7 September 2016: Clinton qualified for presidential office

Dana Millbank, the Washington Post’s wittiest columnist, recently wrote of his take on the battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In so doing, Millbank noted comments from readers accusing him of “being in the tank” for Clinton.

Millbank readily admits he’s for Clinton. “I would support a ham sandwich for president,” he writes, “if it were the only thing standing between Trump and the Oval Office.”

However, Millbank reveals he’s no Clinton aficionado and details his criticisms. I, on the other hand, believe not only Clinton to be eminently qualified and that which has been thrown against her, from Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation, as having no substance or merit, but also she will be seen in time as one of the great change agents in American history.

Every American with the right to vote will be making a choice in November, even if his/her choice is to refrain from fulfilling his/her civic duty. Every vote will be for Clinton or for Trump. A non-vote for Clinton will be a de facto vote for Trump.

Elections are about values. It’s the reason we join or refrain from registering with a political party. The Democrats’ values are this and that and the Republicans’ those and them. Active role for government or drown it in a bathtub? More muscular foreign policy or retrenchment, isolationism? Inclusionary, multicultural society or racial hierarchy, superiority and supremacy? Ditto religion, gender, sexual orientation, et al.

One can only assume active Trump supporters concur with his xenophobia and racism; for his passive supporters, whether third party voters or non-voters, that is clearly not the case. Nonetheless, by indirectly supporting a man whose temperament alternates between hyperventilation and rage, they will be aiding and abetting the potential of his election, a worrisome consideration for someone having the nuclear codes.

Trump remains a threat to the security and stability of the republic. It’s one reason many principled conservatives and dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, including the President and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Meg Whitman, are actively supporting Clinton.

Clinton’s evisceration of Trump has drawn little retort from key Republicans. The reason? As the Post’s Jonathan Capehart put it: It’s impossible to defend the indefensible.

Polls indicate many consider Clinton secretive, not forthcoming. Here’s the irony: If by comparison to Trump, she’s an open book. While Clinton is arguably guarded to a fault and at times defensive, Trump is infamous for his aggressive approach to challengers to whom he prefers laying waste, and keeps himself aloof, shielded in his Tower. Thin skinned? Paranoid? Something, lots to hide? The reason he refuses to release his income tax returns.

All things Clinton are not sinister. Yes, she clearly blundered setting up the alternative email server, but if that’s the only substantive thing on her, it’s a very weak case. When it comes to all else she’s being reamed for, there’s no there there.

Consider the barrage, the withering fire Clinton has taken over the years. For over a quarter century, she has been exposed, demeaned and debased yet still hangs in there. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher became known as the “Iron Lady.” Clinton: the woman of steel.

Trump’s attacks on Clinton’s health and stamina, Megyn Kelly—“blood coming out of her whatever”—Carly Fiorina’s appearance, and lately Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, tweeting she had “a mental breakdown,” give conclusive evidence of his misogyny and instability, character and values.

Two foreigners, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks mastermind Julian Assange, are doing what they can to get Trump elected. Both are pursuing vendettas against Clinton for calling them down for their duplicitous acts, something “real men” hate.

Evidence is surfacing Putin and Assange are in cahoots. The New York Times asks whether WikiLeaks has “become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin’s Kremlin?”

Putin plays Trump like an out-of-tune violin. The question is whether he can play the American electorate for suckers.

Both parties enjoyed frothy primaries. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, everything was right with that. Between them, over 20 viable candidates stood up. Of them, only one stood out as a non-option from the start, beyond question completely unfit. History has now recorded the outcome: Republicans chose poorly.

Like every eligible American, your vote or non-vote will count in this election. On that, you have no choice. About whom you do, though, have a choice. Your call. It matters.

You Might Also Like