I don’t know who the talk show host was but he likened Hillary Clinton’s email problem to Watergate. A stretch I think, but who knows?
He said that at first the details came in in drips and then it was a torrent — well, I don’t recall his exact words but something to that effect. You will recall, if you are old enough, that President Richard Nixon and his people dismissed the whole thing early on but the bits and pieces kept coming together and although he was re-elected president he finally was forced to resign.
But the same talk show host suggested there might be a chance that Hillary could be forced to drop out of the presidential race as more information comes out. Hearings both on the email issue and Benghazi I believe are in the offing and Hillary is going to be called to testify — even as she is running for president.
The Benghazi thing I don’t get. I don’t see what her opposition is accusing her of doing, except maybe not realizing how dangerous things were at the Libyan embassy while she was secretary of state.
Even the email thing perplexes me, except I guess she co-mingled private emails with government business, including things that were or became classified. Also she either violated standard practice or actual rules or accepted protocol by using her own personal computer server. Why she did this certainly would come into question. She rather lamely suggested it was for convenience — I mean that may have some truth to it, but you can’t just circumvent the law for your convenience. Her use of the personal server for government business on its face indicates she was trying to hide things.
Now I know from my own personal experience with local yokel government (working as a newspaper reporter) that just as soon as one is elected to public office he or she seems to want to do everything in secret — all the easier to wheel and deal that way and to save embarrassment and to not have to explain things and to hide your mistakes. And some things are allowed to be kept confidential but I guess they are still the public’s business and if it is in writing then it has to be kept on file and available should it be subpoenaed by a court or subject to a freedom of information request. You can’t do that with something not even on file or something you don’t even know is there.
I don’t know and don’t even have an opinion on whether Hillary acted out of carelessness, just did what she thought everyone else was doing or at least what others had done (and have they?), or whether she was acting with mal intent.
So, if Hillary goes down, then what? Probably the Republicans win, unless they are silly enough to nominate someone who just does not appeal to the broad electorate.
As of this writing the Trump factor is still in effect. I doubt the GOP will keep putting up with him, outstanding poll numbers notwithstanding, but if he runs on a third-party ticket or as an independent (not sure of the law on that) it would seem he would be the spoiler and Hillary (still the presumed Democratic nominee) gets it. There is at least semi-serious speculation that the Clintons (Hillary and Bill) are somehow in cahoots with Trump or at least have encouraged him. They seem to share membership in an odd social set.
There is talk of Vice President Joe Biden stepping into the race. I know he supposedly has a lot of foreign policy experience (but then look at our foreign policy, but Joe would have done differently perhaps — he did want to divide Iraq into more compatible states, for example). But he always seems a bit goofy to me and prone to making embarrassing gaffes, and he was too lazy to come up with his own words the last time he ran for president so he plagiarized a speech by a British politician and made it sound as if it was autobiographical to himself. Other than that, I think he is pretty much a standard old-time Democrat, union friendly, and would probably appeal to many over the plethora of rabid-right Republicans.
And here’s a problem: on that talk show I mentioned, a Democratic woman said it is important to elect a woman to be president this time so Hillary should be elected. The host tweaked her saying: so then if Carly Fiorina is nominated by the Republicans, she should be elected? I did not catch an answer if there was one.
But seriously, I think nominating Fiorina to run against Hillary would be a smart move by the Republicans and if it turns out the Democrats nominate a man, all the better for the Republicans. The Democrats will have put in the first black president and then the Republicans could match them by putting in the first female president.
The only difference is that Fiorina has executive experience (not government though) and Barack Obama had none and not really a lot of political experience either. But I will add that history may well record that when all is said and done he did an admirable job.
And by the way, I would like to write something positive about Hillary Clinton, but to me so far she seems to be some kind of stealth candidate who only ventures out into highly-controlled situations. She would not be the first to employ that tactic.
It is early, though. She may be forced into the open.