Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

If there had been any lingering doubt in my mind after looking at the two candidates’ credentials, experience, and character, their respective conventions and acceptance speeches alone would have been enough to clinch my decision.

The GOP convened in Cleveland amid much turmoil because of the deep divisions in the party, and the convention did little or nothing to heal the rifts. Trump kept on being Trump, with some small exceptions for his acceptance speech. Even that was long on bluster and short on specifics and plans. As President Obama so aptly put it, “The Donald is not really a plans guy. He’s not really a facts guy either.” The Donald has had over a year since he made his announcement that he was running for president to learn some facts and to make some plans, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that he has no desire to know any more than he knows or to be any more specific than he has been about plans. I would also conclude that he is intellectually incapable of doing either of those two things.

The president went on to say, “[Trump] calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated . . . Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent his 70 years on this Earth showing no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion?” Good question, Mr. President!

Vice President Joe Biden said, “No major party nominee in the history of this nation has ever known less or been less prepared to deal with our national security.” California Governor Jerry Brown added, “Even the Know Nothings, anti-immigrant party of the 1850s, did not stray this far into sheer ignorance and dark fantasy as have the Republicans and their leader Donald Trump.” And Michael Bloomberg aptly observed, “Trump says he wants to run the nation like he’s running his business? God help us. I am a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one. . . . Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.” From Tim Kaine, we have this assessment: “To me, it seems like our nation is too great to put in the hands of a slick-talking, empty promising, self-promoting, one-man wrecking crew.” And Joe Biden summed it all up as only Joe can: “That [Trump’s speech] is a bunch of malarkey!”

What was Mr. Trump’s response to these scathing accusations? How did he respond to Khizr Khan, father of a slain Muslim U. S. soldier, when he held out his well-worn pocket edition of our country’s constitution and asked Donald Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” How did the Donald respond? Did he defend his knowledge of the constitution, saying he has read and cherishes it? Did he admit his knowledge is limited but he will devote his every waking moment to learning this sacred document? Did he apologize for any of his insults to women, veterans, Muslims, Mexicans, or any of the other numerous groups he has disrespected? Did he vow to help American workers and actually outline plans for doing so? Did he express sympathy for the Khan family’s loss and promise to honor their son’s life and memory? Did he promise to change his tactics to prove his critics wrong? Did he promise to release his tax returns??

NO. The answer to each of the above questions is NO. Here is how he responded to his chastening at the DNC: “You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor. I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

I guess this must be that pivot we’ve heard so much about. You know, the pivot he would make when he entered the general election season to more presidential behavior. It should be abundantly obvious by now to any thinking person that Trump is not going to pivot. He can’t. If I were asked to pivot and start acting like a genetic scientist, I couldn’t do that because I know very little about the science of genetics. It’s just not in me to act like that. And it’s not in Donald Trump to act like a president, because he knows nothing about what presidential behavior is. When did we parents begin teaching our children to find ways other than physical violence to resolve conflicts? When they were toddlers! The first time one of them hit a sibling in anger or retaliation, we started the conversation. Donald Trump is an emotional toddler. What we’ve seen so far is all he has. That’s it. Ain’t nothin’ else ever going to emerge because it’s not there.

Hillary Clinton also entered her party’s convention with deep and potentially disruptive divisions. Bernie Sanders had not completely yielded to her victory, and he had some strong Bernie or Bust supporters who did not want to let go. The first day started out pretty rocky, but by the end of the evening tempers had settled and there was the beginning of party unity. And by the end of the roll call on Tuesday, most of the dissension had been quelled and the convention was ready to go forward pretty smoothly. I credit both Bernie Sanders and the Clinton campaign for the quick restoration of party unity. Sanders acted as the adult and made the motion to elect Clinton as their candidate by acclamation, and the Clinton campaign and convention organizers gave Bernie Sanders his due respect and credit for the work he did during the campaign. Mutual respect, something completely missing at the RNC, saved the day. Oh, I didn’t see Bernie smiling or putting his hands together during Hillary’s acceptance speech. It was a crushing loss for him; he’s allowed to grieve his loss. But what’s important is he did the responsible adult thing, and his party is more unified because of his actions.

What the DNC did for Hillary Clinton is introduce America to a different person than the caricature which has so dominated public opinion for decades. As one commentator put it, “She is the most famous person in the world that no one knows.” On Wednesday evening, following Bill Clinton’s speech, the talking heads—many of them seasoned political pundits who’ve been covering presidential elections for decades—were genuinely surprised, wide-eyed and open-mouthed, over the things they had learned that evening about someone they thought they already knew. As Van Jones put it, Bill Clinton had “put together the dots” to make a surprising picture of a “workaholic do-gooder chick.” That sounds a lot like her personal motto, learned from her Methodist faith, which we heard more than once: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Then how did it happen that a “workaholic do-gooder chick” who lived by the motto ““Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can” ended up with the nickname “Crooked Hillary” and a reputation for being a liar and a criminal? According to President Obama, it was because “That’s what happens when we try.” He said you have to get into the arena to make a difference, and those who are in the arena, the people who are trying, will make mistakes; and “Hillary Clinton is that woman in the arena.” The president went on to say, “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport.” Hillary has never settled for being only a spectator. From her college days until today, she has been an advocate for children’s and women’s needs, she has served her country as governor’s wife, president’s wife, senator, Secretary of State, and numerous other jobs where she was less in the national spotlight. She has stood by hurting people and been their voice wherever she has served.

According to Politico Magazine, “On the whole, Clinton’s misstatements are those of a typical politician. She has changed her position on a number of issues, and some of these reversals—like her newfound opposition to the Pacific trade deal she championed as secretary of state—rise to the level of flip-flops or, perhaps, insincere electioneering designed to obscure what she really thinks. In defending her use of a private email server, Clinton has clearly stretched the truth, though whether she grasps the fallaciousness of her statements or believes herself to be giving straight answers is impossible to know.” This doesn’t exactly award her Sunday School teacher status, but it also does not justify William Safire’s 1996 accusation that she is a “congenital liar.” On the other hand, Politico Magazine says of Trump: “Three Politico reporters fact-checked Trump’s statements for a week, [and] found he had uttered ‘roughly one misstatement every five minutes.’ Collectively, his falsehoods won PolitiFact’s 2015 ‘Lie of the Year’ award. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has judged Trump ‘perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-history-presidents-liars-dishonest-fabulists-214024#ixzz4FoiFjIAI

Mrs. Clinton’s biggest enemy is just pure sexism, in the same way President Obama’s is racism. Yeah, I said it! Hillary Clinton has been put through “scandal” investigations for things which men in high position have done without a fraction of the consequences. Emails have been in the news before: George W. Bush, David Petraeus. Even her husband has not suffered the same long-lasting attacks she has over the Whitewater scandal. And for evidence of the different standards to which men and women are held, we need look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Mr. Trump. Legal actions are pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He spews insults at every demographic; childishly and maliciously lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him; mocks people with disabilities and veterans who were captured; responds to normal political speeches by wanting to punch those who spoke about him; appears to be colluding with a foreign leader to tamper with our election. And where’s the outrage? Where are the investigations? Does anyone believe that if half these charges could be made against Hillary Clinton she would still have won her party’s nomination? Does anyone really believe there would not be a far greater outcry?

Society has strictly defined parameters for what is acceptable behavior. Whenever anyone steps beyond their designated boundaries, they are viewed as presumptuous, arrogant, uppity, ungodly, and generally suspect. They are also intimidating. And what do we humans do when we are intimidated? Why, we attack, of course. We attack the person who has violated our norms, who has raised doubt in our minds about the validity of those norms, who has shaken our world view, and who has made us feel less secure in our own worth and understanding. How dare those persons cross our lines? Who do they think they are? How dare they think they’re so smart or so powerful? A black man wants to be president? Who the hell does he think he is? We’ll show him; he might be president, but we won’t give him the respect due the office, and we’ll jeopardize our country just to be sure he doesn’t succeed. A woman wants to be president? Who the hell does she think she is? We’re just going to pick out every little mistake she’s ever made in her lifetime of service to her country and magnify it as if she were Satan personified. We’ll show her!

Shirley Chisholm, in 1968, became the first African-American congresswoman. In 1972, she became the first woman to run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. She had this to say about her experience: “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black.” Well, that sounds like sexism to me.

In her acceptance speech, Mrs. Clinton humbly acknowledged voters’ distrust and dislike of her. She said in essence, “I’ve heard you. I know how you feel about me. Let’s have a conversation about that.” Instead of talking about punching people, she pledged to take people’s feelings seriously, to be more open, and to work on gaining voters’ trust. That won’t erase all that has caused people to have those feelings, nor should it; but a head-on, straightforward conversation is a lot more honest and trustworthy in my book than doubling down when confronted and threatening to punch someone hard enough to make his head spin. The things I’ve heard this week have made me willing to give her another chance, to view her through a different lens.

Trump’s acceptance speech was all about what HE will do, single-handedly: “I alone can fix it”; all of our problems will magically disappear as soon as I walk into the Oval Office. (This attitude, by the way, further demonstrates his ignorance of how government works.) His speech was the “I” speech. Clinton’s acceptance speech was the “we” speech: what we can all do together to address our country’s needs and problems. She said, “We’ll fix it together.” Hillary Clinton’s speech beautifully described what a democracy is and made me proud to be part of the greatest democracy on earth. Donald Trump’s speech was the ranting of a demagogue: this country is dark, scary, and doomed; and you need me to fix it and make it great again.

News flash, Donald! This country has always been great. It’s never stopped being great. We don’t need you and your childishness, your ego, your anger, your insults, your pettiness, your divisiveness, your misogyny, your xenophobia, your lies, or your threats. What we need is a president, not a demagogue.

So you can just take your big orange self back to Trump Tower, because we’re with her.