Maureen Dowd says it well in her PIECE in the New York Times, "With the Clinton's, Only the Shadow Knows". She asks "If you're aspiring to the second president in the family, why is it so hard to be straight and direct and stand for something? Why can't you just be upright and steady and good?"
Right on, Ms. Dowd. Here are three concerns about Ms. Clinton's governance style.
Madame Secretary took millions for her foundation from foreign leaders. The law prohibited such a conflict of interest, but this trail of being enamored with the almighty dollar is littered with renting out the Lincoln bedroom, accepting donations from a meet-and-greet coffee in the White House, removing antiques and dishes on their White House exit, enumerating underwear (from her Arkansas days) while giving a pittance to charity, and famously stating "we were dead broke" (while having two mansions and since then, having made $100 million).
It used to be that people didn't dare do stuff like that because it gave off a whiff of impropriety. Stinky stuff only happened in banana republics.
We don't want a president like that, do we?
Hillary has said
...she was named after Sir Edmund Hilary altho he climbed five years after her birth
...Benghazi was about a video
...she was fired on at her Bosnia arrival (didn't you-know-who lose his job over such claims?)
...she stood by her man and what was said in all the folders of women were the fault of the vast right-wing conspiracy to slander them
...she learned how to make a killing in the futures market by reading the Wall Street Journal (although the WSJ didn't cover the markets back then)
...the Rose Law Firm records were lost before they showed up on their own
And on and on. Don't we want a president whose word is good?
Democratic Congressmen defended Ms. Clintom about the Benghazi emails, saying she HAD turned them all over and Republicans were all on a witchhunt. Their faces must be beet red now as we find out she didn't turn emails over...because we didn't know to ask for emails on a server at her home.
If you set aside the huge security concerns that hacking might imply...if you set aside the contempt for the law...there's still is more. This is a woman determined to be in control.
But those emails belonged to us. When she went into her job, she agreed to protect the correspondence; when she left the job she agreed that none would be destroyed. These promises were broken before they were spoken. It is a felony for a person to knowingly and willfully destroy or conceal government records. By creating her own server, it was her intention to live above the law. On her own server, she can delete whatever she likes. It's not like being a part of a large server where things can be found.
Do we want a president who has a sense they work FOR us and is submitted to our laws? Or shall we have someone who exhausts us with imperial dodging and semantics?
In short, don't we want someone who CANNOT BE BOUGHT, TELLS THE TRUTH, and who BEARS INSPECTION?
Surely that's not too much to ask. Surely there's a better candidate. Why is it so important that we have a woman if the woman isn't a good choice? Only the shadow knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment