Democrats have all but anointed Hilary Clinton as their 2016 presidential nominee. This does not make a lot of sense. Clinton’s supporters should ask what she accomplished during her career and specifically her eight years as New York’s senator that would compel people to vote for her?
Right up front, let’s make clear this is not about Benghazi. Only nut-bags and half-wits consider the unfortunate U.S. Libyan embassy deaths a campaign issue.
Far more important is Clinton’s 2003 vote as New York’s senator authorizing then President George W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq. At the time, the U.S. public was clamoring to atone for the catastrophic 9-11 attacks that happened during Bush’s watch. Never mind that Iraq had no part in them.
Frugal Ron, and many others who live far from Washington D.C., figured out early Bush’s War was far more about George W. Bush’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein than national security. Yet Senator Clinton, who had easy access to her husband’s advisors that dealt with an irreconcilable George W. Bush after the alleged 1993 assassination attempt on former President George Bush by supposed Iraqi agents, either didn’t do her research or ignored it. George W. Bush called the alleged assassination attempt an “act of war” and demanded a major military response. President Bill Clinton didn’t give him the response he wanted. It didn’t take a genius to figure out a President George W. Bush was going to one way or another make a war against Saddam Hussein happen. Senator Clinton aided and abetted his efforts with her Senate vote.
After the invasion, we confirmed Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were just a Bush lie. Senator Clinton acted surprised. The rest of us were surprised she was so easily duped. Perhaps Clinton’s supporters think her 2003 vote and lack of judgement is less important now or that we forgot her lack of courage and her joining the mob mentality Bush fostered.
The vision versus the reality
President Bill Clinton’s economic miracle encompassed all social-economic groups. Ms. Clinton’s supporters believe she will replicate the same results. This is more than likely wishful thinking.
Bill Clinton’s presidency was the most economically conservative in a generation. It was no coincidence that it was the most successful. The key was Clinton sacrificed his Congressional majorities for a tax increase that enabled him to balance the federal budget. Pushing through the Uruguay round of global trade agreements and giving China Most Favored Nation trading status were almost equally important. And, for good measure, he passed the most comprehensive welfare reform bill in history. Nothing in her labor union supporting history would lead us to believe the independent thinking Hillary Clinton would follow her husband’s path.
Alternatives
A Hillary Clinton presidential nomination is all the more puzzling when one looks at the many strong alternatives Democrats have. While Republicans toy with nominating one of the country’s worst governors in Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Democrats have the complete antithesis in neighboring Minnesota’s Mark Dayton. Another alternative is Delaware’s Governor Jack Markell who is pioneering unbiased, databased ways to find superior teachers. Long after we bomb the the Islamic State into history, the U.S. will need the world’s strongest intellectual capital to keep up global economic leadership. Markell could supply that.
Democrats somehow believe Hillary Clinton is unbeatable in 2016. This overconfidence could be disastrous. In 2012, Republicans cooperated by nominating an unelectable presidential ticket. In 2008 , they nominated an unelectable vice presidential candidate. Democrats can’t count on that generosity again. It could be a short election night for Democrats if a viable Republican presidential candidate continually asks Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, “What have you done for us lately?”
