KingMidget's Ramblings

Pull up a chair. Let's talk.

Why I Won’t Be Voting for Hillary Clinton

Over the past fifteen years, Bill and Hillary have made over $153 million giving speeches.  They made 729 speeches during that time.  Think about that.  By my math, that’s almost 50 speeches a year.  For which their average payment was over $200,000.

Hillary has defended this in various ways.    For instance, she has claimed that after the enforced poverty of Bill serving as President they needed to make money.  I get that, but doesn’t that seem a bit excessive?  Here are the things the U.S. taxpayers cover for ex-Presidents, including Bill Clinton:  (1) a lifetime pension that matches the salary of a current head of an executive department — currently over $200,000 per year; (2) seven months of transition costs; (3) on-going private office space and staff; (4) medical treatment offered at military hospitals at “interagency rates” and the opportunity to buy health insurance via the Federal health insurance exchange; (5) lifetime Secret Service protection.

None of this is monumentally significant and I have no quibble with an ex-President needing to do something to fill his time and his bank account.  But Bill and Hillary did all sorts of other things as well.  She ran for U.S. Senate and won, earning a salary and benefits while she served.  He wrote his memoirs for which he was paid millions of dollars.  She probably did to.  She served as Secretary of State, earning another salary and benefits while serving.provision

Isn’t there a point where enough is enough?  I’d say there is and the problem with these speeches is … well.  As Elizabeth Warren pointed out way back in 2004 in an interview with Bill Moyers, there is a potential for something here.  According to Ms. Warren, there was a bankruptcy bill that the big banks favored.  When Bill Clinton was President, he vetoed the legislation with his wife one of the strongest voices urging him to do so.  Fast forward a couple of years and Bill is out of office, the two Clintons are making their millions giving speeches, and Hillary is a U.S. Senator — she voted for the bill.  As Ms. Warren stated:

As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals, it was consumer credit products. Those are the people, the credit card companies have been giving money and they have influence.

It’s one thing for the special interests to provide campaign contributions — that creates enough of an appearance of corruption and influence-peddling — but when they are also directly compensating elected officials and their spouses in what is so clearly an effort to buy their influence, it just smells.  Smells like a whole lot of crap, to be honest.  There is something about the Clintons that just dances along the edge of ethics and honest behavior.  Their speechifying and claims of purity and innocence just don’t ring true.

The Clintons needed to make a living after Bill left office.  I’ve got no problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is how they went about doing it.  And it’s why I won’t be voting for Hillary this year.  I’m fortunate to live in a very blue state that will send its electors to vote for the Democrat no matter who it is.  As a result, that I won’t vote for her won’t matter in the big picture.  If I lived in a battleground state, I might have to hold my nose.  I don’t and I won’t.


23 responses to “Why I Won’t Be Voting for Hillary Clinton

  1. hirundine608 February 6, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    There are some very valid reasons there ….

  2. sknicholls February 6, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    And she is the poster child of the problem. I have female friends angry at me for supporting Sanders over Clinton. Her support is not directed at helping women. It is directed at helping the the rich. No, I won’t be voting for Hilary. I’m in a red state with a Red Governor we can’t seem to get rid of who was worse than the last Red Governor…why does Hilary have to be so Red?

    • kingmidget February 6, 2016 at 8:20 pm

      I find fascinating Hillary’s willingness to state in various ways that people should vote for her because she’s a woman. The latest is her claim, in an attempt to counter Sanders’ claim that he is leading a revolution that electing a woman would be the “real revolution.” I don’t recall Obama ever using his race as justification for voting for him. There are just so many things wrong with her candidacy.

  3. Trent Lewin February 7, 2016 at 8:01 am

    So Mr. Sanders it is, then? Are there any other alternatives?

    • kingmidget February 7, 2016 at 8:19 am

      No and Sanders really isn’t an alternative either. I don’t see him winning the Democrat nod and if he did, I don’t think he’d win the general election. It looks like it’s going to be Hillary against whichever Republican wins the mudwrestling tournament. And if Hillary becomes President, it just opens the door to 4 to 8 more years of never-ending controversy. It’s just so ridiculously sad that these are our options and this is how our politics works (doesn’t work) these days.

      • Trent Lewin February 7, 2016 at 8:21 am

        Not very inspiring, is it? And these are potential leaders of the free world – shouldn’t they be inspiring? Shouldn’t they make us want to pull for them?

      • kingmidget February 7, 2016 at 8:23 am

        Inspiring. Ethical. Pulling for the home team. Something, anything, other than leading to the feelings of skepticism and cynicism that pervade.

  4. Kevin Brennan February 7, 2016 at 10:44 am

    It’d be very easy to become apolitical, or at least to express our values through some sort of activism rather than voting in rigged elections. What a mess!

    • kingmidget February 7, 2016 at 10:46 am

      Yep. I’ve followed politics my entire adult life and I’m starting to wonder if the effort is worth it. Our system is so monumentally screwed up. It’s just so gobsmackingly bad that our choice is likely going to between HIllary and … well, pick your Republican poison. There are no good choices here. None.

  5. Amy Reese February 9, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    How about that vote tonight? I guess it wasn’t a huge surprise to the Clinton camp. I guess they were expecting to lose. I think people want a revolution. At least, people seem to be going for the anti-establishment win. It’s definitely going to be an interesting election!

    • kingmidget February 9, 2016 at 8:18 pm

      I thought Hillary would get closer than she did. On the other hand, I try not to put too much stock in these early states. Iowa and NH are two of the whitest, least diverse states in the country. Very non-representative of America. But they play such a huge role because they are first in line with the vote. I think Hillary is going to get the nomination — I think Sanders will struggle to win other states. But I could be wrong. I’m completely baffled by what will happen on the Republican side. I still can’t imagine how Trump could end up as the nominee, but can’t see who it is that would defeat him at this point. A very weird and scary election year.

  6. marymtf February 10, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Excuse this Aussie’s ignorance. Am I wrong? Was Clinton offered a cushy prestigious job to drop out of the race 8 years ago?

    • kingmidget February 11, 2016 at 7:12 am

      She didn’t “drop out” of the race 8 years ago. She lost the primaries and Obama won and then when Obama was elected President, he made her Secretary of State. A prestigious job, but not exactly cushy.

  7. TamrahJo February 14, 2016 at 8:30 am

    “Enforced Poverty”?!? On $200,000/year? Really?!? Years ago, I worked with a couple that were starting their small racehorse training biz on the side – they provided services to many in the ‘upper wage’ earnings – he told me once, “Rich people experience being broke – it’s just on a whole different level than you and I do….” – – sigh – – Guess I would say to Hilary, “No matter how hard you work, you will never fill the coffers enough to feel safe – if you couldn’t content with $200,000/year – $2 trillion a year won’t make it any better – ” 🙂 200k – sheesh!

    • kingmidget February 14, 2016 at 8:32 am

      I don’t have a problem with them earning money. My problem is with how they went about doing it. Mooching off the special interests while Hillary clearly planned on continuing a political career.

      • TamrahJo February 14, 2016 at 8:53 am

        Well… as usual, for me it’s not that easy – LOL – Yes, to an extent, I don’t care what they earn, either – Yes, I have huge problems at the revolving door between special interests, corporations and government positions – But, for me, at the crux, is, when one who has been elected to serve, represent, choose, vote, initiate legislation that affects all of us, then I have huge problems that their perspective of “Enforced Poverty” is so far removed from the reality the majority of those they say they ‘serve’ experience – with that kind of perspective gap – how can they truly be ‘representative’ in their votes, actions, etc., of those they purportedly represent? Which is why I laugh at how far we come and how, oh much we haven’t really changed at all – 🙂 (as a species, in our systems… )

      • kingmidget February 14, 2016 at 9:48 am

        Oh, I agree with that as well. She can hardly claim to be one of us, can she?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: