The People vs. Hillary Clinton: Why We Aren't #Ready for Hillary
The slogan itself is an issue
The slogan "Ready for Hillary" implies that we weren't ready for a female President eight years ago. There is a level of arrogance in this assumption. She didn't lose last time because her policies were unoriginal, her candidacy lacked any substantial reason why she deserved the nomination, nor that she sounded tired and uninspired.She lost because Americans weren't ready for a female President, preferring the first African-American President instead of the first female President.
Where as "Hope and Change" implied something promising and a hope for the future, "Ready for Hillary" implies that now is her time, and offers more of the same.
Ready for Hillary image
The nomination process itself
The debate scene was tailor made for Hillary, as set up by DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz. The candidates were an aging senator who wasn't even a Democrat, and a variety of dull candidates who most had never heard of outside their state. Whereas a popular candidate like Elizabeth Warren might have challenged and pushed Hillary to actually show why she deserved to be the Democrat nominee, the competition she faced should have allowed her to return to the White House after an eight year hiatus, this time as President.
Instead she has struggled to put Bernie Sanders away, and there's still a chance that she won't have the nomination locked up by the time of the convention, meaning the real action will be fighting for the super delegates.
Basically, in spite of the nomination being practically handed to her Hillary, Hillary might still lose the nomination despite her only competition being a man is even older than John McCain, a candidate whom Democrats claimed was too old to be President just eight years ago.
Contrary to what Hillary's camp and her supporters claim, this isn't partisan politics as usual. Never has a candidate been investigated on the campaign trail by the FBI, let alone when the FBI is headed by a person chosen by that candidate's own party.
Consider that for a moment. President Obama's former Secretary of State is being investigated by President Obama's own FBI. The argument of this being merely partisan politics fails with that consideration.
Also consider the charges. She violated the Freedom of Information Act, a stunning development from the "most transparent administration in history", and even more startling considering she herself has called for more transparency in government. But her use of a private server was a blatant attempt to avoid that transparency. She also violated national security regulations, which considering her status as Secretary of State meant that had her unsecured server been hacked, this would've put many Americans overseas on operations that she was aware of in grave danger.
Her arrogance and insistence on having control of her information placed fellow Americans in danger. And no one is asking how al Qeada knew where Ambassador Stevens was in the first place.
Hillary can't have it both ways. Either she was simply following what President Obama wanted as a foreign policy, which means she can't run as having been in charge of foreign policy (and therefore give up her only real substantial claim of being more experienced than either Senator Sanders or Donald Trump), or she was fully in charge of foreign policy.
If she was fully in charge of foreign policy, than the failure of Arab Spring, an American policy to help the Middle East become more democratic, is on her head. Meaning the Syrian, Libyan, and Yemen civil wars, and the military takeover of Egypt are her fault. This means she can't run from the Trans-Pacific Partnership nor the risks of the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Let alone the rise of ISIS.
So maybe running on her accomplishments might not be the best idea. So what else can she run on?
She can run on being the only serious candidate who supported women's rights. And she is a staunch supporter of rape victim rights, and women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. She has also been highly critical of attacking women's reputations. Right?
Not so fast. When former campaign staffer Kathleen Wiley claimed she'd been sexual harassed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, she assaulted Ms. Wiley's character. This was a pattern she continued throughout the campaign trail, and during the Clintons' time in the White House, besmirching the names of several women he'd either had affairs with, or exposed himself to, or even fondled, all as either Governor or President.
And then there was a 12 year old girl claiming that Mrs. Clinton's 30 year old male client, while she was a defense attorney, had raped her. After turning the case back against the underage girl, and using the very same tactics she complains defense attorneys use to prevent their clients from going to prison on rape cases, he was charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct. That would be rather hypocritical.
The Clinton Foundation also frequently receives money from nationalities such as Saudi Arabia and China, whose record on women's rights is atrocious. And several of the countries who benefited from the Clinton foreign policy don't exactly have stellar records in that department either.
Despite the vast majority of America opposing gun control, Hillary is by far the most aggressive proponent of gun control. She, like President Obama, regularly assaults weapons manufacturers, and gun owners, as well the gun lobby NRA.
The major problem with this is that there is no definitive proof that any of the measures she has proposed would decrease gun violence at all.
Hillary isn't #ReadyforHillary
Hillary seems to have no real original ideas of her own, her policy ideas amounting to either stating she wants to continue President Obama's policies, returning to the ideas that made the Clinton administration great, or pilfering whichever of Bernie Sanders' ideas have polled well.
While this particular practice is not unknown among politicians, particularly career ones, her lack of anything new or imaginative has made her appear out of touch with her electorate and unable to run an effective campaign. We can argue Bernie's ideas are hardly fresh or new, but her ideas are even less so.
Her campaign also lacks energy and imagination. One can say whatever they like about President Obama, but he had both in spades. As did her husband, Bill. She seems to lack this integral quality.
When you combine all these reasons, this would be why the Hillary campaign should get derailed.