What does it say about the legal, cultural and political environment of America in the 21st century when the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land have at times openly ignored the law, and when one has zero experience in governance, and the other has a stunning record of total failure and duplicity during her time as part of a presidential administration?
While irrelevant issues have always had far too great an influence in presidential politics, the United States has apparently entered into an era where the race for the White House has a distinct resemblance to a Kardashian-like reality TV show.
Journalists seek access, so many have failed to openly confront either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on their obvious and significant shortcomings as a potential Commander in Chief.
Clinton has a record of ethical questionability and scandals extending back to her earliest days in government. Recently, her tenure as Secretary of State was marked by the “reset” with Russia, one of the most significant failures in American diplomacy. Her blatant mismanagement and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi attack are still under investigation, as is her apparent carelessness with state secrets evident in her use of a personal email server for official communications, including those considered top secret. Indeed, the Obama-Clinton record in Middle Eastern affairs as a whole is a study in amateurism, if not worse, in foreign affairs.
The worse may be yet to come, as questions about her approval of the sale of uranium to Moscow and another serious allegation of influence peddling have yet to be fully explored.
Ms. Clinton is apparently aware of the threat to her campaign from all of these issues, as she has vigorously avoided frank meetings with the media, and her allies in the Democratic National Committee do their best to delay debates with other party candidates.
Leading the GOP pack, Donald Trump scored high marks with fellow Republicans by discussing problems with China and illegal immigration that the party leadership, to its discredit, has failed to adequately address. But serious questions about his intentions remain unanswered. Why did he consult with Clinton before entering the race? He has bragged about his ties to the Clintons, and his current claim to allegiance to the GOP is belied by his extensive past contributions to Democrats.
These pharmacy sites offer extensively detailed information about a cialis 20mg generika popular ED treatment for curing erections’ weakness. It is FDA approved product of Pfizer pharmaceuticals that contains cialis buy the same ingredient sildenafil citrate. Sildenafil Citrate) which is used to increase blood flow to the penis and may help men with erectile difficulties to alleviate anxiety and restlessness, and cheap viagra selling here thus easily get erections naturally. The reason why this medicine is dominant among others is its cheap price and false promises, taking a lethal drug into your system is not working effectively. price of viagra pills His headline-making pejorative comments about women and Mexicans are a gift, intended or not, to the Clinton camp, underscoring an already underperforming relationship Republicans have with those two demographics. His refusal to rule out a third-party run that would make a Democrat victory far more likely is a serious threat. During the recent debate, his claims to have purchased influence through campaign contributions raises substantive ethical and legal questions.
The two campaigns say a great deal about the parties they operate within.
Republican voters have become increasingly enraged about their party leaders’ failure to stand up for the principles the GOP purports to stand for. Even after gaining control of both houses of Congress, Republicans have failed to exercise power in any meaningful way. A key constituency within the GOP, the Tea Party, complains that organizational chiefs have been more confrontational with them than with the White House.
That anger has become incendiary, leading another presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, to white-hot criticisms of Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Despite Cruz’s revolt, Trump has been the beneficiary of the growing split between the party faithful and GOP leadership.
Ms. Clinton’s belief that she can avoid a great deal of the expected contact with the press, and Democrat leadership’s failure to distance itself from her history of misdeeds and policy failures, points to a party with a lackluster bullpen of candidates and a hidebound adherence to dogmas that have only worsened the challenges America faces at home and abroad. The fact that Bernie Sanders, a curmudgeonly old-school socialist who is not even a registered Democrat is closing in on Ms. Clinton describes much about the state of the party.
Beyond all the descriptions (or criticisms) of character and career histories, the two candidates have gained popularity based on their message. For disgruntled Republicans, the lack of attention by party leaders to illegal immigration and the rise of China, issues Trump has concentrated on, have driven many to support him. Hillary Clinton’s role as a standard bearer for various victimization groups, her hard-left positions, and her connection to the original (Bill) Clinton administration loom large.
As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen whether the flaws in both candidates overcome their roles as symbols for the causes and issues they headline.