Even though the Republicans are still lining up, I think it is safe to take a look at Hillary Clinton as a Presidential Candidate. Senator Clinton has not announced her candidacy yet and doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to do so. Nevertheless, it appears an almost sure thing that she will end up with the Democratic nomination. Granted, a lot can happen between now and election time. However, there seems to be no one in the wings of the Democratic Party that can give her any serious opposition.
The purpose of this review is to take a more vigorous look at her political potential. Also, to make an attempt to determine if she meets “The Moral Middle” requirements. Is Hillary Clinton a person of high moral and ethical character? Is she a person that can be trusted, not only with the nuclear threat but also with the national ethic of this great nation? http://themoralmiddle.com/what-manner-of-candidate-ought-they-to-be/
There is no denying that Hillary Rodham Clinton is an extremely intelligent and hardworking individual. She has garnered many achievements in academics, her legal career, and politics. For example: She was the first student to give the Commencement address at Wellesley University. She was the first woman on the board of directors at Wal-Mart. She was the first woman Senator from New York. She was the first former First Lady to ever run for political office. She was the first woman to be a viable candidate for President of the United States. You get the idea. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a pioneer in many facets of her life. Additionally, she has done well in her investments and has had a very successful legal career. She has never been afraid of hard work and she has been very successful.
On a moral front. Hillary had a Methodist upbringing and has participated in D.C. prayer groups throughout the years hinting at an early moral foundation. Early in life, she switched from a conservative Republican activist to a more liberal Democrat. The change was made out of idealism as she had come to believe in the Democratic Party’s social contract. In that regard, she comes across as being sincere in believing that her initiatives will benefit the public and the nation as a whole and she has worked tirelessly for those causes. Whether or not you agree with her, her efforts are focused on advancing the public good.
It does her credit that Hillary is a concerned and engaged mother and grandmother. Indeed, she has championed children’s causes her entire adult life and has accomplished a lot of good for the children of this country.
So, while I don’t get the impression that she is a sweet grandmother at the office, I don’t see her as evil either. I do think that getting on her bad side would not be very pleasant. But then, milk toast Presidents sometimes have a hard time getting things done.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and a politician by training. She is accomplished at working the system. That of course is the nature of the business that she is in. Some politicians seem to walk a straighter line, others not so much. Hillary seems to be somewhere in the middle.
She lied to the American people after Bengasi to help with Obama’s election. The lie came as she supported the idea that the violent attack on the embassy came in response to an offensive video. I’m not sure that there was anything she could have done at that point to make the situation better. However, it was well known to her at the time that it was a planned terrorist operation, not a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand.
She was probably guilty of inappropriately obtaining records and firing employees as the First Lady.
The Clinton’s were very liberal in packing the family’s goods when they left the White House. If you remember, they took various pieces of furniture that belonged to the White House and thus the American people rather than to the Clinton’s. The White House had to ask for it back. Some of the controverted items were returned, others paid for, and some items she kept, arguing that they were gifts to Bill rather than to the Presidency.
In reading about her and her history, I do get the idea that she likes the money and the trappings of the life style. Hillary Clinton likes to be in charge. “The Moral Middle” goal is to find candidates that “care more for and love better the nation’s welfare than gold and silver, fame or popularity. “ I don’t have the impression that Hilary quite lives up to that standard.
Many have thought that she should have left Slick Willy after the Monica Lewinski affair. Her comments on why she stayed are very appropriate and it was her decision to make. It seems to have worked out for her in the long run (although we have new allegations pending against good ole Bill which claim that he took 11 rides on the Lolita Express.) I don’t think that it is appropriate to sully her or second guess her over Bill’s behavior or the decision that she made to stay with him. I also don’t see the whole thing in any way to be a reflection upon her. However, Bill is still part of the package. Honestly, do we really trust Willy in the White House again?
So, how does she stack up? In a rating of 1 to 5 on attributes that I think are important in a presidential candidate, I would rate her as follows:
|The Moral Middle Scale|
|Too Liberal or Conservative||3|
The Republicans will claim, that during her time as Secretary of State, she traveled extensively but did nothing. I am at somewhat at a loss to list her accomplishments off the top of my head. A closer review however, does show some minor successes.
While it used to be inappropriate to comment on a woman’s age, I’m sure that it will be an issue during the election. Should she be successful in a bid for the White House, she will enter the Presidency at 69 years of age. With two terms you are looking at age 77 when she leaves. It would have been better had she won the nomination over Obama. Her age would not have been an issue then. Incidentally I think the country would have been better off today had she won the nomination and election in 2012. (We would have been better off had Mitt Romney won for that matter. President Obama just didn’t have enough experience going in to the position and it has taken him 6 years to get it.)
In summary, I think Hillary Clinton would be competent rather than great as a President. There are those voters that will vote for her just because they would like to see a woman President. But mostly, I see the decision to cast a vote for Hillary being based on political beliefs. The choice is whether you prefer a smaller, less intrusive, less costly government or a larger government with more protections and benefits, as well as a larger budget.
If you prefer the latter, Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a good choice.
If you prefer a smaller government, Hillary would be a poor choice. She will finish moving the Country toward a more socialized, European gestalt. After two successive progressive Presidents, President Obama followed by Hillary Clinton, that shift to the left would be irreversible.
If a smaller government is your choice, Jeb Bush is probably not going to be that much better as an alternative. That should make Jeb less likely to be effective in a race against Hillary. If the smaller government choice appeals to you, I would look to Rand Paul or Scott Walker as a potential Republican Nominee. The question is, do either of those two have the experience, background, or money to successfully compete against Hillary? I rather doubt it but stay tuned, “The Moral Middle” will be looking at them in the near future along with other potential candidates. As a minimum I would like to see Senator Paul and Governor Walker eventually become Presidential candidates. They would certainly make the race more interesting.
As of this very early date however, I think that Senator Clinton will win the Presidency.
Samuel Waen Jensen