Foreign Policy

How to Ignore Hillary

Trump Clinton Debate 1
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, born October 26, 1947, is an American politician and former United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009. | Hillary Clinton, Secretary Of State, Corruption, Email, Cover-up, Scandal, Pearls,

How a Democrat can ignore the horrific factual data

It is unfortunate that the presidential election debate has become so partisan that the woods are often missed for the trees.

From a pure marketing perspective, however, the election stratagems we see in this election offer great lessons on how to sell or obscure the facts of what ever product, candidate, or issue you are wishing to promote.

The media mantra to tell both sides of an issue - equal time - makes selling even non-facts (and indeed utter nonsense) relatively easy. At the same time, as each media outlet has staked claim to sections of the public by slanting their presentations to tell 'their people' what they want to hear, once an idea gains a foothold it can take on a life of its own with little challenge.

Smoke, fire & lies

So in a world where it is generally believed that "where there is smoke there is fire," it has also become true that "if you tell a lie enough times and it becomes an accepted fact".

If it leads, it bleeds... and the viewers will follow

Another truth that this election has proved yet again is the old adage that "if it bleeds it leads". In other words, the more outlandish or controversial, the more coverage will be attained.

In all of the above, the most salient point we the public need to know is that the media today is all about getting eyeballs or ears, more than it is about presenting facts - or worse, having a social conscious or responsibility. The more listeners or viewers, the higher the ad revenue will be. In this scenario one can imagine what would happen if, for instance, 'Fox News' began slanting its coverage to favor Hillary Clinton and MSNBC began to slant its news to favor Donald Trump. It would not take long for the audiences to switch.

With the proliferation of media today, the public as never before can tune into the media outlet that tells them exactly what they want to hear - what they want to believe - and not what they should hear or believe. This makes it easy to have opinions ossify and become cast in stone. This is where we are in the 2016 election. It's no wonder each side will support their candidate no matter what negative revelations come out.

The lesser of two evils and wishes that won't happen

I have never seen or supported a candidate that 100% fit what I want to happen so every election was a matter of the best out of two choices. Or as some would have it, 'the lesser of two evils'. I also know that no matter who is elected, our system of government makes it difficult for dramatic changes to happen. Checks and balances are built into the system with every intention to prevent the dictatorship. So pronouncements by either campaign about what their candidate would do, are for the most part just wishes that wont happen. So who that relatively narrow independent section of the public "like' or "trust" becomes the central driving force on who will get elected. The only other thing that must be considered is 'fear' as we have seen that swing elections in the past.

All things considered my choice for President this time around must be Hillary Clinton. I see her negatives as follows.

1. The e-mail server issue is based entirely on the idea that use of a private server would give greater risk of being hacked - and therefore compromise national security, than if she had used the State Department server. Anyone who knows the reality of the internet world knows that there is no such thing as a secure server. All servers have been hacked and will continue to be so so whether a private or State Department server was used would make no difference on security. We don't want to advertise that US intelligence regularly hacks EVERYONE from Russia to even our allies, just as they hack us. There are no more secrets any more. So this reality makes the whole e-mail issue a silly ignorant issue for me.

Christopher Stevens
Christopher Stevens

John Christopher Stevens (April 18, 1960 – September 11, 2012) was an American diplomat and lawyer who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 2012. He was killed when the U.S. consulate was attacked in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. | Photo: Associated Press |
2. The Benghazi issue boils down to this. Many of our embassies have asked for more security and this has been rejected by the Congress who allocates the funding. The votes against the funding were for the most part Republican. Secondly, when the attack happened in Benghazi there were no military assets within reach to help so there was nothing that could have been done once the attack started. As to the reason for the attack and what was told to the families of those 4 Americans that died it makes little difference whether it was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous attack based on a video. The main point is that the Ambassador should not have been there in the first place but he (who more than anyone) knew the risks decided to go to Benghazi. If in fact he had been instructed by Sec. Clinton to go to Benghazi AND no added security was provided THEN it would be a fair issue to criticize. That is not the case.

3. The Clinton Foundation money laundering. There is no question that the Clinton Foundation does a great deal of important work helping people in poor countries and there is no indication that any Clinton family member took money out of the foundation for their own ends. The quid pro quo argument would only be relevant if in fact there was personal benefit to the Clintons. Donations to the foundation that also resulted to a meeting with the Secretary of State, I see no problem with unless a favor was given that was not to the benefit of the USA. There is no evidence that this happened. If an oil rich state paid a million dollars to the Clinton foundation that went to help sick Africans and all that state got was a meeting, then I say "great!" It saves US taxpayers from giving money to help those Africans.

4. The Wikileaks hacks show the normal type of stuff that goes on between any group of people in whatever political party we look at. There are definitely things you say in public that out of necessity can vary from what you would say in a smaller group. The general public may not be as educated as to the nuances of an issue that a smaller group directly involved with an issue would be. There are no bombshells I see in any of the leaks -

5. Foreign policy overall is a messy business at the best of times. There is no good answer to the situation in Syria, but having lived there and in the Middle East for 25 years, I believe the US is best served by staying out of the conflict as much as possible. The strategy on dealing with ISIS by the Obama administration is working so I say don't change course mid stream. Let others spend their money and get bogged down instead of us.

The Iran nuke deal: Best and worst

The nuclear deal with Iran was the best option and no deal would have been the worst option. The fact that the Iranian hardliners and Republican Guard are opposed to the deal should make it obvious that it was to our advantage to have the deal. Paying money back to Iran with their own money was not an issue. It was not ours and to make any deal we would have had to give it back. Making sure we retrieved hostages only makes sense. If that had not happened, it would have created criticism as well.

Kerry, Gore and Hollande
Kerry, Gore and Hollande

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore speak with French President Francois Hollande after he delivered a speech on December 12, 2015, at the COP21 climate change conference at LeBourget Airport in Paris, France. | Photo: State Department | Link | John Kerry, Al Gore, Francois Hollande, U.s. Secretary Of State, Vice President, President, France, Cop21,

The greenhouse-effected silver lining

On the positive side, there is no question that the most long term danger facing the US and the rest of the world is climate change. The US has already seen billions of dollars in damage as well as lives lost to its affects. This will worsen to the point that even the most ardent denier will have to face the reality.

Hillary knows it is real.

Citizens United is a bad deal. Hillary is against it. Roe vs Wade should stay in place and only a Democratic president will insure that.

Health care is an issue and no doubt "Obamacare" needs serious tweaking. The trade deals are difficult to judge as smart people on both sides of the argument have a case to make. Cheaper items at Walmart vs higher wages and duties on foreign goods will be an issue for a long time to come. No easy answers there.

Finally I want a smart, experienced, level-headed person in the oval office and a woman is not bad as well. I also want someone who knows the system and can work across the isle, making as few enemies as possible in the process or nothing will get done. Clinton has proven she can do that.

I welcome your response.

Comment on Facebook

Updated Jan 2, 2019 12:27 PM EST | More details


©2019 AND Magazine

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written permission from AND Magazine corporate offices. All rights reserved.