The Damning Unpopularity of the Clintons: But They Are Too Old To See They Best Go Away

bill-clinton-cigar-gettyimages-640x480Is it because they don’t know what else to do with themselves? Is it once having felt the cheering of the crowds they have to go on and on until like the band in the movie  “This is Spinal Tap” there is no more crowd? While the Clintons cling to lost dreams of White House Riches the odor of corruption clings to them. Even aside that, even before the days when the folks from Arkansas decided to set up a foundation to enrich themselves, Hillary, the great white woman hope, was hugely unpopular.

Yes, she got three million more votes that Trump. Any normal candidate should have received thirty million more votes. Trump is right when he claims there was fraud in the election. There was. Huge amounts of it. The American people were defrauded out of having a candidate who did not have huge negative ratings. Trump has a 63% unfavorable rating while she had a 52% immediately before the election.  Two people widely despised ran for office; the choice was to hold your nose and pick the least unworthy.

Over two years ago an article  by Ed Morrissey in Hot Air, long before the nominations were handed out, read: “As her book tour showed, Hillary is a political mediocrity … at best. That’s why she lost the nomination in 2008 to a one-term Senate backbencher even with Bill trying to pull her across the finish line, and that’s when the Clintons were still culturally relevant. If a reasonably gifted Democrat challenged her, Hillary would likely lose the nomination again. If Democrats move forward with the coronation, those trend lines will have 20 months to develop into yet another electoral disaster for Hillary.”

The trend lines Morrissey was talking about were shown in his article where he showed every time she ran for office her popularity sank. Morrissey further wrote in response to a Washington Post article that said after a Hillary press conference that the circus was back in town: “It’s not the circus. It’s a pretender to American royalty, demanding her coronation, and this is exactly what we can expect if Democrats are foolish enough to nominate her in 2016.”

The Democrats were foolish. No reasonably gifted Democrat challenged her. She was challenged by an old socialist who almost beat her in an almost repeat of eight years earlier when she lost the nomination to a newly elected senator who was kind enough to keep her relevant by making her secretary of state.

Meanwhile she and Bill decided to get rich with their Clinton Foundation. One article in May noted:  “Throughout their adult lives, the Clintons have enriched themselves through their political power.  They did not start businesses or invent anything.  They provided access and favors for a price. The Democratic Party enabled them to enrich themselves by continually supporting them and looking the other way.  The Justice Department and President Obama also didn’t care.  The media have been the biggest culprits because, instead of holding the Clintons to account, they have endorsed them for whatever positions they have sought, no matter what they have done.”

That article was prompted by one that noted:  “Clinton called [Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina] . . .  in March 2011 to demand that Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, be restored to his role as chairman of the country’s most famous microcredit bank, Grameen Bank.”   The article went on: “Yunus’ nonprofit through the bank Grameen America donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation and Grameen Research donated an additional $25,000 to $50,000.”

Add that to  another: “A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton received at least $100 million from autocratic Persian Gulf states and their leaders.” In that article it said: “The president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy said: “The ‘global establishment’ has suffocated the peoples of these countries for generations. And Hillary Clinton is part of the global establishment of monarchs, autocrats and dictators.”

Whether all of this is true or not great numbers of Americans believe the Clintons are corrupt. They believe they set up the Clinton Foundation so that people would “pay to play” with the money of the United States. The drop in donations to their foundation prove it was all about access: “But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.”

As if that is not bad enough on January 12, “the main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees.”  Perhaps then the answer to why they won’t go away is that if they do their “pay to play” scheme ends and those seeking access to the U.S. treasury will go elsewhere. It is a shame the Democratic Party can’t see that the Clintons are using it? Isn’t it time to get some people with clean backgrounds into the leadership positions?

 

 

3 thoughts on “The Damning Unpopularity of the Clintons: But They Are Too Old To See They Best Go Away

  1. Agree. The Clintons, and, their clique, have to go. Until they split, the Democratic Party is anchored to defeat. Cut’em loose.

  2. “Two people widely despised ran for office; the choice was to hold your nose and pick the least unworthy.”

    “Picking the least unworthy” extended back to the primaries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *