to grips of what it is now means the captain at the helm prided loyalty over the reasoning of saving the foundation of her campaign. We have seen this show before. When? It is called George W. Bush.
George W. Bush had/has a problem letting go of incompetent people in his administration, even when the evidence was/is in front of him. We saw it from Michael "Brownie" Brown of the disastrous handling of FEMA, a.k.a. "Katrina". We witnessed it since 2003 and the invasion of Iraq, which triggered off the Iraq War with Donald Rumsfeld. We were in awe and shock of the "gangster tactics" of Alberto "I am dumber than a box of rocks" Gonzales. Incensed at the pardon of I. Scooter Libby, who could not tell you the truth if his life depended on it. And folks the list is endless with George W. Bush, but he had/has the same problem as Hillary. Prides loyalty and blind trust over competence.
This should be examined and thoroughly. We do not need and cannot afford another president who does not have the judgment to make not only the right decision, but to appoint the wrong person for the job.
We have seen and are living this movie. It is still playing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.