I track politics quite a bit, as an analyst for the bureau, ok, for the fun of it. This means I am abreast of the latest about Hillary's email server. As such, I can't seem to understand how her supporters still, well, support her.
The obligatory, these days, disclaimer must be said, and then mostly disbelieved, that I don't care that Hillary is a woman. I only care that she is a bad candidate. She's not very good.
It amuses me to no end that her campaign has reliably been forced to trot out the fact that she is incompetent as proof she is not a criminal. What do I mean?
The most recent bit, trotted out by her campaign, is that she doesn't even know how to use a computer. She used a Blackberry because she knows how.
Wow, where to start. This woman would have us believe she's competent to run the free world but not competent to use a computer? That she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that her home server was secure but she doesn't know how to use a computer? I can go on like this for a while.
A reasonably wise and competent leader would at least attend a class, break out one of the 'Idiots' books, or hire someone to personally teach her. She's rich enough. The fact that she hasn't even, minimally, done this suggests that she's just not that interested in being the best possible public servant she can be.
That isn't really a surprise; being a servant isn't part of her character. She's an 'elite' in her mind. She's better than the rest of us and we should be ecstatic, I tell you, ecstatic to let her be involved in running things because, well, there's something or other she has or does that makes it all better.
Except that it doesn't. She wasn't particularly good as Secretary of State. She was almost a non-entity as a senator. As First Lady, her only policy effort failed, thank goodness, and has recently been held up by a federal court as a model of mendacity.
The only thing she shows any aptitude for is lying, although she's incompetent at that too. Bill would lie and then stick with his story. Hillary tells one lie, gets called out, shifts to a new lie, gets called out, then, sometimes, shifts back to the original lie hoping we've all forgotten. Her lies are now too numerous to print.
The thing is that if she'd simply seized the narrative and said that she did use a personal email server, State was not aware of it, but it wasn't illegal and wasn't insecure, and, yes, classified information likely did pass through it but she was not aware of any, she'd now be looking at a slap on the wrist and it wouldn't likely affect her campaign as much.
It is the lies that affect her campaign. It's not that she's dishonest; that was known because she is, after all, a lawyer and a politician. It's the fact that her lies were all so transparently aimed at conning the American public into electing her, which, combined with the evidence she believes she's entitled to the office, paint a picture of someone who lacks the humility to properly serve the American people.
She, if elected, intends to get out in front of all of us and lead us to where we were going anyway, as she does not actually have an original idea. The only things she intends to try to make happen that are against the public opinion are things that are very bad. She is the caricature of the establishment candidate: led by the nose by special interests, only willing to stand up for ideas that are inconsequential except to harass populations considered evil by liberals, and completely certain of her personal superiority and therefore the right to make such decisions on our behalf.
The obligatory, these days, disclaimer must be said, and then mostly disbelieved, that I don't care that Hillary is a woman. I only care that she is a bad candidate. She's not very good.
It amuses me to no end that her campaign has reliably been forced to trot out the fact that she is incompetent as proof she is not a criminal. What do I mean?
The most recent bit, trotted out by her campaign, is that she doesn't even know how to use a computer. She used a Blackberry because she knows how.
Wow, where to start. This woman would have us believe she's competent to run the free world but not competent to use a computer? That she knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that her home server was secure but she doesn't know how to use a computer? I can go on like this for a while.
A reasonably wise and competent leader would at least attend a class, break out one of the 'Idiots' books, or hire someone to personally teach her. She's rich enough. The fact that she hasn't even, minimally, done this suggests that she's just not that interested in being the best possible public servant she can be.
That isn't really a surprise; being a servant isn't part of her character. She's an 'elite' in her mind. She's better than the rest of us and we should be ecstatic, I tell you, ecstatic to let her be involved in running things because, well, there's something or other she has or does that makes it all better.
Except that it doesn't. She wasn't particularly good as Secretary of State. She was almost a non-entity as a senator. As First Lady, her only policy effort failed, thank goodness, and has recently been held up by a federal court as a model of mendacity.
The only thing she shows any aptitude for is lying, although she's incompetent at that too. Bill would lie and then stick with his story. Hillary tells one lie, gets called out, shifts to a new lie, gets called out, then, sometimes, shifts back to the original lie hoping we've all forgotten. Her lies are now too numerous to print.
The thing is that if she'd simply seized the narrative and said that she did use a personal email server, State was not aware of it, but it wasn't illegal and wasn't insecure, and, yes, classified information likely did pass through it but she was not aware of any, she'd now be looking at a slap on the wrist and it wouldn't likely affect her campaign as much.
It is the lies that affect her campaign. It's not that she's dishonest; that was known because she is, after all, a lawyer and a politician. It's the fact that her lies were all so transparently aimed at conning the American public into electing her, which, combined with the evidence she believes she's entitled to the office, paint a picture of someone who lacks the humility to properly serve the American people.
She, if elected, intends to get out in front of all of us and lead us to where we were going anyway, as she does not actually have an original idea. The only things she intends to try to make happen that are against the public opinion are things that are very bad. She is the caricature of the establishment candidate: led by the nose by special interests, only willing to stand up for ideas that are inconsequential except to harass populations considered evil by liberals, and completely certain of her personal superiority and therefore the right to make such decisions on our behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment