I cannot understand why anyone in our generation supports Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. The grassroots movement of organizers for her is called “Ready for Hillary” — well, I’m not.
For all the political prowess of her husband, Clintonis a pretty bad retail politician with a weak record.
As First Lady , she ruffled feathers and stepped on toes all over Washington. She was a polarizing figure right from the start of her time on the national stage, and her signature initiative, major healthcare reform, crashed and burned due to overconfidence and bungled politics.
She rode name recognition to a seat in the U.S. Senate , and had an undistinguished legislative record. She tried to ride her husband’s success to the White House in 2008, and while her campaign garnered millions of votes, it was also arrogant, disorganized and ultimately unsuccessful. Her tenure as Secretary of State (a position she gained with little foreign policy experience) saw few tangible gains in diplomacy and the rise of worldwide tensions, unchecked by her "smart power" strategy.
I understand why older voters would support a Hillary Clinton presidency. They might see it as a return to the Bill Clinton era, where there was peace and prosperity. But younger voters would theoretically have scant memory of those days, and little emotional attachment to the Clinton Camelot myth.
That leads me to ask a question: is the main reason they support her a desire to see a woman in the oval office?
That may sound sexist, but I believe voting for a woman based on her husband’s record or her gender alone is the true injustice. There are many female politicians that have earned their offices without help from a man, and many with more significant legislative and diplomatic accomplishments than Clinton. I would much rather see a woman reach the highest office in the land based on her qualifications and not her gender or spouse.
But isn’t that unfair to Clinton? After all, she should be judged separately from her husband, right? I would agree, except that for her whole career she has embraced the “two for the price of one” model of the political wife by latching her career to her her husband’s. She’s Claire Underwood, except not as cunning and skilled an operator.
Most politicians have scandal somewhere in their political lives, but the Clintons have a veritable Pandora's Box of skullduggery in their past. Hillary will be saddled with this baggage in a general election campaign. Whitewater, Travelgate, the Rose Law Firm, the Lewinsky scandal, their foundation — the list goes on and on. Live by the husband, die by the husband.
Clinton's latest starring role in a scandal sees her accused of violating federal law to cover up politically damaging e-mails. It's a Nixonian plot with a modern twist, and it demonstrates her vulnerability as a candidate. She could be a disastrous nominee for the Democrats in 2016.
The Republicans are no better, as Jeb Bush appears as the front-runner for the Republican nomination based mainly on the accomplishments of others. But at least he has sought to distance himself from his family, and has always run on his own merits.
At this point, I have not found a better alternative to Clintonfor 2016, Republican or Democrat. But based on her record and the last few months, I believe there must be one out there somewhere.
I'm not "Ready for Hillary."