Why Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President of the United States

Some people are surprised at the sudden rise in poll numbers of democratic Senator Bernie Sanders. He is now a viable competitor to Secretary Clinton for the democratic Presidential nomination. The media failed to report that the recent launch of Mrs. Clinton's campaign on Roosevelt Island in New York had a disappointing turn out. The recent testimony by Sydney Blumenthal of inappropriate influence over her when she was secretary of State is one more thing that does not bode well for her. She is the gift that keeps on giving to the Republican Party. I hope she gets the nomination, because Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States

Reports that Presidential advisor Valerie Jarett leaked information about Senator Hillary Clinton's private email server to The New York Times has lead some to speculate that Obama may have conspired to sabotage Clinton's presidential campaign. Although it is clear that Obama and Clinton have at best an amicable working relationship and at worst an acrimonious one, no one knows either the President's motivations or the kind of political skulduggery that is going on behind the scenes. As one who is concerned for protecting his legacy and seeing his plan to fundamentally transform America continue for a generation, Obama is undoubtedly invested in the next Democratic nominee. Obama has personal experience campaigning against Mrs Clinton in 2007 and has a lot of reason to be concerned about her ability to win against a Republican nominee. I believe that President Obama believes, as I do that Clinton can not win the 2016 election, regardless of whom the Republicans nominate.

Though I am no Clinton fan, I have no animosity toward her candidacy. Admittedly I do not want Hillary to be President and am going to work to see she is defeated. However, I have no desire to hurt Hillary's candidacy. If my motivation was to help the Republican party I would be cheering her own. Believe me I want her to run. I truly believe nothing would be better for the Republican party than for Mrs. Clinton to get the nomination. It would be a race they could only lose.  Although, I was adamantly opposed to President Obama's candidacy and believe my concerns about him have been validated, I never doubted the viability of his candidacy. In 2007 I would never have written an article saying why he would never be President of the United States. I was convinced that he would  defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008, and would defeat John McCain in the general. In 2012 I predicted in  that he was defeatable but that Mitt Romney could never beat him for President.

I make no claim to prophetic ability. My analysis is derived from my understanding of American electoral politics. Based on my observation of history I am convinced that Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States. This prediction has nothing to do with gender. There are women who could be President from both parties. It has to do with her own political abilities and an understanding of the way Democrats are elected to the Presidency. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton's career has not taken her down the road to the White House.

Hillary Clinton is a mediocre to poor practitioner of the political arts. Although she is married to one of the most capable politicians of the 20th century, her political record is not so grand. She ran for the Senate from New York against very weak candidates, and narrowly won either time. Does anyone inside or outside of New York remember anything significant she said or did while in the Senate (other than supporting Bush's action in Iraq, which will hardly garner her Democratic support)? Is there any memorable legislation with her name on it? I lived in the state of New York those years. I never saw her at a public event, although I saw her cohort Senator Chuck Schumer from time to time. Are there any buildings or projects anywhere in the state of New York that are named in attribution to her? Her record as a U.S Senator was abysmal. Some might argue the same for Obama, but he was there less than 180 days, and she was there 12 years. Hardly comparable, and he trounced his opponent in his Senate race. She was put in the Obama cabinet not because of her record but to guarantee the President Bill Clinton's would at least give token support to the new President and so the party would appear united around him. Hillary had no substantial domestic political record?

But what about her foreign affairs service? She was Secretary of State, 3d in line for Presidential succession, the manager of the one area of government the President has the most say over, foreign affairs. Was there anytime during her four years of service that we saw Hillary speaking or testifying before the U.N? What treaty or agreement did she negotiate? What international crisis did she help avert? What conflict did she arbitrate? Where was she those four years? Hillary has no significant foreign affairs record? The only thing we know about Hillary are questions about what she knew and did in regard to providing rescue for US embassy personnel in Benghazi. She still blames it all on the video and when asked about what happened says, "What difference does it make," that four of her State department employees were killed on her watch?

Mrs. Clinton continues to either avoid question about her history all together or control what questions are asks and who asks them? The last time Mrs. Clinton felt the heat of a national campaign she faltered. She failed to get the nomination in 2008 for one reason. There was nothing exciting about Hillary. Not only is she unexciting, there is no reason to support her. She is a placid speaker, she is acrimonious, arrogant and ambivalent. She has a history of questionable political and business scandals on her own quite apart from her husband. As a life-long Republican I hope she runs, I think she would be quite beatable. Almost any of the Republican prospects would be a formidable opponent to a Hillary run. President Obama understands this. There are several Democrats who have what he had in 2008. They are unknowns, so a false  narrative can be created around them. Historically Democrats have won elections by creating false expectation of practically unknown candidates who record can not be challenged..

Since World War 2 we have had 12 Presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, 6 Republicans and 6 democrats. The path to the White House has been remarkably similar for the Democrats who have gotten there. Two - Truman and Johnson were Vice Presidents who succeeded to the office, then were subsequently elected to a single term. When a former Vice President is elected the popularity of his predecessor is a factor in his election. Does anyone believe either Truman or Johnson would have been elected to their first terms on their own? The other four Democrats had  identical paths to the White House. Neither Kennedy, Carter, Clinton nor Obama were nationally prominent when they announced their candidacies.

Kennedy was a first term, junior Senator from Massachusetts whose only claim to fame was his marriage to the débutante Jaqueline Bovier. Outside of Massachusetts and the society pages he was an unknown. He ran against the lifelong leader of the Democratic party, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was at the time both the presumptive nominee and assumed winner of the election. Very few considered Kennedy a likely candidate. He capitalized on being the outsider, running against the Democratic political machine. His background was very different from the next Democratic President, although their path to the White House looked very much alike.

Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor of  Georgia. A state that had a one-party system where the Democratic governor usually got his way. He was a peanut farmer, Annapolis graduate, and Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. The thing he had in common with Kennedy was that they were both unknown to the American people. Carter used his outside of Washington status to present himself as an alternative to the government corruption represented by Watergate that tainted his opponent, Gerald Ford's, campaign. That outsider status propelled the next Democrat to the White House.

Bill Clinton had completed two terms as Arkansas governor. He had governed successfully, but nothing had happened in the state to bring him national name recognition. Following the profound success of the Reagan Bush years some questioned whether liberalism was a viable ideology anymore. He presented himself as a "moderate," building on the things that had worked for Reagan. He would later say "the era of big government is over." He could win by being a Democrat who was different from the liberals that Reagan and Bush had defeated. He was a new face with a new approach. Different from Reagan and Bush but different from Democrats of the past too, or so he claimed.

The same unknown factor worked for President Obama too.  A first-term Senator from Illinois, who had had a short innocuous record in the Illinois state senate. He ran against his parties establishment and easily defeated Mrs. Clinton in the primaries. He successfully linked his opponent Senator John McCain to the unpopular policies of George W. Bust and won the general resoundingly.

The reason the model of an outsider works for the Democratic party is that the Democratic party policies from the time of Woodrow Wilson to the present day create an atmosphere of unpopular polarization. Democratic candidates usually run on a Utopian vision. They plan to turn the United States into the place they think everyone would like. The Democratic vision is for equity not equality. Every body is all ways treated fairly. When someone does have a bad break they are quickly and adequately recompensed. No one is ever criticized, bullied or offended. Everybody makes a fair salary. Everybody owns a home, a car, gets a free education, a cell phone. Every old person grows old and dies in peace. No more racism, misogyny or unfairness. A winning Democratic nominee is a visionary who will transform American making us all healthy, wealthy and wise. It is a vision that sells, especially to the young, naiveté, disenfranchised and uninformed. People become enamored with the person, sometimes to the point of ecstasy. Remember the people who swooned over Obama, and the commentator who said a chill ran up his leg when Obama spoke. Virtually unknown candidates have little baggage.  Their handlers create a messianic aura and their supporters come to Jesus. They get elected. Then the public is faced with reality.

Utopian liberalism never works. At the end of their terms, whether its the term elected after a succession, the second term, or Jimmy Carter's disastrous first term, the legacy and popularity of Democratic incumbents since World War 2 has been low. For Democrats to win elections they must present a candidate untarnished by failed liberal policy. Each candidate must be able to convince the public that he or she is the new fresh voice who will finally bring the liberty our founders promise to everyone living among  us. Such is hardly the perception anyone has of Hillary Clinton. She does not have a legacy of fresh ideas, and she can not rely on the popularity or prowess of her husband. We sometimes forget how unpopular Bill was at the end of his second term.

The Democratic nominees for the 2000 election was President Bill Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore. Al Gore's campaign team sought to distance themselves from Clinton at every tern. Some even talked about keeping him from the convention, but Clinton was determined to attend. Clinton had been the second President in US history to be impeached. We were in a recession and, due to his policy of closing military bases, were perceived as weak in the world. Al Gore's choice of running mate proved how concerned he was for distancing himself from Clinton's legacy. Gore nominated Democratic Senator Joe Liebermann from Connecticut to be his running mate.  While Liebermann brought the balance of a New Englander who was a strong supporter of our nation's military to the ticket, he had also been the only Democratic Senator to vote in favor of Clinton's conviction and removal from office. Senator Liebermann was chosen principally to put distance between Clinton and Gore due to Clinton's unpopularity at the time. Although the election between Gore and Bush was one of closest in American history ultimately decided by the electoral college, Gore's people understood that a Democratic candidate who follows a failed Democratic President must be seen as somehow separate and distant from the incumbent. Denying a connection to the legacy of the past and presenting your self as the only person who can accomplish the grand vision is the Democratic formula for victory. There is no doubt it works.

For all the criticism I have of Barak Obama he understands the American political system and culture very well. He understands the formula for Democratic victory.  President Obama is immensely unpopular even though he believes history will vindicate him. He understands that the Democratic base is disillusioned by his policies. For them he has not been liberal enough. He understands that the general election voter will not accept more of the same. They will not accept Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton like Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1959 represents the Democratic political machine. She represents the liberal establishment. The perception may be a false one. She may be less of a machine politician than the current President. There is no doubt that she is more moderate than  he in some areas. It is perception, none the less, that politics is about.

I believe the recent email scandal involving Mrs. Clinton has reinforced those perceptions. She has given the impression that she is going to be just another elitist liberal in the White House,  as was her husband, as was Carter, and Kennedy. This genie will  not get back in the bottle. The Democratic base wants something different. They want what they always want, a savior, who can walk on water, heal the sick, make the blind see, raise the levels of the ocean and calmly speak to bring peace to violent world. Mrs. Clinton can't explain Benghazi; she can't keep her personal email separate from her professional. Some messiah! If electoral trends repeat themselves, and there is no reason to believe they will not, then Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.

I am convinced that out of this current email scandal an alternative to Mrs. Clinton will arise. It might not be next week. It might not be next month, but with Congressional and Justice Department investigation looming Hillary is going to find herself in the hot seat. Hardly a good place for any Presidential prospect to be at this point in the process. Additionally it does not look like her husband's Teflon nature has transferred to her. The things that are thrown at her seem to stick. Why else would she deny or cover up, and refuse questions. President Clinton never denied his peccadilloes; he just told us that he was doing such a good job that we had to put up with them. Hillary's excuse can never be her success, just that she is better than everybody else, because she is a Clinton.

If historical trends play out the way they usually do here's what I believe will transpire. First the media and pundits loyal to the Democratic party will begin to abandon Hillary. They all ready have. They will not endorse a Republican, but they will just begin raising questions about Mrs. Clinton's ability to win. And heaven knows they have to find someone who will defeat the Republicans! Then some, a few elected democrats will openly question her ability to win. Then some donors will express a willingness to spread some money around. That will open the door to a new candidate. Someone will arise who is not now prominent. Several names come to mind as potential, though it may well be none of these: Elizabeth Warren, Martin Omalley, Time Kane, but rest assured American politics are very predictable. Senator Sanders is actually the typical kind of candidate who can win an election

Mrs. Clinton has all ready faltered. She has launched, then relaunched. She has attempted to keep media that she believe will report negatively distanced from her. I beginning to question now whether she will even be the nominee. She believes that being the First Lady, whose love for country lead her to stay married to an open philanderer proves her loyalty to the Democratic party, and earns her the nomination. But in the minds of the Democratic establishment one thing and one thing only qualifies her to be the nominee-- the ability to win. The ability to create a Messianic image for herself that can propel her to the White House. Hilary is no Virgin Mary. If the history of past Democratic wins are any indication she does not have what it takes to win as a Democrat. I do not know whether she will be forced to withdraw from the race or lose the nomination. Keep an eye on Bernie Sanders and Martin O'malley either of them could be President of the United States, but Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.