I can
understand, intellectually at least, the appeal that Ted Cruz has to some of
the more conservative and religious among the Republican base. And I can understand,
intellectually at least, the appeal that Donald Trump, vulgar and bombastic as
he is, has to some of the more angry among the Republican base. And I can
certainly understand the appeal that Bernie Sanders’ populist, if unrealistic, socialist
proposals have for the young.
But I
can’t for the life of me understand why Hillary Clinton has any supporters, and
certainly not why she seems to have enough to probably win the Democratic
nomination.
Here is
a candidate who has been involved in a string of highly questionable deals stretching
back decades. The Rose Law Firm records (that showed she had double charged
clients) that mysteriously disappeared, and then – surprise – turned up in the
White House family quarters. The Whitewater scandal. Then there is the $1000
investment that Tyson Foods Counsel James Blair helped her turn into an $90,000+
profit in ten months, and strangely enough Tyson Foods then got some special favorable
treatment from the then-governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. Or consider the $600,000 the Saudi government
paid her husband for two 1 hour speechs, just when she, as Secretary of State,
was negotiating a sweet deal for them.
And of
course we now know that with her home-grown email server she violated,
consciously and repeatedly, the most stringent US security requirements,
exposing highly classified information to our enemies and perhaps even putting
the lives of some of our undercover agents at risk.
And she
continues to promise that she will rein in the excesses of Wall Street, even
while Wall Street firm Goldman Sacks is paying her $200,000 an hour ($$600,000
in one year) for speeches. In fact, the Federal Election Commission just this
morning reported (see The Washington Post)
that through the end of December she has taken in $21.4 million in Wall Street
donations, and in all they have given her $44.1 million. Do her supporter
really believe that if elected she will turn against these donors?
My
grandfather, a staunch Republican, used to talk about “yellow dog Democrats”: ie
– Democrats who would even vote for a yellow dog (a term of derision at the
time) if it were on the Democratic ticket. No doubt there are “yellow dog
Republicans” as well. But I do have to
wonder at the apparent blindness of Hillary’s committed followers. Do they think she didn’t really do these
things? Do they still buy the repeated
old “right-wing conspiracy” excuses? Or do they think she will be different if
she is elected?
It
baffles me.
Posts
