Skip to content

The Clinton campaign of denials.

September 2, 2016

It’s becoming increasingly difficult for people who want to vote for Hillary Clinton to find positive reasons to support her.

Veteran politicians should have a built-in advantage over political neophytes like Donald Trump.

They have a record of performance to refer to that is directly related to their political qualifications for the office they seek.

Perhaps they sponsored and got passed some landmark legislation or they were governors who lowered unemployment and  balanced the state budget or they are on some groups “friendly” list, like the NFIB’s list of small business-friendly legislators.

Instead, the Clinton campaign seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that Mrs. Clinton is less dishonest than her opponent.

Take their claims that Mr. Trump and/or members of his campaign are flunkies for Vladimir Putin.

They failed to note that one of their group, John Podesta,  also has had some dealings with the Russian president, not to mention a little matter of some uranium that wound up in Russian hands.

Apparently in retaliation for Trump’s attacks on Bill Clinton’s morals, some supporters of her campaign have accused  Mr. Trump’s wife of being an escort, i.e. a prostitute.

That’s likely to  become an expensive campaign donation, should Mrs. Trump win her defamation suit.

Mrs. Clinton was of course a senator from New York and Secretary of State, but trying to find a lot of good things to say about those two past periods of employment is a struggle.

In fact, based on the release of the FBI documents pertaining to her repeated claims of “not knowing or understanding” her job as Secretary of State when being interviewed by the FBI, one could even say that finding good things to say is impossible.

That leaves pretty much nothing to cheer for except her promises to extract more money to redistribute from the citizens. (OK, some of the citizens. The rich Republican  ones.)

Whatever the outcome, this election will go down as the dirtiest, sleaziest least useful issue campaign in history to date.

Ned, a lifelong Democrat, summed up his feelings about the election this way:

“I feel like I’m being asked to vote for crook of the year instead of a president. I guess if I vote I’ll just have to decide which one’s the least likely to wind up being impeached.”


From → op-ed

  1. Since The Daily Mail printed a clear retraction and apologized, I’m guessing the defamation suit is pretty much over. There might still be negotiations over a settlement. Mrs. Trump would have to prove damages and malice in order to win in court. Hard to do if the perpetrator says publicly “we messed up”.

  2. Agreed. Still, where there are willing plaintiffs and willing attorneys, never say never. I doubt it would go forward during the campaign, but if her husband loses????

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: