In the Dicken’s
novel, Great Expectations, lawyer Jaggers discloses dark secrets to the hero, Pip,
using the phrase, “put the case,” meaning I have a series of events to disclose
and I want to put my spin on it. Today, I want to put my case on the
forthcoming battle between Clinton and Trump.
For more than
three years, Hillary Clinton has dominated the Democratic Party race for the Presidency.
Eight years ago, she was the front runner at the start of the primary season
but in a brilliant campaign, Barack Obama caught her up and passed her and Hillary’s
nomination was denied her. Mrs Clinton seems to have learned the lessons well.
Since 2014,
Hillary has been her Party’s front runner. It has benefited her to run against another
Democrat, Bernie Sanders, who has made quite an impression and made the Clinton
camp sweat a bit. Would Democratic Party supporters have adopted a socialist
for their nominee? I don’t think so. And Clinton has known this all along.
The event that I
believe has paid off in spades for Mrs Clinton is the Republican’s choice of nominee.
Picture Hillary and her close advisers back in January, settled before a
television set and watching the first Republican Presidential debate where
there were more than twenty candidates. A Hillary adviser poses a question:
“Which of these
people do we not want to face in November?”
“Rubio, Bush,”
come the replies.
“Okay, who would
we best like to face?”
“Trump,” everyone shouts.
In 1972, CREEP,
the campaign to re-elect President Nixon, embarked on a series of acceptable
and non-acceptable political antics to ensure their man held onto the White
House. They engineered the selection process so that stronger candidates like Ed
Muskie dropped out of the race. Do you remember the “Canuck Letter,” when Mrs
Muskie’s character was impugned for racism and Muskie himself broke down in
public? Nixon went on to face the man he wanted, George McGovern, undoubtedly
the weakest Democratic candidate. Nixon won the election in one of the biggest
landslides on record.
I do not suggest
that the Clinton camp has played dirty tricks on her Republican opponents but Hillary
cannot be anything but delighted that she will not face a politician in the
election. Noticeably, she has refrained from making serious attacks on Trump
until this week when she secured the Democratic nomination. Then she left fly,
pouring scorn on Trump, particularly about his accusation that U.S. District
Judge Gonzalo Curiel had a prejudicial conflict in presiding over the
litigation on Trump University, given that he was of Mexican heritage and a
member of a Latino lawyers’ association.
No doubt, we can
expect to hear a lot more from Trump about “crooked Hillary.” He will lambast
the FBI for not bringing charges against her over the use of a private e-mail
server when she was Secretary of State. But Trump will have to face facts. There
will be no prosecution. The FBI has investigated this case for more than six
months. Were a prosecution mounted now, it would be regarded as interfering
with the political process.
I see the e-mail issue
in political terms. The FBI is part of Homeland Security which reports to the
Attorney General, whose boss is the President. He has now endorsed Hillary. End
of story.
I do not expect
serious Democratic Party attacks on Trump until the Conventions. However, come
August, I anticipate the most negative Presidential campaign ever witnessed.
Trump’s naivety and inexperience on foreign affairs is a big target but Presidential
elections are not won over foreign policy. Americans vote their pocket books
(wallets) and Trump’s economic policies will be savaged. Despite the hopes of
Trump supporters, there is little in what he says that will raise middle-class
wages in real terms or help the poor in American society.
Say what you like about
Mrs Clinton, she is well prepared for the chief executive’s job. Eight years as
first lady, four years as a US senator and four more years as Secretary of
State. In comparison, Trump has a reality TV show, an uncertain dollar worth,
(much will be made of his refusal to disclose his tax returns), a suspect
business track record, littered with bankruptcies, as well as questionable
practices in connection with Trump University.
At the end of the
day, a Presidential election is about character. Here is a problem. Both nominees
are professional liars! Both are immensely unpopular with less than a 40%
approval rating. However, if Trump starts to see the polls go against him, I
suspect he will make more and more outrageous claims relating to Muslims,
Mexicans and immigration, the role of women and the like. I have not seen any
evidence of his engaging with close advisers who feel confident to tell him
“no, you can’t say that.”
In contrast,
Hillary not only has seasoned, professional advisers but an ace in the hole.
Bill Clinton is the best political campaigner I have ever seen. I am not a
betting man but if I was, I would take a flutter now on the Democrats retaining
the White House.
The race for
Congress? That’s another story.
Yesterday’s shootings in Orlando were appalling,
a homophobic terrorist attack with a record number of deaths and injuries. Trump
used the tragedy to prop up his controversial call for a ban on all Muslims
entering the US. He tweeted: “What has happened in Orlando is just the
beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for
the ban. Must be tough.” He chose to ignore the fact that the perpetrator was
American born! Hillary Clinton correctly emphasised the Pulse horror as a hate
attack on the LGBT community, calling for better gun control but she also used
the terrorism label, saying, “We need to redouble our efforts to defend our
country from threats at home and abroad.”
Sadly, by the end of the month Orlando will probably
be just a memory, calls for more gun restrictions will be met by the gun lobby
response that the Second Amendment is the best defence, that more arms mean
better defence, the gun sale market will boom and Congress will resist any
attempts by the administration to outlaw automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
I hate to be so negative but the history of gun outrages does nothing to
encourage me to believe otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment