Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

In this long, contentious year of campaigning for the presidency, there is only one thing just about everyone agrees on: we don’t like either of our choices. Oh, there are exceptions to that generalization: many Donald Trump supporters are so blindly loyal they would probably validate his boast that he could stand in the middle of 5^th Avenue and shoot someone without losing support. I don’t even know what to say to those people, and obviously nothing will get through to them anyway, so I’m just going to focus on folks who think. We thinking folks see two flawed candidates, and some think that makes for a tough choice. For me, the choice is as clear as a blue, sunny Florida sky. Hillary Clinton must be our next president.

I say that not because I think Mrs. Clinton is an ideal candidate or because I’m blind to her flaws. I say it because she is the only person who can save our country for a Trump presidency, and a Trump presidency is unthinkable. Both candidates have high unfavorability ratings, both are intensely disliked by many, and both have questionable items in their past records. That may sound like a wash, but it’s not. The thing I think we must do right now is stop thinking of Donald Trump as just another presidential candidate and stop thinking of this election as the usual weighing of one knowledgeable candidate against another or Democratic platform vs Republican platform. That is NOT what this election is about. This election is a choice between a president and a demagogue, a team builder and a narcissistic strong man. This is the most frightening presidential election of my lifetime or in the history of our country.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because—in spite of her negatives—she has the relevant knowledge and education for the office, she has the relevant experience for the office, and she has the temperament for the office. Donald Trump has none of those qualifications, and he has shown no interest whatsoever in learning or even admitting what he doesn’t know.

I spent my career teaching English. I loved the classroom so much I never wanted to move into administration, so I’ve never been the “boss” in charge of hiring. I did, however, serve on my share of search committees at the college where I spent my last 26 years; so I know a little bit about the process, and I’m sure some of you do as well. When a position opened at the college, it first of all had to be published so that people could know of the opening and apply for it. After applications were closed, the division dean would collect all of the applications and resumes, make copies, and distribute them to those who had been selected to act as the search committee. The committee members then had to review the stack of applications, make our individual selections, meet to put our choices together, narrow down the composite list to a short list of candidates who would be given phone interviews, then decide on two or three to be brought to campus for in-person interviews, and then make our final recommendation to the dean.

In reviewing the resumes, the first thing we looked for was the proper academic credentials. At the community/state college, a candidate had to hold a minimum of a master’s degree and a Ph.D. was a plus. Having a bachelor’s degree, or no degree, obviously would be a disqualifier. It was also essential that the degree be in the field in which the candidate was applying to teach (duh!). If we were hiring a philosophy professor, a candidate with a Ph.D. in math or psychology would not be considered. Then we looked at experience. Every young person knows the dilemma of having the education and training for a job but no experience because they’re applying for their first job or perhaps making a career change. All of us are grateful to those employers who gave us our first break and allowed us to gain experience, and it helps that sometimes relevant experience can be considered. Perhaps in our case a candidate had never taught before but had served as a TA in college or worked in a different position where the same skill set was required. And then we considered temperament, how compatibly the candidate would fit into our faculty, and whether he or she seemed to be a person of character and ethics.

I imagine the process at your work place is similar.

The United States has a job opening. As of January 20, 2017, the presidency will be vacant. WE are all the bosses responsible for hiring President Obama’s replacement. We’ve looked at the resumes—about 21 of them all together—conducted the interviews, in the form of televised debates and campaign speeches. And now we have our short list: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Next step.

Let’s look at these two candidates’ credentials. Hillary Clinton has a degree in law and is thoroughly familiar with the U. S. Constitution. Donald Trump has a bachelor’s degree in business. He has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, government, and history and his utter lack of motivation to learn about them. Credentials: Hillary.

Except for presidents seeking a second term, no one comes to the presidency with first-hand experience, so we have to look at relevant experience. Hillary Clinton was active during her husband’s presidency, served as a United States Senator, and served as Secretary of State. She is one of the most experienced candidates ever to apply for this job. Donald Trump has built buildings, run companies, organized beauty pageants, and worked as a reality TV star. Some argue that his business acumen is a transferable skill set, but I think making deals—the skill on which he most prides himself—is not really applicable to being a leader and diplomat. Moreover, four bankruptcies do not speak well of his business smarts or ethics. And if you don’t believe me, ask Michael Bloomberg. Therefore, I’m also going to award experience to Hillary.

So far, we have a clear winner; but we still have to look at the questions of character, temperament, ethics, and history. And this is where things get muddy; here’s where our front runner loses ground. Many voters question her character, don’t care for her temperament or personality, don’t believe she’s ethical, and have a long list of concerns about her past. Fair enough.

Hillary Clinton’s negative reputation began even before her husband became president. She was not the traditional First Lady. She didn’t, as she said, want to stay home, bake cookies, and have teas. She was a smart professional woman, and she chose to do First Lady her way.  According to the National First Ladies’ Library http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, her image problems began during the primaries. Among other things, according to this site, Bill Clinton announced from the get go that his wife would be an equal partner in his presidency, that they would be a “two for one deal.” The biography goes on to say, “Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president’s senior staff. [Because of] her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. . . . When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President’s potential response.” This is starkly different from the usual role of First Lady and earned Mrs. Clinton many early critics and enemies.

Then there was a long investigation on Whitewater, involving both of the Clintons. Later, she scored her own ethics investigations with Benghazi and her infamous emails. The FBI declined to bring charges against her for the emails, although not without some pretty harsh words: “extreme carelessness.” Even so, emails have often been an issue for other people in government, yet without anything close to the level of media attention. Benghazi was a tragedy, but seven investigations—led mostly by congressional Republicans—failed to turn up enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing. All of this attention would make one think the Benghazi incident was the first time a U. S. ambassador had been killed. Politifact, however, has a detailed analysis of embassy attacks and deaths under other presidents and other secretaries of state: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/.

So far, our candidate who nailed credentials and experience may appear to be faring not so well on the character issues. These are the facts, and no one can argue with them, and no one should attempt to whitewash them. But we still have to compare these facts with facts about her opponent’s character. Donald Trump has regularly been labeled liar, misogynist, xenophobe, and inciter of violence, among other things. He has ridiculed people with disabilities; he has ridiculed prisoners of war; he has made irresponsible public statements about his opponents, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father, all women, all Mexicans, all Muslims. It’s well documented that he refuses to pay many of the people who do work for him or at least pays them less than he originally agreed to pay. His steadfast refusal to release his tax returns makes it quite clear that there’s something or some things he doesn’t want us to know. He has barred members of the press from his events and has whined about his treatment by them. He has five children by three different mothers, whom he admits were raised mostly by the mothers. He has described his older daughter as “hot,” has repeatedly said he’d date her if she were not his daughter, and patted her ass on national TV. Eeewwwwwww! He has made irresponsible charges that his opponent (HRC) was responsible for Vince Foster’s death as well as some others and has led his supporters in the chant “Lock her up!” He has lawsuits pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He says wages are too high and would even allow states to lower the minimum wage. He is delusional enough to think he can build a wall on a 1989-mile border and make the other country pay for it. He appears to be in collusion with a foreign government not friendly to our democracy. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things, but these are enough for me.

To summarize, Clinton takes credentials and experience. Clinton and Trump both have some negatives on character, but I think his negatives are worse than hers. Hers have at least been investigated; and even though the court of public opinion is keeping the cases open, they’ve been closed in courts of law. She has actual plans and proposals, and she explains how she will accomplish them; he has a few vague ideas (mostly the stupid wall) and in a whole year has given no indication how he intends to accomplish anything he’s mentioned. So I’m going to say his negatives are far worse than hers. Final score: Clinton 3, Trump 0.

I’m with her.