Hillary's Prevent Defense

The Clinton family strategy goes awry

There simply is no mojo in what Hillary Clinton is dishing
out. It doesn't matter whether it's at a public event or that rare
4-question press conference.

Even opponents have remarked up until now that Donald Trump's presidential campaign may be one of the most remarkable political journeys ever. We've all seen a man that was lampooned as an idiot last year outwit the minds of 17 seasoned primary opponents, as well as a media that desperately wanted him to remain a story for ratings but has remained committed to condemning him. Many years from now, the same political analysts that have studied the Trump campaign for its success will also study the Hillary Clinton campaign for its ineptitude and failures. Whereas Trump had to claw his way into the game with all of his shenanigans, and bizarre behaviour, and yes, dare I say it, intelligence, Clinton managed to squander every single advantage she had. There's so many to choose from as well:

• Connections -- Aside from the obvious fact that she is the wife of an ex-President, Clinton is hooked up with help from President Obama, numerous high level policy makers from past administrations, and several openly supportive media figures such as Rolling Stone founder and publisher Jann Wenner. 
• Funding -- The Clinton campaign in early July had a massive fundraising advantage over Trump, by more than three to one. That does not include the aid of Super PACs that had supplied Clinton with more ads with a margin of over 24-to-1. 
• Prestige -- In the minds of many in both the business and political world the Clinton family had major cachet to deal in given the success of Bill as president. Though we know now of her flaws as Sec. of State, Hillary did have a respectable (but not remarkable) career as a US Senator from New York. 
• Organizational -- Ever since 2012 it was fair to believe that the Hillary 2016 campaign was already starting, and she was the first Democrat to announce her campaign for office. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had preceded her on the Republican side, but at the time were not considered favoured candidates by any means. Add to that the facts we know retrospectively (and perhaps we should have known at the time) that the Democratic National Committee appears to have skewed the race in her favour, and the overwhelming majority of superdelegates simply picked her even in states where she was outpolled.

So then given that: Why are we seeing this seeming juggernaut of a candidate completely unraveling in front of our eyes? Some of those reasons are actually related to the very advantages of hers that may have now become disadvantages. And some of them are just head scratchers. So I figured I'd get in the spirit of the new football season and use the advice of a few friends.

1. They let her of the hook! -- Dennis Green, former Arizona Cardinals coach.

The most recent (ongoing) problem that has rocked the Clinton campaign boat has been her legal issues with the State Dept., Clinton Foundation, and Benghazi. I'm not going to recap all of them. The effect that this has had on the campaign is to show a candidate that has been shown to be incompetent (Benghazi), violating the confidence of her office (e-mails), and using her office to curry favour with rich clients/donors (Clinton Foundation). Now let's start from the debate as to whether what she did was a crime. The fact is that her acknowledged actions constitute clear instances of perjury, obstruction of justice, and violations of criminal codes inherent to her position as Secretary of State. 

John Gotti's cool temperament while under
indictment is a direct contrast from
Hillary Clinton's. It's not a learnable skill.

I am old enough (sigh) to remember one of the most impressive criminal defendants of all time, one John Joseph Gotti, Jr. Gotti was called the Teflon Don, and was a media and public darling because he just had that charisma and style while thumbing his nose at the massive prosecution apparatus of the federal government and the FBI. That sympathy started to dissipate when recorded audio footage and testimony by his lieutenant exposed him as simply a murderer. If you read the details of his career as opposed to the image he projected, it becomes clear that he was not the criminal mastermind that the media tried to project and he passively validated. In fact, he was an unsophisticated racketeer, and his underlings were dumb thugs.  Now, in the next section I'll outline that to most Americans Clinton doesn't even have that charisma to bank on, so this perception of impunity before the law even in the face of decisions that have caused the deaths of others certainly tarnishes her image. But where John Gotti's Gambino family and the Clinton family have similarities is the incompetence of their aides. Gotti's top lieutenants (such as Angelo Ruggiero) were taped yakking in their cars about all of their scams and planned murders. The Clintons' underlings Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills among others have similarly been implicated in scandals where they dispose of evidence and blur the lines of her work with the Foundation and State Department, which is a clear conflict of interest. Average citizens are willing to tolerate smart and charismatic criminals; what they hate is when the person being victimized is them.

When Congress or average citizens attempt to hold her accountable for HER OWN ACTIONS, what is her reaction? Blaming a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Now millions of Americans are saying otherwise. Where's the conspiracy when there is clear evidence that the Justice Department, the FBI, IRS, and all of our vast federal law enforcement infrastructure are willing to simply overlook her failures (she would say "mistakes") as a law-abiding citizen, whereas for the "average" criminal there may be a dogged pursuit that ruins their lives through years of phone tapping and police harassment. Even for people who like to root for the villain, the Clinton's are not very likable. Which leads to the next topic... 

2. "I think with me what you see is what you get. But some people don’t like what they see.”--Buddy Ryan, Philadelphia Eagles Head Coach.

Have you read all of those articles claiming that the Hillary Clinton we think we see is not the real one and she's really a warm and caring person? Yeah, I stop reading after a while too. The bottom line is: charisma. 

Listen to me Hillary. A lot of us kind of liked Bill when he was in the White House. I'll admit, it wasn't the most well-thought-out reaction to having a chief executive who was basically getting the deluxe special from another federal employee. But we did like him, because at the end of the day some of us are scoundrels to some degree too. We didn't like you, Hillary, except as a side kick to him. OK, maybe some people did like you, but that was clever marketing. Is there any amazing Hillary inspiration moment that sticks out? Write me back, because my memory fails me. 

My suspicion is that there are plenty of Americans who know someone who has been dealt with harshly by the same system and are saying: "You know what? This is too much. You are just a cold lying bitch. I kind of liked that Bill Clinton guy, but YOU. Ohh man, I've had enough." When you have a friend that wants your trust but is unwilling to level with you, is constantly rejecting the slightest bit of criticism, and feels that their ambitions are things that they deserve and not challenges for them to accomplish, that's a person that you avoid. The same goes with such a candidate.

3. "Playoffs, are you kidding me? Playoffs?" -- Jim Mora, Indianapolis Colts

OK, so in our case the exclamation would be "Primaries?" The network media loves to sweep under the rug what is perhaps the most egregious failure of Hillary Clinton: her performance in the primaries. Compared to the Republican bloodbath that happened simultaneously she had it very, very easy. Let's recap the competition. In October 2015 there were six competitors for the Democratic nomination: Clinton, Bernie Sanders, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, and Harvard Prof. Lawrence Lessig. By November, three of those people had dropped out: Lessig, Chafee, and Webb. O'Malley dropped out after a dismal showing in the January Iowa Caucuses.  The herd thinned in much slower fashion on the Republican side. 

Did she effectively employ that advantage? No. On the contrary Clinton's campaign reacted to the demand for more candidate debates evasively, as did the DNC. And who were they running from? A geriatric socialist Jew from Vermont who at the time was not a very viable candidate, Bernie Sanders. Throughout the primary season it seemed as if the Clinton campaign was in run out the clock mode, whereas the Bernie activists played their hearts out in many states that on the face of it should have been locks for Hillary. I personally had predicted that the Sanders campaign would have trouble breaking Hillary's choke-hold anywhere outside of New England. That changed in March when he seriously outperformed her in a debate in Flint, Michigan and won that state's primary. From then on she continued to lose significant states like Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington, ones that have Democratic  majorities.

Even prior to the DNC leaks controversy, it was abundantly clear that the Clinton campaign viewed the Democratic primary process as a charade, but they never were willing to go on record and admit it. But Bernie voters and independents saw through it. In fact, it is possible that the person holding back Bernie's triumph over Hillary was not the DNC, but Bernie. His stodgy refusal to dip into the Benghazi and email controversies lost him some credit with  independents. So were the primaries a charade? I've claimed in past years that the NBA playoffs were a charade, but yet I still watch them! The problem this year is that the higher turnout in the primary included a lot of people who were under the impression at the time that they were NOT a charade. These people don't wanna hear any of this crap from Clinton about "progressive that gets things done", "stronger together", or rhetoric about Trump. They didn't join this election for the benefit of any of those topics, but for whatever it was that Bernie was saying. This is why there is strong fear in the Democratic camp that "progressives" are not going to show up to vote. 

4. "You play TO WIN THE GAME" -- Herman Edwards, former New York Jets Head Coach.

This is the most important issue at hand. There is a significant portion of the American media and telecommunications infrastructure that believes that Hillary Clinton, not necessarily on her own merit, MUST be elected president. But in the end, it's not CNN that wins the election, it's not Madeleine Albright, and it's not Mark Cuban. Those people can give influence, and they have every right to (up to a point), but the end the candidate has to win, and this one isn't willing to do it. 

The best example that exhibits that problem is the invitation of Mexican Pres. Enrique Peña Nieto. Peña extended this invitation on the understanding that it would give Clinton the opportunity to come to visit and shore up her vote among Mexican Americans and other Latinos. Instead, she declined the invitation and Trump pounced on it. In reality, there is not much that she would have gained in meeting with Peña, yet by letting Trump jump on the opportunity while she remained out of sight she showed that she is focused on attacking Trump but not actually competing with him. She still cannot accept that there's someone on her level. Hillary Clinton has to come to grips. It doesn't matter if she doesn't believe that Trump is a valid opponent, because so many of Trump's primary opponents said the same thing, and look where Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush are today! That's the path she's headed for, because she refuses to play to win.  She only plays to save her skin.