It is not easy for me to get inside the mind of a Democrat, but I will try.
First, I would be ready to stick it hard to the big New York banks for what they did leading up to 2008-10.
Everyone is ready to do this. Why should Democrats not be on this bandwagon?
Hillary Clinton is obviously on the take. Nobody gets $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches because of the content of the speeches. Nobody who is as charisma-challenged as Hillary Clinton gets as much as $2,500.
She and Bill have pulled in $153 million in speaking fees. “It’s just one of those things . . . just one of those crazy things.”
Second, the woman may be indicted by the justice department for her unguarded emails. Maybe she won’t go to prison, but she will spend her Presidency dealing with subpoenas and legal responses. What kind of agenda is this?
Third, she may get indicted after the nomination but before the election. Is it wise to have the party’s standard bearer under indictment? Will Donald Trump mention this from time to time in his own inimitable way?
Fourth, what will Congressional candidates do to protect themselves from the fallout? There will be a media frenzy. “What is your view of Mrs. Clinton’s indictment? Is it hurting the party’s chances this November?”
Fifth, if she is elected, will she face a united and implacable Republican-dominated Congress? Will she get any piece of partisan legislation through this Congress in the first two years? Any President who comes up empty handed in the first two years is finished for the next two. Re-election is unlikely.
Sixth, is Sanders more fun to listen to than she is?
Seventh, does Sanders sound like he is going to be pushed around by the special interests? A guy who got elected as an Independent?
Eighth, is Sanders’ flamboyant style better suited to deal with Trump, or is Clinton’s constipated style just what the campaign needs?
Ninth, is there anything in Sanders’ past to match Benghazi?
Tenth, do people trust her enough to vote for her?
(For the rest of my article, click the link.)
