HILLARY
Thank God, after what seems like an eternity the 2016 Presidential Election is finally upon us.
For days, weeks, months — 21 in fact — before Election Day, campaigning began in earnest.
That’s correct.
Since February 3, 2015 (644 days ago when November 8, 2016 rolls around) we the voters have been subjected to the banal babble — some amusing but most laced with vitriol, stupidity and egomania — of the 17 Republican, half-dozen give-or-take Democratic and however many Third Party men and women who originally had designs on reaching the Oval Office.
As Alec MacGillis writing for Slate.com observes, 644 days “…is longer than the Spanish-American War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Franco-Prussian War. It is as long as the period of the Nazis’ Siege of Leningrad before the Soviets finally managed to get a sliver of access to the city. It is significantly longer than the span of time during which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, and the creation of Medicare. [And] it is enough time for some women to conceive and bear two successive children.”
Is this really necessary?
Too little focus on the here-and-now in favor of the powerful impulse to look forward, undoubtedly spawned in no small measure by Washington gridlock and the notion that nothing of consequence is likely to happen because of it, has fed this phenomenon and with the media’s help, turned it beastly.
With the “contenders” long ago winnowed to the final two, what more is there really to say about Hillary and The Donald?
Voters across the country have aptly characterized this race as a battle between the lesser of two evils.
And although this is hardly the first time that a presidential prizefight has been so dubbed, this one truly merits the moniker.
Both candidates are evil.
Of course Trump takes the cake but the untrustworthy Hil is no saint.
From her email leaks to her server brouhaha to her public/private political stance to her “basket of deplorables” knife-twisting jab which demanded that she take a half-step back, apologizing for being ‘grossly generalistic’ to any number of other bona fide political gaffes, her big-stage persona sometimes belies her deep reservoir of high-level political experience.
This gives the voter pause.
Her disrespect to Native Americans and West Virginia coal miners conveyed through ill-timed remarks, along with her inaccurate depiction of the late Nancy Reagan’s position on the AIDS epidemic barely scratch the surface.
She outdid herself by inexplicably participating in a racially-tinged feeble stab at humor offered by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio who apologized for his late endorsement of her by saying that he was running on “CP time,” a remark offensive to African-Americans.
(And for whatever it’s worth, this did not escape President Obama).
Recently there has been more than mild concern regarding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s personal money-making ventures.
Reports of internal squabbling and power struggles at the foundation have made the rounds.
Though millions of dollars come into the foundation and to Mr. Clinton personally, the family’s party-line defense proclaims that the philanthropy has always exceeded the transparency level required by law and will continue to do so.
Mrs. Clinton had committed to attend a foundation gathering in Morocco, implored to be there by the King who had pledged $12 million to the charity.
Her aides and advisers fretted over how it would look for a presidential candidate to be part of such a scenario.
This saga reinforces the thought that Hillary is simply not genuine.
Duplicitous? Perhaps.
Relatable? Dubious.
Not unlike many, particularly in her field.
But simply not what she purports to be.
And how deep is this?
It makes one wonder.
With The Donald, what you see is what you get.
Which is why he should lose.
And the reason Hillary should win?
Because she is not Trump.
How comforting.
[Editor’s Note: This piece was written by Mr. Kaplan in October 2016.]
