Hillary might need to take a page from Nixon and do a Checkers speech…

April 24, 2015

It wasn’t bribery, just a pet for his children, Nixon said in his famous Checker’s speech.



Hillary Clinton might need to make a Nixonian-style Checker’s speech to save her campaign for president.

She needs to come clean (if she can) or at least put out a believable version of the facts surrounding the flow of money into the Clinton charities and the Clinton personal fortune and the appearance of favors or bribery while she served as secretary of state, and of course while her husband was (as he always will be) a former president of the U.S.

Mitt Romney (who has already taken himself out of the running this time) said plainly: “It looks like bribery”. And that was the obvious observation anyone might have.

The only response so far from the Clinton campaign is that all of this is just part of a smear campaign from the other side (Republicans). And Hillary herself likes to observe that the Republican candidates seem to be too focused on attacking her but not so much on laying out a vision of what they would do in office. Probably so, but still, we need an explanation Mrs. Clinton.

It does not help Hillary that she wiped out emails during her tenure as secretary of state that by law and/or accepted practice she was supposed to save for the public record. It also does not help that she apparently broke a pledge to the Obama administration on full disclosure of transactions by her charity and family that involved contracts or approvals by the U.S. government.

I know she has super-expensive campaign experts, but I would tell her for free: just buy some air time and explain all of this now and then move on and hope for the best.

Way back in the 1950s then vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon, who apparently was not exactly loved by Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower anyway, was in danger of being dumped from the election ticket over a slush fund Nixon supporters reportedly set up for him (gifts as a form of bribery).

Nixon went on television and gave the performance of his life, proclaiming at one point that the only gift he received was a little dog for his children his youngest daughter named Checkers — and vowed the family would keep the dog. He was so humble — who could not believe him? Who could not have empathy? (It’s available on YouTube — warning: it’s long).

If Richard Nixon could pull it off, surely Hillary could.


In the interests of time I have taken to leaving out background on some things, such as the current charity scandal involving the Clintons — I mean you can read all of that elsewhere. It’s in the news. I only hope that by doing so I am not guilty of spreading false stories that develop a life of their own like gossip.

Also, I have to make this observation: Even if what the Clintons have done is legal and there is no smoking gun as far as out-and-out bribery (in other words nothing to prove it in court), it’s the appearance of a lack of ethics that seems to me that is almost or actually is just as wrong. It’s hard for ethical people to make it in politics I guess.

Mrs. Clinton like her husband acting like a liability…

March 8, 2015

And here we go again with the Clintons:

There was the what the meaning of  “is” is when Bill Clinton was being investigated over his cavorting with sluts and now we have wife Hillary Clinton expected to be the Democratic Party nominee for president in the 2016 election, even though she has yet to formally announce, embroiled in an email scandal.

It seems she used private emails exclusively to transact government business while Secretary of State and not until that was widely known — within the last week — did she bend under pressure and allow as how she would provide the relevant emails. But get this, she and her staff will decide which are relevant. Not that she is in trouble with the law (yet), but no, when the authorities are conducting an investigation you don’t decide which evidence is relevant if you are the suspect.

And all of this adds ammunition to the arsenal of her Republican enemies who went to great efforts to burn her over the Benghazi incident where several American diplomatic personnel were killed in a terrorist attack. She was accused of being lax on security there. While an investigating panel came up with nothing to pin on her, they reportedly did not know about her private email account. Now they want to see those emails.

And that is the trouble with the Clintons. They provide too much ammunition to the Republican far right wing who hate them so much. In the process everyone else is hurt.

There seems to be some question still as to whether Mrs. Clinton actually broke any law in all of this since it is not clear whether comparatively new regulations, that actually would have required her to use a government system for her emails, were in effect yet in the relevant time frame.

But then again, I read a story that says one embassy official during her tenure as Secretary of State was fired for not using a government server but a private one instead.

The Clintonesque double standard at work maybe.

Now Mrs. Clinton it seems is not the only one in her position to have used a private email account for official business. It has been revealed that one of her predecessors, Republican Colin Powell, did as well, and I think so have many other officials.

But the idea here is that the government’s business has to be transparent, not only for the official record and history’s sake, but for ongoing things like possible investigations and Freedom of Information Act requests from the public. The government’s business in our democratic republic is the people’s business. There are some exceptions for national security and such, but even many of those have a shelf life I think. Quite frankly I am hazy on all of this.

But from my days (long ago) as a reporter I know that it is darn hard to get information you don’t even know exists. That is why public officials love secrecy so much. They know they can’t be embarrassed or asked tough questions if their questioners don’t even know what to ask or ask for.

It’s not that I am wholeheartedly against Hillary, I mean she is one smart and capable woman. But she has lots of liabilities that are like skeletons in the closet — wildly good luck in the futures market (cattle futures) while working for the Rose Law firm, the mysterious Vince Foster death story with its missing records, the White Water land investment scandal (even though there may have been nothing violated there).

But then again, most politicians have problems if they have been at it long. But Mrs. Clinton seems to have that high and mighty, aloof aura.

She needs to jump out in front of this thing and bend over backwards to cooperate and maybe come up with a plausible story as to why she was using a private email account. And she needs to let impartial investigators, not her staff, retrieve the emails.

Mrs. Clinton is not a private citizen. She apparently has aspirations to be the leader of the free world. She needs to come clean.

Oh save us all from the Republican answer. That party has not produced any good ones lately.

And that is not to say the Republicans could not.

As far-fetched as it may seem, they just might.


And not until I ended this post and re-read my headline did I see the pun of sorts, the word “liability” — the ability to lie.