Between the hypothetical choice of a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton for President, according to the percentage of negatives in their polling, the 2016 Presidential race definitely appears to be yet another go-around of, ‘So, who are you voting against?’
Hillary Clinton talks very tough, and can put up a very tough front. The last name carries her. And, she has worked in the White House, the Senate, and in the State Department for a combined twenty years. And, she is, once again, a strong contender for President. And, as a woman, she appears out of anyone currently running -- very arguably, of course, as far as seeking the Democratic nomination -- as a potential national/world leader who could particularly speak best for women's issues and values.
Her steel resolve is certainly the kind a voter generally likes to see from a Democratic candidate during a campaign.
However, the word you hear most often -- and, rightly so -- critically associated with her, far more than any other among a wide demographic of voters, critics, and the like, is ‘trust’ -- a lacking thereof, that is.
And, she has done next to nothing to waylay certain reflections of insecurity within herself as a potentially strong leader, in spite of the amount of people on both sides who keep talking about it. For good reasons.
On the one hand, she can sound like the Democrat-version of conservative, Mitt Romney, when he ran for President four years ago. Rare was the time, and you could easily tell when he was, when he spoke very clearly and very candidly about his position on an issue. He, for the most part, was effectively painted as an out-of-touch rich guy and was never quite secure enough with his conservative base to try and win them to the center.
And, with Hillary Clinton, it would certainly be wrong to talk about the GOP's identity crisis (again) and not point out her singular one. The script sounds all too typical: a reputation for not taking a firm stance on controversial issues, examples of appeasing her political identity to whomever she happens to be speaking to, in order to appear electable, even going as far as the precarious circumspection (despite clear proof indicating otherwise) of being on one side of something and then supposedly on the other, and all the while claiming to be "consistent"?
What all of this reflects makes perfect sense in a way that is not good. She is obsessed with the past, campaigning on the 'glory days' of the 90's dot-com boon and the economic surplus that would have come as a result. But, the 1990's were filled with all kinds of legislative misgivings from the White House, upon which the GOP's taking over both houses of Congress in 1994 was just the beginning: the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act, NAFTA, to name a few things. And, there is also this very thorough and well-written article to highlight another.
Generally, it is perfectly okay to admit being on the wrong side of a matter, then be in the right, and then proceed to strongly and genuinely, and publically affirm in several ways why it is the right direction to go and how you and we are a better people for it.
Not only do people respect honesty, but moreover it obviously reflects strong leadership skills, as well as someone who has a clear, moral ground on a particular matter. Win or lose, this is more important than power and prestige. When a Democratic candidate is flawed and/or insecure in their leadership ability, they tend to embrace the center (and, implicitly stating, don't do the best job of it). Her husband did it, President Obama did it, and the concern is she will continue to do it as well.
All of this stuff, at this point, pretty much plays like a Greatest Hits album. As, from First Lady to Senator, there is this interview bit.
As far as displaying leadership in terms of foreign policy, I tend to measure character by way of the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As you may know, back in October of ‘62 the Soviet Union began secretly shipping in, and then setting up, medium-to-long range nuclear missiles in their communist satellite-state, Cuba. This was a strong, politically pro-active, apparent response on their part to the United States’ recently failed coup attempt in this country. Conventional fears were erring in accordance to a perceived set of Cold War circumstances that both countries were to going to engage militarily -- even, with both militaries independently trying to manipulate a means towards it -- in spite of diplomatic efforts. And in the thickening tension of all this, and of one actual, military action resulting in the only casualty over these thirteen days, President Kennedy, even unbelievably without having a much more timely means of communicating back then with the Soviet leader, Secretary Khrushchev, stuck to lessons learned from reading The Guns of August, and managed with his advisers to absolutely exhaust diplomatic options for both leaders to hold their ground against the very imminent, nihilistic threat of nuclear war. A deal was made under the table, world order was restored, and millions of us ended up still here.
That was a different time, but still a very frightening time. And I cannot think of a likened scenario to it now, but either way every time that incident would somehow come to mind I always wonder, what might a different U.S. leader have done?
All I can say is I sure as hell hope she learned something since her vote to invade Iraq. Foreign policy is absolutely not a place to err towards the white noise of public opinion. (I felt from the very first moment I heard of sudden talk to invade Iraq that this was the wrong idea.) It is heavily nuanced and its' importance is not to be underestimated. And, what I do know for certain is that I have more faith in her foreign-policy judgment at this point than a President Trump or Cruz.
By way of campaign-fundraising, Trump and Sanders are getting all kinds of anti-establishment clout from either spending their own money or strictly accepting non-corporate donations for their respective campaigns. And if she as well says she is opposed to the Citizens United decision, well, at this point in the campaign she has had plenty of time to reconsider her fundraising options all the same. At this point in the campaign, Sanders has reportedly raised more disclosed money than any of the candidates.
It goes without saying that when one accepts this much fundraising from corporations, and investment banks, if many of them who tend to ideologically lean the other way still want some foot in the game they will hedge their bets and donate money to both ideologies to ensure their interests be kept in mind.
A Democrat’s job should be to ensure responsible regulating against anyone inclined to practice such freedom irresponsibly. Real, left-of-center folk should not have to, nor want to, tax or over-regulate the way to social and fiscal responsibility. Though, this unfortunately seems to end up having to be the general practice, worldwide.
I just do not currently think, on the strength of her administration alone, that she will be able to get Republicans in Congress to work with her, given how they have been such stonewalling-obstructionists over these past eight years. She may in certain areas have the credentials, but I don’t think she currently has what it takes to ideally inspire to try and overturn public opinion the way that someone like a Sanders has been pretty well succeeding at, in order to make more equitable, working changes. Her 'position' on the Trans-Pacific Partnership reflects more of the same on this.
Thus, her presidency appears it will be more of the same. But, now, I just saw a facebook comment from a Sanders supporter, after Sanders had won the West Virginia primary, stating that a vote for Hillary is one in the same as a vote for Trump. Accompanied by a small litany of her errors, the comment received well over 2,000 likes. There were numerous replies pretty well refuting this claim, and we'll give this initial commenter a C+ for effort, but the comparison is just very over-dramatic. This is a campaign for President, and passions are very strong, genuine, and high so long as Sanders and his supporters are still fighting for his ideas, but bear in mind she does still represent Democratically held ideals and values.
And, here is some food for thought... Say, Bernie-or-bust supporters insist upon write-in ballots to vote for Bernie and take enough votes away from the Democratic nominee and thus ensure an electoral victory for the presumptive Republican nominee -- someone, who David Brooks described as "epically unprepared" for the office. Given how much he is disliked in his own party, and say his V.P. pick ends up being someone who is a lot like him, you would then think it would be fairly predictable that both he and his V.P. would soon enough get impeached on the grounds of incompetence. Who would this then lead to in the Constitutional order of succession? President Paul Ryan.
As Senator Sanders made mention early on in these primaries, Hillary Clinton's worst day would most certainly be infinitely better than President Donald Trump's best.
And, bear in mind, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination it will not stop being important to keep this fight going. Now having seen what a Bernie Sanders can do, I am confident there will be Sanders-types running for Congressional seats in two years, four years, and certainly beyond. And, depending upon her supposed performance as President -- as it is not unheard of to challenge a sitting-President -- there is a very real chance we will have four years from now to do this again.
So, let’s just say for now I know who I will be voting against.
And, if you still don't wish to vote 'for' her, then by way of a person who works next-door to me, I saw a good bumper-sticker promoting this person for President.