I don’t understand why someone who has been investigated for years by a runaway prosecutor and a relentless media machine and found to have committed no crime continues to be the holy grail to these people but she does. There’s a hive-mind mentality about all this that comes into play when the media decides to “like” or “not like” a politician. It’s really that simple. And they do not like Hillary Clinton.
But the assumption that Clinton is guilty of crimes based upon her use of emails in the state department is just … nonsense. There is simply no there, there. And yet it’s taken on a life of its own, as these things do, and the original “crime” is no longer the issue. And we have no idea what the issue actually is. The idea that this has anything to do with the substance of “the case” is ludicrous. There is no case.
I have never understood this concept in American politics where it is imperative that we have to like someone in order to vote for them. I can’t think of a more irrelevant point upon which to base a selection for a job unless it’s the “would you want to have a beer with him/her?” one that they throw out. (The answer to that is, in my case, no, never.)
This whole idea about turning an election into a version of American Idol for Ugly People is ludicrous. You don’t have to like someone to agree or disagree with them on a policy choice about trade, immigration, or education funding. The question of trust should be based on whether or not you believe the person will do the job the way they say they will rather than looking into their private lives to see if they used the right e-mail server or, for that matter, didn’t rewind their tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster twenty-five years ago. I have voted wholeheartedly for candidates I didn’t like but agreed with their positions. The two are not mutually exclusive.
What pains me is that Hillary Clinton could be a good president and get things done but she will never get a fair shake from a segment of the electorate that have been hard-wired by haters to dismiss her. (I have to be honest; I felt the same way about Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush; turns out I was right, though.) There are those who will never give Barack Obama any credit for anything because, well, something is coloring their judgment.
How many of you could stand the scrutiny that we routinely use on our candidates? How many of them are hiding something that their campaign advisors said should be kept in the closet? Case in point: there’s a race for Congress in my district where the Republican incumbent is putting up scary ads about her opponent because he has a criminal record. That’s supposed to be a big reveal. Except her opponent’s first campaign mailer during the primary was very up-front with his criminal record and he said he’s learned a lot from his youthful mistakes and has nothing to hide; there is no case. But as long as we base our elections on the irrelevancies such as middle-school / Facebook “like” criteria, we will continue to get people in office who are there based on nothing more than that.