Over the last seven days, three candidates had their first public address/speech, as potential presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and … the Donald.

This will be the first of a three-part series on each of them.

Hillary Clinton

Although already running for a month or so, she only now decided to have a public speech to formally declare her candidacy.

The address was typical Hillary. It ticked all the issues using the appropriate platitudes and managed to say absolutely nothing.

Clinton always comes across as insincere. She never says anything, which has a clear decisive meaning. Everything that she does say is always open to interpretation. She is the consummate politician.

Two points from her address and the follow up interview she did the day after in Iowa are worth noting:

  1. In her address, she spent maybe two minutes on foreign affairs out of a forty-five-minute speech. This is our former Secretary of State (SofS), her most—her only—executive role to-date. That alone is curious (see my comment below) but what is more incredible (and got ZERO coverage in the media) is what she did say as part of that brief glance at her role as SofS. She had the temerity to say that she “stood up to Putin.” Really? That is what she calls the now infamous, caricature “reset” and the complete bowing to Russia on EVERY element of foreign affairs???
  2. The other point in her address worth noting was that she did not comment at all on the most topical subject of last weekend. The issue of Trade Promotion Authority and the humiliation that Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, delivered to the president less than 24 hours before her speech. She said NOTHING on that. True, a day later in an interview with one local media outlet in Iowa she could not avoid the question and for once gave a fairly clear answer, something that she rarely, if ever, does. She sided with Pelosi! That is so shocking as to make everything that I think of her—bad enough to start with—even worse.

The dreaded opinion polls that I believe have very little value at this stage of the game show her at about 45% in national polling against a score of different Republican potential presidential candidates. Admittedly, she beats them all by 2–3% margin. However, the problem is that there is not ONE potential voter in this country who does not know her. In the real elections, out of the about 12% of the voters that did not make up their mind yet (if she is polling 45% and the Republican potential nominee about 43%, that leaves 12% undecided), she will need to convert 40% of them to her side after 35 years in the public limelight, 6 years as an active senator, 4 years as a SofS, and 1 intensive primary presidential campaign. Suddenly, these 40% of the undecided will come to the epiphany that they like her in November 2016 while they would not, in polls, vote for her in June 2015.

That is a hard bar to cross.

People point to her husband trials and tribulations in the 1992 elections as an example that the Clintons always come through at the end.

There are vast differences between the two.

First, Bill is simply an amazing politician, compassionate, genuine, and centrists. She is insincere and clearly not comfortable in the retail politicking

Bill had zero national exposure and very few people knew who he was and, thus, were open to make up their own minds on him. Unfortunately for Hillary, she has a track record. The problem is that she simply cannot run on it, as it is abysmal.

His antics were new and, although he clearly was not the most moral/ethical of men (being polite here), that was always on personal matters and not on matters of state like Hillary.

Bill was fighting a 4th term of Republicans in the White House—an unprecedented feat—and indeed it was not to be. Hillary is exactly the opposite in that she is trying to get to a third term of Democrats in the White House—very hard to do.

Most importantly, as of now (although that can change) there is no spoiler in the form of Ross Perot. To remind everyone: it is highly unlikely that Bill Clinton would have won in 1992 if it was not for the emergence of Ross Perot and him raking in close to 20% of the vote.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is disingenuous, she will say whatever she feels the right thing is at a specific time to appease a specific group of voters and then change her position on it the day after to fit a different group. She has no real positions, she is ethically challenged (giving her the benefit of the doubt here that she is not straight-up criminal), and her track record is frighteningly bad.

She does not deserve to be the president of this country.