HILLARY POST-ELECTION

Full disclosure.  I intensely dislike Hillary Clinton, not just politically, but also personally.  Correction, I detest her, literally, meaning I have a “deep contempt or repugnance” for her.  So, if you are a Kool-Aid-drinking Hillary fan, and I know there are many of you out there, you might not exactly enjoy this blog.  But, in my view, Hillary’s post-election behavior has been over-the-top inappropriate, divisive, and extremely harmful to this country, and I can no longer stand by idly without commenting.

To be sure, prior to the 2016 election I was not a Hillary fan.  I disagreed with her, politically.  I thought she was a below average Secretary of State and had been a pedestrian NY Senator.  In particular, I was appalled by her handling of the Benghazi fiasco.  I suppose, one could argue whether and to what degree she was responsible for the inadequate security and lack of preparedness, but her failure to accept even a modicum of responsibility, her blaming a video, and her callous lack of empathy for the victims and their families was astonishing.  (Remember the inane comment “what difference, at this point, does it matter?”)

Moreover, I  cannot think of even one country or entity with which we had a better relationship after her tenure than before.  If you can, please tell me.  But, offhand, I can think of several that were worse, such as North Korea, Iran, Russia and ISIS.  But, although I disagreed with her, politically, I did not detest her, personally.  Her earlier “misadventures” and “irregularities,” such as Whitewater and questionable commodities trading, had faded from memory.

However, her post-election actions have been extremely odd and inappropriate, if not downright unconscionable.  It appears, she cannot and will not accept the fact that she lost, fair and square.  She has outspokenly been blaming everyone else but herself – former FBI Director Comey, GOP dirty tricks, the Russians, her campaign advisors, the Electoral College, negative press, a misogynistic electorate.  She refuses to take responsibility for running a poor campaign.  (By the way, there are sound reasons why the “Founding Fathers” established the EC, and sound reasons why it is still advisable today, but that is the subject for another blog)

It was she who chose not to campaign in Wisconsin; it was she who made derogatory comments with respect to the coal industry and coal miners; it was she who made the ill-advised “basket of deplorables” comment, which offended fully one-half of the electorate; it was she who set up a private server on which she maintained classified documents in contravention of US laws and common sense and which triggered the FBI investigation; it was she who was caught utilizing a foundation for questionable, if not illegal, activities; it was she who gave the impression that the laws, rules and standards of behavior that apply to the rest of us do not apply to her; it was she who misread the mood of half of the electorate; and it was she who was simply a personally unpopular candidate.

At the beginning of the campaign her election seemed inevitable.  But, first, she had trouble defeating Bernie Sanders, a heretofore obscure Senator from Vermont, a fringe candidate, and an avowed socialist.  One could argue she only did so because of the Party nomination rules that strongly favor the insiders’ candidate over the will of the primary voters.  Then, somehow, she managed to lose an election to a GOP candidate with no political experience and the highest “negatives” of any candidate ever, that was there for the winning, and that a person like Joe Biden, limited though he may be, would likely have won.  She did it.  She did it all.  She was responsible.  She must take responsibility.  She must “own” it.

CONCLUSION

For me, the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was her tasteless, opportunistic tweet regarding the mass shooting in Las Vegas last Sunday, which I discussed in my last blog.  I believe it was grossly inappropriate and divisive and showed a total lack of empathy for the victims and their loved ones.  Can you imagine her saying words to that effect as President?  Talk about leadership!

The kindest way to put it is that Hillary is a “sore loser.”  On the playground, if you lose, you get off the court and leave it to the winners.  There are no “do-overs.”  Same thing in politics.  We don’t redo elections.  Even the much-detested Richard Nixon declined to take issue with the voting “irregularities” in Chicago and other places in the 1960 Presidential election, which he lost to JFK by a whisker.  He knew the score and respected the outcome for the good of the country.

Hillary could take a lesson from Nixon.  Her refusal to take responsibility and her insistence on blaming external factors, particularly the Russian government, has been very divisive.  Incidentally, remember when Hillary made a big point about foreign heads of state preferring her over Mr. Trump?  Why then would the Russian government, or any government, interfere in his favor over her?

Several months of comprehensive investigation have disclosed only that Russian sources of indeterminate origin managed to hack the DNC server and plant negative emails about Hillary, but so what?  That’s politics, and it happens with respect to most every election.  Not one “smidgen” (Love that word.  Thanks Barack.) of evidence has been uncovered that proves Russia or anyone else tampered with the actual voting process.

Her book and book tour, where she has been reiterating the above excuses ad nauseum, is a further embarrassment.  It is also so sad to see her Kool-Aid-drinking followers lapping up her c**p.  The letter reading on Kimmel the other night was particularly over the top.  The really sad thing is that Hillary still serves as a role model for many women.  They aspire to be like her.  Oh, well.

Hillary is not the future of the Democratic party.  She is the past.  Ditto for Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders and all the other all-too-familiar faces.  The party needs new leaders or else it will reprise its last defeat.  Maybe, someone will emerge in 2018.  Maybe.

Some day the US will have a female president.  There is no reason why we shouldn’t.  I’m sure there are many qualified females.  Most of us are just not aware of them.  Maybe she is in kindergarten right now, or, perhaps , she hasn’t even been born yet.  If she is worthy on the merits, she will win.

 

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “HILLARY POST-ELECTION

  1. I couldn’t agree more with you regrading the witch Hillary: Cheater, lair, filthy, corrupt, pandering, hypocrite, sellout, poor loser, pimping Bill and Chelsea, inept, mediocre, ignorant, old wrinkle bag

  2. By your third full sentence you turned off the 65,844,954 Hillary Clinton voters, calling us “Kool-Aid-drinking;” worse, you conclude with that insult. In this era especially, resisting the urge to name-call would enable thoughtful discussion.

    Before characterizing Clinton’s post-election actions, if you haven’t read “What Happened,“ consider reading David Remnick’s September 25, 2017 New Yorker article, “Hillary Clinton Looks Back in Anger.” He “speaks with her about her new memoir, the campaign, her stinging loss, and its aftermath; their conversation touched on the former F.B.I. director James Comey, accusations of Russian interference, and the role of sexism in Trump’s victory.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/25/hillary-clinton-looks-back-in-anger Her assessments are much more complex and nuanced than “misogynistic electorate.” She cites examples of behavior, comportment, even attire that voters accept readily in a male that are not accepted in a female candidate. Can you disagree?

    Clinton’s tweet after the Las Vegas shooting: “Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.
    The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
    Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
    Which part is “tasteless, opportunistic . . . inappropriate . . . divisive . . . lack of empathy?” I don’t see what either FoxNews or The Daily Wire sees! Can you clarify?

      • And -no-you didn’t hit a nerve at all. I dislike Hillary Clinton’s attributes, instincts, behaviors, responses. And further agree that her post election assessments serve neither her, nor her party well. Better to isolate factors she could have controlled -like following all protocols for handling electronic information, as inconvenient as they might have been. (Think I wanted to carry around 2 laptops, 2 phones and a pager to adhere to AT&T rules?).

        I think name calling is dangerous, sophomoric and obviates reasoned analysis. Also fosters name calling. Check out your name-calling responses.

      • You’re correct in that I did vent.  Tbat’s the fun part about having one’s own blog.  BTW how did you do on the last quiz?  

        Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s