Tornado Alley (PROG)

[conix]

Why do Democrats insist on Clinton?

Updated December 9, 2015 10:50 AM
By Bill Greener III, InsideSources.com

Day after day, we are treated to liberal columnists wringing their hands in feigned concern over the fate of the Republican Party.

None of these people have ever voted for a single Republican, and they will never do so. Yet, that does not slow down people such as E.J. Dionne, Dana Milbank, Eugene Robinson, etc. from continually writing that the Republican Party has lost its way, lost sight of its traditional positions, and crying crocodile tears over how removed Republicans are from how other Americans view things.

Well, suppose a conservative had the audacity to do the same about the Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in specific. It might look something like the following.

The Democratic Party has enjoyed a great deal of success in recent presidential elections, nominating and electing candidates with appeal to a wide array of voters, not simply their liberal base.
More coverageOpinion and analysis about the 2016 presidential campaign

Now, it seems a once great party is on the verge of insisting the rest of America simply shut up and go along with electing a candidate viewed harshly and as untrustworthy by virtually every voter group other than self-identified Democrats. Everyone but Democrats appears to be screaming: Please do not do this. Nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton.

Just how bad are things? Among all voters, the most recent data indicate Hillary Clinton is viewed negatively by a margin of seven points — 44 favorable, 51 percent unfavorable.

On its face, that might not sound so terrible, although it is never good for any candidate to be upside-down on this measure. When you dig a little deeper, you discover that among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton enjoys a favorable rating of 85 versus an unfavorable rating of 11, a whopping plus 74 points.

For this to be true, the rest of the country, Republicans and independents, have to be especially negative and unfavorable toward the former first lady. That is simple arithmetic. In other words, if you are not already supporting Hillary Clinton the odds you will do it later are pretty daunting.

What is to account for this view of Mrs. Clinton? Perhaps it is nothing more complicated than the clear reality she will say or do anything to further her political interests, and do it with a tone and attitude of self-righteousness that her record simply cannot justify or sustain.


Think about it for a minute.

After being part of demonizing the near countless number of women who more than credibly accused her own husband of sexual abuse, Hillary Clinton recently admonished: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported.”


It is just a matter of time until Mrs. Clinton is forced to have more to say on this subject than her recent dismissive comments.

Americans seem to think fiddling around with national security when you are secretary of state by granting yourself the privilege of your own email server is not a trifling matter, at least according to survey data. After claiming no classified material was involved, we now learn it is 999 and counting.

The mingling of her family’s trust with donations from individuals and countries with specific interests involving the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary also does not seem to be a minor affair. Try keeping a straight face when you hear that Hillary Clinton insists she tried to join the Marines while in law school.

Her inability to even attempt to be consistent on matters of policy is constant and obvious to those not dedicated to seeing any Democrat occupy the White House.

In 2008, her comments about strongly believing in traditional marriage were supposed to be taken quite seriously. Now, without so much as a blink of the eye, she is righteously indignant anyone would oppose gay marriage.

On immigration, it used to be “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Now, to even use the term illegal immigrant is a bad thing. Now, sanctuary cities are wonderful.

Running against Barack Obama, she attacked him on the matter of gun control. Now, no restrictive measure seems to be too extreme to impose.

NAFTA, raising the debt ceiling, arming the Syrian rebels, ethanol, the list of flip-flops goes on and on and on. Americans understand what this represents. It is the lurching of a person concerned about only winning, an individual with no real set of principles to guide them.

Americans obviously want Democrats to put forth a candidate who can honorably represent the legacy a great party should offer the public come election time. It is also obvious that at this point, Democrats seem more interested in sticking one of their own in the face of widespread opposition, an opposition borne of rejecting a terribly flawed and unprincipled individual, Hillary Clinton.

Democrats can do better. America is depending on it.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-why-do-democrats-insist-on-her-1.11208893