New Hampshire Reflections: Let’s Leave Aside The E-Mail And The Lies For Now: Hillary’s Reaction To Adversity Shows She Is Unfit To Lead

I freely admit that it is unfair to use unflattering photos like this, which Drudge is featuring today. But it made me laugh, and maybe it will brighten someone else's day.

I freely admit that it is unfair to use unflattering photos like this, which Drudge is featuring today. But it made me laugh, and maybe it will brighten someone else’s day.

Preface: I’m not going to bother pointing out the obvious about Trump and his supporters, nor harp on the fact that the man used both “fuck” and “pussy” in recent speeches. Nothing has changed regarding the national embarrassment of his ugly candidacy, nor the utter idiocy of anyone who would be willing to have him by the face of the United States of America. If there are any readers here who support him, they have the good sense to sit silently in the Ethics Alarms cellar with Justice Scalia’s metaphorical bag over their heads. This post remains the verdict on Trump here. It’s five months old, and nothing has changed. Please circulate it to your dumbest friends.

Most of the Ethics Alarms posts about Hillary Clinton’s atrocious ethics and untrustworthy character have focused on her influence peddling, her conflicts of interest, her hypocrisy and her dishonesty. I keep hearing and reading desperate Democrats nonetheless rationalizing their supporting Clinton because of her alleged competence. We are seeing, right now, how she responds to adversity, stress, competition and crisis. What we are seeing isn’t competence by any definition.  Hillary is showing the nation  that under pressure and in crisis, she becomes angry, stonewalls, jettisons principle and ethics, and makes panicky, ill-considered statements and decisions, and defaults to “the ends justify the means.”

Exhibit #1: The Wall Street Speeches Defense.

We won’t know unless they turn up, but it’s pretty clear to everyone—isn’t it?— why Clinton’s $600,000 speeches to Go9ldman Sachs are a problem, and why she hasn’t turned over the transcripts. Companies don’t pay that kind of money to have their employees told that they are evil and their business is a blight on humanity. They do pay money to curry favor with a woman then assumed to be on an unstoppable path to the White House. The Washington Post’s Chris Cilizza connected the dots…

“My guess is that in the speeches, Clinton acknowledges her various friends and acquaintances at Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Street firms) and praises them for the work they are doing. “You guys get a bad rap but . . .” Yes, it’s standard-issue small talk. But it could look really, really bad in the context of the campaign. Imagine a transcript of Clinton speaking to some big bank or investment firm, thanking a litany of people she’s “been friends with forever” and praising the broader enterprise for “all you do.”

Of course. Cilizza minimizes it, saying that it “would look bad,” but in fact it is bad. Hillary can’t make the sweeping statements she has (in order to imitate Sanders) about how she will be tough on Wall Street villains, when she not only accepted huge speaking fees from the same people she says she will fight, but also fawned all over them when they were face to face. Already one attendee of a Goldman Sachs speech has supported Cilizza’s thesis. Maybe he’s wrong, and there’s exactly one way to find out. A confident, honest, competent and transparent leader would release the speeches, and explain the discrepancy between what she told the Wall Streeters then and what she says now, being ready and to answer the obvious question, “If you’ll lie to them, why wouldn’t you lie to us?”

Instead, Clinton sent her #1 surrogate,Bill, to make the hilarious accusation that Sanders was hypocritical to attack her Wall Street speaking fees. After all, Bill told one New Hampshire audience this week, Sanders, has given paid speeches too! This is the level of respect with which President Clinton, the female one, would treat the public. In 2013, Sanders received speaking fees totaling  $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he got $1,850 for paid speeches. Hillary Clinton made and kept over $21 million during the same time period.

A competent President has to be able to spin better than this. That aside, this shows us that a Clinton Administration would be, if possible, even less transparent than the current one.

Exhibit #2: Race-baiting and Division

Before her new Hampshire wipeout, Clinton appealed directly to gender bias, claiming repeatedly that electing a woman President—even a lying, untrustworthy one—was enough reason to support her. She stood smiling as Madeleine directly called for women to choose Clinton based on gender, or risk ending up in “a special place in Hell.” Now that she’s heading to a primary in South Carolina, where African-Americans make up the majority of the voters, she will directly appeal to race-hatred and anti-police sentiments in the black community by campaigning with the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner to focus on “systematic racism, criminal justice reform, voting rights and gun violence.”

I have recently written about Sabrina Fulton’s unethical use by the Clinton Campaign.Trayvon Martin’s death has no legitimate connection to race, systematic racism, justice reform, or gun violence, and using the late teenager’s mother deliberately appeals to a false, race-huckster-driven “narrative” that can only harm race relations. Never mind: if it can help Hillary win, she’ll burn down the country in order to save it.

Race? No evidence was ever found to indicate that Martin’s death was race related or motivated by racism. Systematic racism? The only racism in the incident was that Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, was unethically charged and forced to stand trial because he was a “white Hispanic.” Criminal justice reform? Yes, those who wanted Zimmerman to be deprived of his liberty based on a weak case would eliminate the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for criminal conviction. Hillary, by using Martin’s mother, lends her support for mob justice. Gun violence? The only way gun regulations could have saved Martin would be if guns were banned and confiscated. In that case, of course, Martin would have seriously injured Zimmerman, or worse.

The exploitation of Martin’s mother is cynical, incoherent, irresponsible and incompetent.

Garner’s case is also widely misrepresented in the press and in the black community. He did not die from being choked to death. Again, there is no indication at all that race was a motive or a factor. It was an incident of a negligent and excessive police response to someone resisting arrest for a minor offense, in which police did not correctly consider the individual’s special health risks, such as being massively obese. His case shows that grand juries are often reluctant to charge police officers when no malice is indicated, but no clear “criminal justice reforms” are suggested by the incident. A gun wasn’t involved, either.

Clinton is deliberately pandering to a dangerous rise in racial distrust and anger in the black community. This is her response to finding herself in danger of losing the nomination to a Socialist crackpot who would have been left in the dust by any respectable candidate.

What are we learning? We are learning that when the going gets tough, Hillary Clinton gets irresponsible, panicked, angry and foolish. The evidence of her handling of her campaign so far shows no leadership or crisis management skills.

Good to know.

 

13 thoughts on “New Hampshire Reflections: Let’s Leave Aside The E-Mail And The Lies For Now: Hillary’s Reaction To Adversity Shows She Is Unfit To Lead

  1. Aaaaand there’s still a very good chance the country’s going to vote for her. Christie is about to drop out of the race, but not before having possibly fatally damaged Marco Rubio, who was the best hope to beat her. Right now Sanders looks like he’s riding high, but he has 40 delegates to her 400 and has probably shot his bolt in NH. I still say a lot of the blue states would vote for the Democratic nominee if the DNC put up a cardboard cutout.

    • Boy, you just won’t face the fact that she can’t beat anyone:

      More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton.

      • No, I’m just not convinced, yet. If however, things start to go south in SC and the primaries after that, I might be convinced. There’s just a feeling among my circle that the fix is in for Hilary no matter what.

    • 40 to 400, and getting trounced in the polls. Does the Democratic Primary system make sense to anyone? Superdelegates? What, they don’t get to vote like everyone else? What a pretentious and broken system. At least Republicans get to vote.

      • For whatever reason, the Democratic Party allows former elected/party officials to hold superdelegate status, whereas the GOP only allows current officeholders to do so. Frankly, the ethics of the whole superdelegate question vis-à-vis the parties could be the subject of an article. Is it ethical to essentially “pack” the party nomination apparatus with folks who are not accountable to the voters, but who hold their status as simply a “thank you” from the party? Is it ethical for such folks to “break ranks” with the voters if the voters choose delegates pledged to a nominee who can’t possibly win, or whose ideas are ridiculous? Do these folks have an obligation to call for a better slate if the slate offered contains no good candidates?

  2. Well if she goes to campaign in South Carolina with the mothers of Trevon Martin and Eric Garner we will have to dub her “No Justice, No Peace!” Hillary or perhaps “Bloody Hillary”. Probably some police officers will get shot as the result of her race baiting politics. Somehow, I don’t think it will bother her too much.

  3. Talking about criminal justice reform will be a tough sell even for an accomplished liar like Hillary.

    One the less publicized aspects of her co-Presidency was the mass incarceration of minorities.

    Bill Clinton now “sees” that the 1994 Crime Bill he signed into law made the criminal justice system worse, not much else he can say with the facts staring him in the face.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/bill-clinton-1994-crime-bill/

    The question is, do people really expect Hillary to dismantle the system THEY set in place?

    Fool me once…

  4. I especially like how she is blaming racism and the governor for Flint’s water issues… No mentions whatsoever of any of the numerous democrats who are much more closely involved, or any possibility that it has more to do with general incompetence than race.

  5. And how about the professional election mongers calling the southern states Hillary’s “firewall.” Reminds me of the book (which I haven’t read) entitled “The Fire Next Time.” Or Sherman’s march to the sea. She and the Big Dog are going to run around South Carolina like arsonists.

    And let’s hear it for Al Sharpton finally getting a chance to shake down Bernie Sanders as he passed through NYC on his way to South Carolina. You go, Al.

  6. As disturbing as the size of Hillary’s war-chest, her hold on super-delegates, her continuing exhibitions of anger, lying, and false accusations is the unfortunate if successful attack by Christie on Marco Rubio in the last debate: it didn’t do Christie any good, but did damage Rubio — a thoughtful, intelligent, fresh face, with less baggage than all the candidates in either party, and with a vision for the future that has been extremely attractive. An inexperienced candidate, he fell into Christie’s trap. I think he’s dead meat, and I hope Christie feels damn proud to take Rubio down with him.

    I can’t stomach this much longer. Let’s put the evil Hillary up against the icky Cruz and get the damn thing over with.

    • You can’t blame Christie for exposing Rubio as literally not being ready for prime time. Even Christie couldn’t have predicted that Rubio would go into a shorting-out robot routine, and voters need to know that under stress, a potential leader start to panic and default to pre-recorded loops.

      Christie could have done the same thing to Trump, and didn’t, perhaps as a strategy, perhaps for other reasons. I do blame him for that.

      • If this had been later, then I might consider Rubio fatally damaged. He’s still in a tough spot. However, this is quickly coming down to a GOP split three ways – the angry Trump, the far-right Cruz, and the establishment…whoever. That third spot probably comes down to Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb Bush. I think we can now discount the zero-polling Gilmore and the out-of-it Carson. Jeb Bush is without hope, he had to beg people to clap. Kasich had a strong showing in NH, but if that turns into a fluke, he is going to be done soon. That leaves that last spot to default to Rubio. The only question is can he and Cuz together muscle Donald Trump into giving up the ghost?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.