Now that it appears a near certainty that Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2016 (something I thought of as no more than a 50/50 proposition until the last few weeks), what part of her past will the media spotlight shine on?
Will it be her accomplishments in public life – most recently as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State? Don\’t bet on it, because there aren\’t any.
The best her people will be able to do is barf out platitudinous claims that she “fought for” this, or “long has been a champion of ” that — which means she talked a good game but they have no tangible personal accomplishment to credit her with. (Saying things like “She championed women\’s rights and look at all the legislation that was passed” may sound impressive if you\’re not listening very well, but unless it was her legislation, it\’s a big so what? Personally, I have always championed women\’s rights: does that mean I can take credit for the legislation too?)
But, on the negative side, there is plenty she can be tagged with – the email scandal high among them, especially as it relates to Benghazi (if you believe her claim that virtually no emails were sent or received during the Benghazi period, stop reading now. You are too far gone for facts or logic).
And then there is this, excerpted from Greg Gordon\’s article at mcclatchydc.com (a venue which, based on recent material, seems to be breaking out of the unrelenting partisanship most mainstream media are professionally suffocated by):
Four oil-rich Arab nations, all with histories of philanthropy to United Nations and Middle Eastern causes, have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.
Since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, six similar non-governmental global charities collected no money from those same four Middle Eastern countries; the International Committee of the Red Cross was given $6.82 million. Since 2001,
The existence of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation has been well-documented in the media. What hasn\’t been revealed, however, is the disparity in donations by these four nations, all of which have been criticized by the State Department over the years for a spate of issues ranging from the mistreatment of women to stoking ethnic discord in the flammable Middle East.
Moreover, the level of Arab support for the Clinton Foundation, which occurred during the time Hillary Clinton was a U.S. senator, was seeking the Democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama, and was serving as secretary of state, fuels questions about the reasons for the donations. Were they solely to support the foundation\’s causes, or were they designed to curry favor with the ex-president and with a potential future president?
Is this a major concern? You bet it is.
If these countries were contributing to the Clinton foundation in similar amounts as they were to other charitable organizations, I assume Ms. Clinton\’s critics would be attacking her anyway…but, then, the entirely credible answer would be “sure they give, just like they give to everyone else”.
But they are not giving to Clinton the way they give to everyone else, are they? And if you think what you just read tells the story, by all means use the link I\’ve provided and read the rest, because I\’m just scratching the surface.
Now, tell me: what happens when the extent of these donations, especially compared to what was given to other charitable foundations, is tied to the fact that – as I have written about in the past – Ms. Clinton\’s key advisor/confidante of many years, Huma Abedin, has deep familial ties to the terrorist-supporting Muslim Brotherhood? Do you doubt that will come out – sooner, rather than later?
Today, Rand Paul – a first term senator with no foreign policy experience (sound familiar…like the guy in office right now?) is going to announce his candidacy for President – joining his experience-and-qualifications twin, Ted Cruz.
Hillary Clinton – a terrible campaigner with no record of accomplishments, and enough baggage to fill an Airbus cargo hold to overflowing – had better hope that one of these two, or someone else like them, is her opponent. Then her poor campaigning skills and lack of accomplishments won\’t look as bad as they are.
But either way, a Hillary candidacy just may herald a very dark next four years for the Democrat Party.
