Donald Trump seems to be the candidate of choice to roast this election cycle, which is understandable given his surprising breakout on the political scene and the unique bravado of his rhetoric. Today, I would like to shift direction somewhere else. To all the conservatives, liberals, moderates, libertarians, socialists, crypto-feudalists, and far left social justice warriors reading, let’s take a moment to recognize an oft forgotten fact of the current political climate: Hillary Rodham Clinton is an abhorrent candidate for President.
For those of you who haven’t hurled down their 72-ounce cups of heart disease in disgust already, perhaps I can offer some items for consideration. For those of you unaware or apathetic towards the current Presidential election, Secretary Clinton is currently leading over the firebrand social democrat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nomination process, despite the latter’s superior meming abilities. Her campaign currently rests on the laurels of her experience as Secretary of State, her term as a Senator from New York, and her efforts as First Lady during her husband’s presidency. Such an extensive repertoire conceals one of many unfortunate truths about her campaign, however. Hillary may not be lacking experience, but her record is devoid of results.
It’s useful to start at her tenure as FLOTUS, primarily because she was did little damage to Arkansas compared to her equally dubious partner in crime (I do mean the crime part literally), William Jefferson Clinton. While the first lady is not an elected representative of the people, and thus in my opinion is much less beholden to a results-driven work ethic, most have found an issue to base their time in Washington around. For Michelle Obama, this was healthy living for the young; for Nancy Reagan, it was anti-drug education. Both were admirable pursuits, but not substantive policy operations. Mrs. Clinton spearheaded a much larger mission, one that had not been seriously considered since the later years of Johnson’s Great Society program: healthcare. She initially commanded much attention for her push to implement a nationwide derivative of single payer health care, a model of medical care employed currently in many countries including Canada. While controversial, this was a serious policy issue, and the fact that Mrs. Clinton was spearheading it introduced her Democratic contemporaries that she was a woman of serious aspirations.
Removing the politics of the healthcare debate from the equation for a moment, there are wider issues with her mission. First, it never amounted to any real work of any kind. While even the “MyPlate” initiative at yielded a colorful diagram (one with little to no use in any practical discussion of nutrition, child health planning, or even in a rudimentary art class), Mrs. Clinton’s initiative fell at the mercy of lobbyists, many of whom would later become quite fond of Mrs. Clinton, who would in turn become fond of their wallets. One lobbyist, a friend of the pharmaceutical and healthcare lobbies named Charles Kahn, had initially fought her measures as first lady. However, once the measures fell to pieces, the two, as well as many other health care lobbyists, developed a much closer relationship, with Mrs. Clinton now attacking Bernie Sanders for advocating the existence of universal government sponsored health care. Again, I am not discussing the validity of arguments on health care, but Mrs. Clinton’s stance lies in direct contradiction with her previous actions and paints her as caring more about financial gains than a principled policy position.
This money was put to use quickly. Following Bill’s return to a private life of playing tag with interns and “not inhaling” marijuana, the Clintons returned home to New York. Actually, New York was never their home, but it was the home of an open U.S. Senate seat, and while America had had enough of Bill’s antics, it was just warming up to Hillary. She won the election with ease, using her newfound friends’ cash infusion to set up a cushy base of operations in Westchester County. From her position in Washington Mrs. Clinton backed a series of governmental ventures that she has since come to regret, including but not limited to the 2nd war in Iraq (or the future home of the 3rd war in Iraq), the USAPATRIOT Act, the internet censorship policies put forth under SOPA and many other unpopular policies that served her needs at the time.
A mind numbing example of this comes from her position on gay marriage.In 2000, Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying, “I think marriage is as marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” In a stunning reversal, her campaign is now overflowing with pro LGBTQ sentiment, including biting criticism of opponents of gay marriage, especially those who fall into her sights as bigots, homophobes, or regressive scum. Writing on the topic of Clinton’s change, Philip Klein stated, “To say Clinton ‘evolved’ on gay marriage is sort of like saying Peter Parker changed slightly after being bitten by a radioactive spider.” Hillary’s positions are positions of pandering, pure and simple. She feigns the crusade of social justice when expedient, but lacks both principled convictions and the political courage to forge an independent streak of any kind in her pursuit of power. She has consistently followed behind the tide on issues in a weak attempt at stoking populist fervor, employing despicable tactics along the way to curry the support of those sympathetic to her battle cry of the offended progressive. By decrying her detractors as sexists, as has happened with Obama supporters, Sanders supporters, and to anyone with the slightest scent of the word “Republican” on their breath, Clinton paints herself as a Democratic Joan of Arc, crusading against a cabal of misogyny that consistently moves to thwart her because of her sex organs. As one such detractor, I can assure you two things: 1. The sexism argument is much too overhyped, and 2. The women of America deserve better than Hillary Clinton after two centuries of struggle for equal rights.
Outside of policy discourse, there is the figure of Clinton in power, a figure who is in many ways significantly more detestable than her persona of rhetoric. Her only real position where her actions constituted any importance was as Secretary of State. While there are a plethora of little incidents with which one could (and should) lampoon her record, including her fantastic “Russian Reset,” which was followed by the annexation of Crimea and the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations under the watch of her and President Obama’s other Secretary of State, John Kerry, two events clearly stick out. The first is the now infamous incident in Benghazi, Libya. On September 11, 2012, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda, resulting in the deaths of four Americans. In the aftermath of the event, the President, Mrs. Clinton, and other top administration officials framed the incident as a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim film, a claim which was subsequently carried in much of the media. The claim was debunked by researchers, who published a report through George Mason University indicating that the attack had been planned well in advance by jihadist organizations, though this was not acknowledged until much later by Mrs. Clinton and others. Additionally, there has been harsh criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s initial response to the attack and the decision not to deploy special forces to intervene. The controversy will continue to face scrutiny for some time as lawmakers continue to hold hearings on the attacks, but what seems clear is that Mrs. Clinton and others outright lied about the attack, which came with the impending 2012 election, as it would have proved disastrous to the administration for such an attack to undermine the President’s claim that terrorism was on the decline worldwide. Hillary Clinton, like many others, actively perpetuated this lie, likely as a political means to an end. Certainly this is not the behavior of a reputable, trustworthy, or morally decent figure.
This was then followed by a scandal over Clinton’s private email server, which was unencrypted and used to send State Department classified informations until being discovered by a hacker. I understand the last section got rather complex, so simply consider this: Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked by a lone man in Romania with no outside help because he had some technical ability. Given that, how difficult would it be for the governments of Russia or China to access critical data transmitted in this way? I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that Clinton acted out malicion in setting up this server. What it does show however, is that Hillary Clinton acts above the law. Her position required certain behaviors on her part in order to maintain security. She violated these due to the same type of narcissistic neglect that leads to accidents every day, only these accidents potentially jeopardized U.S. intelligence assets. The point is, the country should not be trusted in the hands of someone so incompetent that even simple emails were compromised in the pursuit immediate personal gratification.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that this is a work of my opinion (with a nice smattering of facts thrown in). While I would highly encourage any self respecting American to avoid this lying, corrupt, incompetent tool of political correctness on election day, I fully recognize that it’s not really any of my business. So come election day, if you want to throw your vote directly in the trashcan and crap on everything the Republic stands for, be my guest. Just remember, you were warned.