Why Hillary must be stopped in 2016

The prospect of Hillary Clinton is one that should do more than anything to unite the Republicans: it is absolutely vital for the prospects of America that she never becomes President. She is a careerist of the worst kind

Hilary
Hillary! Say no more...
Elliot_burns
Elliot Burns
On 25 February 2014 11:18

There seems to be an awful inevitability to it: Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination with ease, then proceeds to sweep to victory against a bitterly divided and dysfunctional GOP, torn apart from within. This is the nightmare scenario for 2016, and I don't use the term 'nightmare' lightly.

The prospect of Hillary Clinton is one that should do more than anything to unite the Republicans: it is absolutely vital for the prospects of America that she never becomes President.

Politically, she's about as unethical a figure as you could want in the White House. If you think Obama was bad, just wait for Hillary. As her supervisor from her time at the Watergate investigation put it: “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution.”

After eight years of Obama, America could do without another dishonest lawyer with contempt for the very constitution the President swears to uphold.

Then there's her record in government: as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. As First Lady, her signature healthcare act 'HillaryCare' was such a disaster in 1993 that not only did it fail to gain any support from either side of the aisle, it also contributed to the Democrats losing control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.

Then, in 2000, she ran for Senate in the state of New York, doing what all power hungry narcissists do: becoming a parachute candidate (or carpetbagger), and running in a state in which she didn't live and never had. She merely wanted to get into the Senate, not to represent the people of her state.

As Senator, her achievements amounted to nothing: not a single piece of major legislation to her name in her entire six year term. Then, as Secretary of State, she won plenty of admirers for doing the minimum required.

She toured the world more than any other Secretary of State, yet the world was in a worse place when she left office than when she took the reins, and that is always the barometer by which the success of a Secretary of State should be judged.

She is a careerist of the worst kind: the kind who got into politics to sit behind impressive oak desks in leather chairs and not make decisions. Perhaps that's why the Presidency is so appealing to her: it is another job title to add to her collection, and she can still get away with doing nothing by hiding behind a divided Congress, much as Barack Obama has done.

But what should worry Americans most of all about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency is her failure under pressure and her blasé attitude towards loss of American life in Benghazi.

After her inaction had directly resulted in the death of four Americans in the embassy, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, the attempts by Congress to hold her to account were met with the callous reply: ''What difference, at this point, does it make?” This alone tells you all you need to know about the front runner to be America's Commander-in-Chief come 2016, and why the GOP must muster everything they have to stop her.

But there will always be those who want the opportunity to make history: the first female President would certainly be a momentous day. However, wanting to make history winds up giving you terrible Presidents: there can be no better example than 2008.

This is no argument against having a woman President, I firmly believe whoever is best for the job should be the one that gets it, regardless of gender, race, creed or religion.

It's just that a victory for Hillary would be no victory for women. It would be a victory for a woman who achieved prominence because of her husband, who became a Senator because of her husband, and was given the springboard to the Presidency by her husband.

It would be far more historic if the first female President was a woman who had got there on her own merit, not on the coat-tails of her husband. A Hillary victory would be no watershed moment. It would be a disaster for America.

Elliot Burns is a freelance writer for The Commentator and others. He is also the Director of Political Policy at The Institute for Policy Design

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus