What’s the matter with Hillary?

At last two pieces which go to the heart of why Donald Trump is rampant and Hillary Clinton is faltering. The plain fact is that people like their politicians to inspire or at least identify with their problem and fears.  Mrs Clinton is a poor speaker and comes across as an over-calculating policy wonk who does neither. Remember  those visits to Belfast showing support for the peace process  which continued even after we were thrown off the international news agenda? Admirable for us but all for naught back home it seems. The impact of Bill and Hillary in Ireland and perhaps even the magic of JFK is fading fast. In a terrific piece in the Irish Times Niall O’Dowd explains why Irish America’s drift away from the Democrats is speeding up fast with Hillary.

The poll showed Irish-Americans voting 45 per cent for Trump with 41 per cent for Clinton and the rest undecided.

The break with traditional ties to Democrats and Clinton is from a culture where pulling yourself up by the bootstraps has become a powerful belief.  Now they believe they see America moving backwards at a rate of knots. Quotas in universities, firehouses and police stations have affected them in once traditional Irish professions.

… America is falling apart, Hillary and Bill are kleptomaniacs who’d steal your kid’s communion money, minorities are crime-ridden, getting special treatment, illegals are overrunning the country, Trump is the only hope.

Mike Mullen, a successful entrepreneur with roots in Clare, Cork and Galway who founded a successful software company that eventually employed 400, has very strong views on Hillary Clinton too.

I cannot remember a time when the choices for president were so poor. But, given the poor choice, I will have to vote for Donald Trump. There are many reasons for me to be disenchanted with Mr Trump, but my opposition to secretary Hillary Clinton far outweighs any and all of the issues I have with a Trump candidacy. Indeed, none of my issues with Clinton is greater than the upcoming supreme court appointment to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. I also think the Clintons (and without doubt Hillary) exhibit the lowest standards of integrity . . .”

O’Dowd’s piece complements Justin Webb’s in the Times (£) who puts his finger on Hillary’s big weakness.

In these pages on Tuesday Tim Montgomerie pointed out that we Britons find hatred of Hillary Clinton difficult to grasp. She is plainly an accomplished and able person. She does not insult people, or demean political discourse. And yet her popularity figures are roughly the same as Donald Trump’s. Most Americans don’t trust her, most do not like her, and a large number dislike her a lot — an NBC poll last month suggested 41 per cent of Americans had a “very negative” view of Mrs Clinton. True, Trump did slightly worse at 44 per cent but Vladimir Putin did better, at 38 per cent

It is only since she started spending the big bucks on getting elected that the people have turned against her. She has blown millions of dollars on reducing her appeal.

In other words, it’s not her: it’s her campaign. Or her campaign style. Nobody minds a workaholic, calculating, even Machiavellian secretary of state. But presidential candidates, famously, ought to be likeable, at least approachable. True, Trump is not. But he makes up for it in wacky newsworthiness. He dominates the stage. She doesn’t charm and she doesn’t dominate either.

Whether or not she loses in California on Tuesday the idea that she can grind her way to the White House is now regarded by most Democrats as dangerous. Against a conventional dull opponent it might have worked but even his worst enemy does not call Trump conventional. She needs to learn some modern campaigning skills. She needs to make some waves. Even mistakes. The alternative is a dispiriting campaign against a man she really ought to be crushing.

As The Wall Street Journal sniffed the other day: “It’s Hillary’s to lose. And if anyone can do it, she can.”




, , ,

  • eireanne3

    people don’t trust her because of a scandal about leaked e mails, what they revealed and the risk she may be arraigned http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dulcie-leimbach/among-hillary-clintons-re_b_9722146.html

  • Abucs

    Yes, absolutely. The lengths she went to in order to prevent the state department from seeing her correspondence was breathtaking. The lies she then told about her obstruction were obvious.

    She lied on her campaign trail about being against the big banks and then refused afterwards to release her transcripts when it was revealed she was paid millions of dollars by the banks to give a series of speeches.

    She also lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire only to be embarrassed when footage showed up of her reception by Bosnians showing something quite different. She then claimed she was ‘sleep deprived’ and didn’t know what she was saying.

    She also lied after the Benghazi attack where Americans soldiers were killed after asking for help from her department when they were being besieged. This event occurred during Obama’s re-election campaign. As secretary of state she told the public the attack was because of an anti-muslim video released on youtube when, in fact her private correspondence has since shown that she knew it was not related.

    Crooked Hillary indeed, but unfortunately I’d give her a 52%-48% likely chance of winning.

    I loved the line from the Wall Street Journal – “It’s Hillary’s to lose. And if anyone can do it, she can.”

  • tmitch57

    She has been lying and prevaricating for three decades or more–since she was the first lady of Arkansas in Little Rock. She failed to declare profits from commodity trades until years after the fact when the statute of limitations had expired. She then claimed that the fantastic rate of return she reaped on her investments were based solely on shrewd trading. Yet this same person couldn’t get any healthcare reform through Congress in 1994, lost to a freshman senator in 2008, and has lost more primaries to Sanders–a 74 year-old self-declared socialist who until recently wasn’t a member of the party for whose presidential nomination he is running–than any other victorious major-party candidate in the history of the primary system.

  • willieric

    Her real impact on Irish affairs was so underwhelming she was mentioned only in passing by Baroness May Blood in her autobiography and definitely not as a contributor to the peace process.

  • Teddybear

    What’s the fuss about emails? I don’t think I’d want the world and his wife to snoop on all my work email either. Doesn’t mean one is dishonest just because there is something to hide.

  • Teddybear

    On a more serious note, Hillary’s lead over Bernie is not what it seems. The Democrats have an awful lot of super delegate votes which are votes from party grandees and NOT the general electorate. All of them have plumped for Clinton

    If you look at the delegate count from the state by state cointests only, Clinton leads Sanders by around 1800 to his 1500 odd votes. Still a lead but not runaway either. If Clinton’s superdelegates switch sides, it could be a game changer

  • hgreen

    Well you can only pity the Irish Americans who’d prefer a mysogynist xenophobe over someone who has done a huge amount for Ireland over this past 20 years.

  • Granni Trixie

    Can’t say I agree it’s you on that one. I certainly appreciated her role in recognising, when she was here, the contribution of womem, often behind the scenes, to peacemaking. This was in a context where – surprise surprise – all key players in “the peace process” were men yet you could argue that bottom up change was being driven by women.
    Maybe it’s a woman thing to appreciate this.

  • David McCay

    Extremely smart lady, with loads of experience and a very detailed knowledge of policy – at face value you would think she’d be a stick-on to beat someone like Donald Trump easily. The reality however is that she faces a real tough battle vs Trump due to the current climate in US politics. People are sick of ‘politicians’ who say and do all the same things and are seen as dishonest, overly politically correct, and personally ambitious, A vote for Hilary is undoubtedly seen as a vote for more of the same, whereas you can be sure that Donald Trump will represent significant change – good or bad is yet to be determined, however people appear willing to take the risk. As Barack Obama found 8 years ago, the concept of change is very powerful – the more I hear anecdotally here in the US, the more I think we are heading for a Trump presidency ! We live in interesting times !!!

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Yes, tmitch57, the important thing is that Hilary’s evident record on these particular things, and plethora of other stories circulating but far less publicised are doing nothing to encourage anyone’s enthusiasm for her as a future president.

    Even the glossy marketing campaign methodology that placed her husband in the presidency cannot entirely evade such things:


    Keep watching for a few minutes, it gets round to the Clintons and political manipulation of voters quite soon after the start.

  • Reader

    Eh? Irish Americans, those who have made their home (and family) in the USA, will surely make their decisions on their own future, rather than the past of the old country.
    They will be comparing Trump’s flaws with Clinton’s.

  • Nevin

    John Cass, Chicago Tribune, May 24:

    People rally to Sanders, even with his nutty “Big Rock Candy Mountain” economic plan. Clinton has tacked to the political left, too, but when she does it, she sounds like some angry suburban grandma in the back of the van on a family road trip, forcing the kids to sing Pete Seeger songs.

  • hgreen

    Eh? Why classify them as Irish Americans then if they have no interest or don’t take their cultural cues from the old country. Surely they are just Americans then.

  • Reader

    I think they are Irish Americans if they say so. It’s a bit less fashionable than it was 20 years ago; so people won’t look so far back for Irish ancestors. But there’s 150,000 who were actually born in Ireland, and left for some reason.
    Nevertheless, a US resident who cares more about Clinton’s past visits to Belfast than about the real issues in the presidential election needs a completely different label – ‘idiot’.

  • Reader

    I think the problem is that she used a shockingly insecure DIY mailserver for work emails – simultaneously hiding her work from congressional scrutiny and exposing it to a capable hacker.

  • hgreen

    Oh so anyone can call themselves an Irish American. I’m ok with that.

    I think having a firm grasp of foreign policy is a key attribute of any future president. Anyone who doesn’t consider this I think is an idiot.

  • chrisjones2

    Yeah …but her job is to do stuff for America and many do not trust her – especially women who mistrust the way she handled her relationship with Bill. She is seen as too close to Bill who is utterly detested in many many quarters

  • chrisjones2

    Irish America was a force in US elections 50 years ago. Now its a side player

  • chrisjones2

    Yeah …but idiots have votes too and many Americans feel presidents have been too focused externally to the cost of the US homeland

  • chrisjones2

    …and possibly compromising intelligence sources and policies

    And what did she have in per personal mail that was so important to protect

  • chrisjones2

    In the end for most electors it boils down to two key questions

    1 do I trust you?

    2 do I like you?

  • Roger

    Would you like your email on the Internet?

  • Roger

    Sounds like it was a vital contribution alright.

  • David Wilson

    Chelsea Clinton is paid $3 Million dollars a year from the Clinton Foundation. ($58,000.00 a week, $1440.00 and hour) They have 350 employees. The Clinton Foundation spent more money on office supplies than it gave to Veteran’s organizations in 2015.

    Goodwill Industries CEO make $2.3 Million a year, employs 318,000 employees, and help 26.4 million people a year

  • David Wilson

    ——————–EDWARD SNOWDEN for President——————

    Edward Snowden swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and regarded our right to privacy as a Constitutional right. He did not profit from his revelations, and was exiled to Russia.

    HiLiary Clinton sold arms to our enemies, compromised national security, and traded favors for financial gain. As a patriotic American and a war veteran, I would rather see Edward Snowden become the president, rather than this old bag.

  • Croiteir

    It is

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Watch the link Chris, it boils down to “what have I been told I think about you” nowadays.

  • hgreen

    Is hers now the definitive text on the peace process?

  • eamoncorbett

    Is it possible to write neither of the above on ballot paper , seriously though she needs to win the swing states and will literally have to live in them for the next 5 months.

  • hgreen

    Mmm Snowden isn’t standing.

  • babyface finlayson

    It is clear the establishment will not allow Hillary to get elected since she is expected to reveal the truth about UFOs

    What was really in those emails?
    One from Bill perhaps:
    “I did not have sexual relations with that 8ft tall blue six armed creature”

  • chrisjones2

    Great idea …when he gets out of the Pen

  • chrisjones2

    It is but she used the open email server to transmit sensitive State emails. For an employee that might result in 5 years gaol …so what was the personal stuff she wanted to hide and was it politics, money or sex?

  • chrisjones2

    and what websites your believe eg with Hilary you have a choice that she had affairs and one of her male lovers committed suicide through to she a closet lesbian who had a string of affairs including one with Yoko Ono while she was in college.

    In the US its even harder than the UK to get any sense of the truth

  • Abucs

    No i wouldn’t, but if i worked for the US government as secretary of state, my emails would be sought after by global spies.

    Instead of obeying the Obama directive to use the high security government email system Mrs Clinton used a small town computer services company for her own personal blackberry device. This company was employed to keep her emails separate on a server in the basement of her family home, without sufficient security, and without her government being able to hold her to account.

    She didn’t hand over her correspondence when she left the State Department as she was required to do by law. It was only during Benghazi investigations 2 years later that she was forced to comply with the the law. Even then she incredibly printed out tens of thousands of pages of her correspondence instead of handing over digital copies. She deleted whatever she didn’t want to hand over and then claimed the server was wiped so that there were no longer any records for the investigation to find.

    Also she lied constantly about what she had done. The technician of the small computer company she used is now under FBI investigation and has been granted immunity from prosecution although at the moment he is still claiming the ‘right to silence’ instead of answering any questions.


    She looks severely crooked to me.

  • Granni Trixie

    You can sneer all you like but there is a case to be made that says that women did the heavy lifting which conditioned communities to aspire for Peace and which pressurised paramilitaries to give up their violent ways.

  • kensei

    Horse race polls have very little predictive power at this point. Doubly so, because the Democratic race hasn’t wrapped up.

    Bernie might drag it out to the convention; his people saying they’ll never vote Hilary might be telling the truth. But more likely they’ll fall in behind her just as all her people who said they’d never vote Obama (a much tighter race) fell in behind him. Bernie is right to.keep fighting – he’ll keep the platform more left and make it harder for Clinton to move from them.

    Clinton has been at the end of a Republican hate campaign for basically the past 25 Years. Throw enough mud and some of it sticks, but there is pretty little substantive stuff in there. Still, against a good opponent she may have been in trouble. Fortunately, she’s running against the Donald.

    If you can look at his numbers with women and think he can pull it off, you may be confused with the 1916 US election rules.

  • kensei

    Oh and as for Irish Americans. They just became White. That’s about the end of it.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    If you’re going to claim heavy lifting, then you’ll need to back that up with examples???.
    I would argue that the 90s rave scene, and ecstasy, did much more to bring communities together.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    Thanks for sharing the facts and figures.

    Still the msm attack Trump for organising over 5 million dollars for veterans. It’s almost as if the msm was controlled by elite’s that want their Wall Street owned pawn Hillary into the white house for some reason…… ????

  • Reader

    Sir Rantsalot: I would argue that the 90s rave scene, and ecstasy, did much more to bring communities together.
    That. Or maybe golf.
    Actually, I think the security situation was incrementally improved to the extent that all the momentum went out of violence. At which point, politics filled the vacuum.

  • tmitch57

    Anyone with Irish ancestors.

  • tmitch57

    H. Clinton’s main link to the peace process appears to have the NI Women’s Coalition–the fringe of the fringe. The “other” category was the fringe compared to the Big Four and in it Alliance was mainstream and the NIWC was the fringe that relied on the “topped up” voting system for representation.