The 2016 presidential election season is upon us, which is astounding given that we are 18.5 months away…

There is something wrong in the system if a president has no time to act but has to be on elections cycle all the time—but that is for another time.

This post will deal with the presumptive and, indeed, only Democratic presidential candidate.

It is shocking and speaks very poorly of the Democratic Party to see that they have only one candidate. But this, too, is for another time.

So much has been written or said about Hillary Clinton (HC) over the last few weeks that I will try to comment only on things that the media, in their usual negligence, laziness, superficiality, ignorance, even stupidity (I guess I should not hold back when it comes to my opinion on the media…) are forgetting to mention or emphasize.

HC is a terrible candidate for three main reasons going from the least important to the most important:

  1. She has a very lame public figure persona. Unlike her husband who is still probably the best “retail-politician” in the country, she comes across as fake; she never makes a stand on anything. She will always say what her audience of the moment wants to hear. Even if some of those things contradict what she said before, and she will never go beyond the clichés or try and explain who and what she will do as President. Examples:
    • Inequality—supposedly one of the main pillars of her campaign platform—is the ostensible problem of inequality or, as she puts it: Things are stacked against the little guy. Really? How will she fix that? After all, President Obama campaigned and ostensibly ruled on the issue of the Middle Class time and time again, and during his time (due to his policies) the plight of the Middle Class got worse, much worse. So how is she going to be different? What policies will she pursue to make things better? Nothing, zilch, nada. We just need to take her word that she will do something to fix it.
    • Free Trade Agreements. She was against Trade Agreements (as a contender in 2008) before she was strongly in favor (as Secretary of State-SoS) and now she is against it again. I am dizzy, how does she not lose the script? How can you turn TWICE on the same subject in the span of 8 years? Does she have any convictions or does she simply say what she perceives to be the right thing at the right time?
  2. The scandals. Oh the scandals…So much has been written on the scandals that I will try to highlight only few points that the media does not focus on:
    • The Clinton Foundation. Let’s be clear, the Foundation is NOT a registered charity, in spite of it being called a charitable organization by the media. It is a non-for-profit entity but NOT a charity. Indeed, it seems that only about 15%—I repeat FIFTEEN percent only—of its revenue goes to charitable donations. As an example, the Red Cross—which is NOT even in the top 10—gives 90% of its revenue to its programs and charitable services. It is possible that the Foundation sends some additional funds to some of its initiatives that are not necessarily charitable but still are ostensibly “for good” purposes, but charity it is NOT.
    • Vast sums are paid every year by the Foundation for salary and wages as well as travel expenses. So, one way or another, the Foundation is a significant contributor to the Clintons’ standard of living. Travel; staff; facilities; salaries to Bill (I am not sure, according to HC he does not get a salary. But being HC one can never be sure. Note that she used the word “salary.” He may be getting, say, a Per Diem, which is the same thing but ostensibly not a “salary.” It is hard to believe that he will spend so much time on the Foundation with zero remuneration.), Chelsea; etc. Therefore, contributions made to the Foundation are part of the “quid” in the quid pro quo scenario.
    • Many of HC’s media defenders keep saying that there is no “quo”—i.e. there is “quid” but she did nothing in return or in consideration of all the “quid” (contributions to the Foundation, fees for speaking engagements to Bill, etc.). Let me correct these pundits: Of course there is “quo.” The fact is that in the cases highlighted all these contributors and organizations that hired Bill to speak did get something—approvals or support from the Department of State on big projects and other things. So there is the “quid” and there is the “quo,” what we are missing is the “pro.” There is no proof that what contributors got was in direct result of their contributions. That is the ONLY missing link. Everything else is out in the open and is not disputed.
    • I doubt that we will ever find the “pro.” The people involved here are too sophisticated and surly have nothing in writing. They probably never even had to say anything to each other. These things are simply understood and for the scheme to work long-term the person receiving the “quid” will need to deliver the “quo,” otherwise he will never get the “quid” again from anyone. These things become very well-known BECAUSE they are public. Everyone knows that if you become a good friend of Bill you are likely to get good treatment from HC (then SoS). So how do you become a good friend of Bill? You give huge contributions to the Foundation and you invite him to speak, paying an overwhelming price for the engagement. There is NO need to discuss details. Those things are simply understood in that milieu.
    • Even so, the weird story of HC’s e-mails is becoming more logical when you understand the extent of the “quid-pro-quo” scheme here. Although I am sure there would not have been a smoking gun e-mail amongst those destroyed, to go to the level that she did in setting up the private server in the first place (who in the world does that??) AND then destroying the server so no e-mail could be resurrected after it became clear that it may be required for congressional investigation signifies that there were enough circumstantial type e-mails there between her and others—including her trusted assistant Huma Abedin—that would have looked bad.
    • The bottom line of these scandals is this: HC and Bill have run roughshod over ALL normal standards of behavior in public life. No concern was paid to conflict of interest, to avoid doing things that will look bad. All in the service of greed and power hunger. It was so easy to restrict the activities of the Foundation in 2006 when HC started her presidential run, right? If becoming the President of the US were the goal, then normal people would have curtailed any activities, including those by their spouses that could be interpreted even remotely as conflicts of interest. Ted Cruise’s wife resigned from a huge job at Goldman Sachs as soon as he announced his presidential run. Why? To avoid the appearance of conflict. The same goes, it seems, for Chris Christy’s wife who resigned from her position just the other day, before he even announced. But not the Clintons. They just do not care. They are power hungry, greedy, and have a sense of entitlement. They deserve to be rich and the rules do not apply.
    • Justice needs to be seen to be done. So goes a famous saying. In this case, HC could not care less about how things are seen. She deserves to fail in her goal of being elected.
  3. Achievements/Experience. The fact that HC has a lame public persona is bad enough. Politicians need to be able to be well perceived. The above scandals alone should be enough to make her ineligible to be the President of the United States, but both pale in significance when considering her lack of achievement in 40 years of public life. What did she do? Name one thing HC was behind and drove forward that you feel can be classified as a major achievement. When asked this question, her supporters start to stutter because there is simply NOTHING to point to. So they resort to technical biography-type-matters: She was the first lady! She traveled the world extensively (as SoS). So this is it? She married into a “good” family and became a frequent flyer? These are her achievements? And therein lies the problem. She has NOTHING to show for her 40 years of public life. Some will ruefully utter the name Myanmar. I bet that 90% of Americans do not know what this word even means. Of the remaining 10% that know Myanmar is a country, only 1% could point to it on the map. Yes, one could say that during her tenure as SoS Myanmar progressed a tiny step towards democracy and that is a good thing and HC did help that along. But is that it???

It actually gets worse, during her tenure as SoS there were HUGE failures. I am not going to count them all here but the world is less stable and more violent due to her failures. You can try to blame it all on the President, but then it is certainly not a plus for her because if she was so against his policies and what he was instructing her to do we have to ask, why did she not resign?

Hillary Clinton is one of the least qualified people to be the President of the US ever. It shocks me that the media does not expose her lack of qualifications that is made so painful BECAUSE of her being in the public life for 40 years. Since Obama had no track record, some of us were concerned that he would not be a good President, but we had no proof because he had no time in public service. In the case of HC, the proof is out there for all to see: She achieved NOTHING for all these years of public service—that is, other than get rich and be swamped by a morass of scandals.

So why is she the presumptive and ONLY nominee of the Democratic Party?

How shallow can this whole process get?