I don’t like Hillary, but I would vote for her

By Angelo Persichilli

Nowadays only a fool would make political predictions beyond next week. Last year at this time, we wrote that Justin Trudeau was not up to the job as a leader of the third party and Donald Trump was an American political joke. Today the former is Prime Minister of Canada and the latter is the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States (with a serious shot at winning). However, having said that, I will make this prediction: the next president of United States will be Hillary Clinton.

I predict her victory not because I like her or because she deserves it; she will win because the alternative doesn’t appeal to the vast majority of moderate American voters.

In his book “The new Prince”, the American political strategist Dick Morris writes that “…politicians of the two parties are at loggerheads, and their respective special interest groups are mortal foes of one another, but ordinary democratic voters and ordinary republican voters do not differ much.”

This means that the vast majority of American voters are moderate in their views and Donald Trump is not a moderate.

Hillary is likely going to win despite her record, not because of it.

The Democrat Convention was crafted to paint her as a good mother, a person devoted to “serve” others, a competent politician that ‘gets things done’, a hard working individual. Hard working politician is the only quality I can agree with.

As a mother, from what I can tell, she is as good as many other millions of women that raise children and have a career (and many of those women don’t have the support she enjoys). I don’t pass any judgment as a wife because I am not interested in the private life of any politician.

I am definitely not moved by the pretentious statements about her vocation to ‘serve people’. There are many ways you can ‘serve’, as millions of people around the World do in many NGOs or in missions in Third World Countries. She is not interested in ‘serving’, she is interested in power (like countless presidential candidates before and after her). Since the beginning of her career, she has been motivated by ambition. She believes that she can serve people only from the White House, and her motivation comes from ambition and the desire of power. I am not implying that she did anything illegal, but we must not confuse between her ambitions and the real desire to serve people. In order to understand this, it would be important to read two books, Friends in High Places by Webb Hubbell, and Arkansas Mischief, by Jim McDougal and Curtis Wilkie.

She definitely knows the system. She has done nothing but work the system since she left university. She has been involved, directly or indirectly in many controversies, (the most recent of which was the dirty tricks to get rid of Sanders). I am not saying that she has been involved, but she is definitely the only one that gained out of it.

In terms of competence we can say that her record is not better than the one of many other people in her position. If we consider positive her record as Secretary of State, then Henry Kissinger should have been not only president of United State but also Secretary of United Nations, President of France, King of England and Pope, all at the same time.

Despite all of it, I, like millions of moderate Americans, would plug our noses and vote for her. And this says a lot about Donald Trump and the quality of the American political debate. But that’s a topic for another piece.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s