Clin­ton is wholly un­qual­i­fied

Cecil Whig - - FRONT PAGE -

FROM: AR­LEY MEAD­OWS PORT DE­POSIT

I do not make a habit of read­ing Dana Mil­bank’s col­umn in the Whig, but for some rea­son I read it on June 8. It was the usual lib­eral drivel about how Trump is a ter­ri­ble can­di­date. I won­der if Mil­bank is fa­mil­iar with the old saw “Peo­ple who live in glass houses ...”?

The Democrats are on the verge of nom­i­nat­ing pos­si­bly the most un­qual­i­fied can­di­date ever (next to Barack Obama). Hil­lary Clin­ton has ac­com­plished lit­tle in her life. She was a U.S. se­na­tor and Sec­re­tary of State, but Mil­bank can­not name any­thing pos­i­tive she ac­com­plished in ei­ther po­si­tion. When she quit as Sec­re­tary of State, our for­eign pol­icy was in a sham­bles. It re­mains so un­der her suc­ces­sor. Does Mil­bank con­sider that an ac­com­plish­ment?

On top of her in­com­pe­tence Clin­ton is also cor­rupt. She re­cently made his­tory — as the first nom­i­nee to be un­der two FBI in­ves­ti­ga­tions at the time of “nom­i­na­tion.” She has used her po­si­tions to make mil­lions of dol­lars for her fam­ily. She de­cries “in­come in­equal­ity” while wear­ing $12,500 Ar­mani jack­ets and giv­ing speeches to New York bankers for quar­ter-mil­lion-dol­lar speak­ing fees. The ex­tent of her cor­rup­tion far ex­ceeds the word limit the Whig has for let­ters.

When we elect a woman pres­i­dent, I hope we do it be­cause that woman is qual­i­fied and not be­cause of who she is mar­ried to. Can the Democrats hon­estly say that Hil­lary Clin­ton would be their nom­i­nee if her hus­band were not named Bill?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.