On Friday, July 3rd, 2015, Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak in Hanover, New Hampshire, to Dartmouth students as well as local residents. The venue, which eventually became the college’s Bema amphitheater, was changed multiple times because of a lower turnout than expected.
The affair (Hillary’s, not Bill’s), which was scheduled to start at 12:30 p.m. eastern time, left a crowd of around 850, myself included, standing underneath the baking sun for almost two and a half hours. Finally at 3:00, Hillary Clinton took the stage as moans of eagerness and frustration filled the amphitheater. Although my original intention had not been to attend this rally, I decided at the last minute: Why not? After she had spoken for about an hour I noticed that whenever a question was asked, she would either come up with an excuse as to why she could not answer it at the moment, or she would simply walk around the inquiry, making little effort to reply to the question. Clinton has been quite notable in the news recently, especially in regards to how she does and does not answer questions.
Hillary’s prominence in the news has been most related to the Benghazi hearings last week. It is now known that when Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, she had initially lied about what happened. Knowing that the Americans were killed in a planned terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda-like group, she went on to tell the families of the Americans the first narrative and blamed the victims’ deaths on an Internet video that caused a demonstration to turn into a deadly attack. The Benghazi hearing included a panel of five Democrats and seven Republicans, each receiving ten minutes to question Clinton on her use of a private email server while heading the State Department and the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. In the end, the Benghazi hearings probably did not change a multitude of minds. Numerous people may say she did not answer questions or that when she did, she lied.
These questions (whether answered or not), her negligence, or even possible criminality are not what matter most. It is the character of Clinton that is most important. Should America have a president that believes that telling the truth takes a backseat to the pursuit of power? Rational people tend to have jobs or participate in activities that don’t require the power obsessiveness that comes along with politics. As David Brin once said, “It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”
Could Hillary Clinton be indicted for her email related measures?
The answer is yes; she could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes.
However, we must keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the opinion of a grand jury that probable cause subsists to believe that at least one violation of federal criminal statutes has occurred. Clinton once stated, “I’m very familiar with the importance of treating classified information as it should be with great care.” However, it appears that she is not as familiar with the significance of handling such information with care as evident by her recent email scandal.
Hillary Clinton, much like a chameleon that changes its color based on its surroundings, changes her mind on recent issues, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Keystone Pipeline, to match popular opinion du jour. She’s less concerned with practical solutions and more concerned with engaging in political games to attempt to make herself appear a better elected official to the populace.
Clinton, when serving as the Secretary of State, was helping the Obama administration advocate for the TTP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). The TTP is an international trade agreement that involves eleven Asian and Pacific Rim countries, including the United States. Since the start of her campaign for the 2016 election, Clinton has not taken a strong position on the TTP, waiting for the deal to conclude. Soon after the transaction was finalized, Clinton told the public that she was against the deal, changing her previous opinion. Much like the TTP, it took Clinton quite a long time to decide whether she was for or against the Keystone Pipeline.
Clinton’s announcement that she was against the pipeline came within minutes of the Pope Francis’ arrival to the US, possibly with the hope to bury it in the news if it were to receive backlash. She described it as a “distraction from important work we have to do on climate change… one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues.” Could the distraction of this issue be the pipeline itself, or is it the pressure of the media wanting Clinton to reveal her position on the future of the pipeline?
One day a woman will be elected president, and it will be an enormous step forward for America. However, this change does not have to come in the 2016 election. A candidate should not be elected simply because she is female. A candidate should be chosen because he or she is suited for the job and will do what is right for America. Clinton and President Obama have worked closely together for quite a while, merging their policies and processes over the years. America has had eight years of President Obama; we do not need four more years that will be like the last eight.
More political commentary from The Match:
Take our presidential poll!
Editors’ Note: The opinions published by The Match are solely those of the authors, and not of the entire publication or its staff as a whole. The Match welcomes thoughtful commentary and response to our content. You can respond in the comments below, but please do so respectfully. Letters to the Editors will be published, but they are subject to revision based on content and length. Letters can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cover photo: NBC via Getty Images