So very typical of a Clinton. To act in a way counter to the normal procedure, get caught, deny, and then string out the controversy. I am having flashbacks after flashbacks of all of the minor controversies of the Clinton Administration. I seem to remember that HRC's instincts back then were to withhold information, just making things worse. I had much sympathy for the Clintons back then since the unrelenting Starr investigations, including perjury traps over a stupid affair, justified a protective stance of some kind. The difference is that Travel-Gate was far less significant than a Secretary of State using a private, unsecured email address and server. I have no idea what her initial motivation was, but she should have learned something from her eight years in the White House other than how best to control information.
It is not just astoundingly poor judgment but reminds me of why I was not a fan of HRC eight years ago. Not just too much baggage but just poor instincts. The problem now is that it is late in the game and the alternatives are pretty bleak. I would love for alternative candidate to appear who could win the general election, even if it would deny my mother's dream to see a woman in the White House. That will happen some day, and probably with HRC, but I think she would be a mediocre president. Too much entitlement, too much secrecy, too few commitments to real policy solutions.
Yet the GOP
primary campaign means that I will take the bad over the worse, especially with the GOP having control of both houses. I don't feel good about the likely choice I will have to make, and HRC is making me feel worse about it all the time. The bad news is that the Canadian election is also one of figuring out the least bad option.
Post a Comment