UXDE dot Net

Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be The Democratic Party’s Nominee


1Photo credit: Trevcor Collens / Shutterstock.com

As the presidential election draws nearer, tensions are rising and digging up dirt on the possible candidates is in full sway. Today, we’ll focus on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and explain why we think Democrats should run from her while they still can. To begin with, her controversial use of a private e-mail server back in the days when she was still Secretary of State has been looming over her presidential campaign from the moment it began. It will definitely be an often-cited argument against her candidacy.

Regardless of the constant speculation that Emailgate is just a smear campaign by Republicans, the case is still being filtered through both the FBI and the Department of Justice, meaning that attention is focused on whether Clinton will be reprimanded for her actions. The big question is what will it mean if she is the Democratic Presidential nominee?

The only thing that Democrats are achieving by pushing a presidential nominee who is under investigation is sabotaging their own party. The co-chair of Ms. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, who is now the current Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz broke the impartiality she is supposed to exercise when she defended Clinton’s use of an e-mail server. Here’s what Wasserman told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network’s Mornings With Maria on Monday, March 21:

“[Clinton] handled the email process correctly and according to the letter of the law. In terms of what she was doing with compliance, she was compliant. She has released 55,000 pages of emails. She’s actually said she would not have used private e-mail”

Of course, if Wasserman Schultz was actually devoted to her role with the DNC, she would never have commented on the topic. In fact, she would’ve remained impartial and did her best to avoid any comments on the matter, allowing the DOJ and the FBI to determine whether Clinton was in compliance with the law.


The weight of Wasserman Schultz’s comments is even bigger when you realize that, even though it is just her opinion (one that she should’ve held to herself), she basically told the world the results of an ongoing investigation conducted by the DOJ and the FBI. Questions are rapidly arising, but one thing is certain – if Wasserman Schultz feels that her word is more important than the entire FBI, maybe she should be in charge of all the cases that the FBI is currently investigating; they could certainly use someone with such a developed and unbiased sense of judgment.

The White House, on the other hand, hasn’t made any comment in regards to the investigation for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it would heavily compromise the investigation and read as favoritism for Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary.

During the first Democratic debate, Sanders dismissed a question about Clinton’s e-mails, drastically diminishing coverage of the issue until January when 22 of her e-mails were labeled ‘top secret.’ Though she admitted that a private server was a mistake, Clinton defended herself, claiming her Republican predecessors did the same thing and were never investigated.

What Clinton failed to mention is that Colin Powell’s private e-mail server remained on government computer servers while Condoleeza Rice didn’t use e-mail at all during her service, according to one of her aides. The e-mails released to the public have shown Ms. Clinton’s inadequacies as Secretary of State, especially the ones revealing that Google wanted to assist in overthrowing Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad. Telling the public one thing and urging fellow Democrats to do something completely different is unacceptable for a presidential candidate.

The Democratic Party should definitely look for a candidate who isn’t surrounded by controversy that clouds their campaign. Not only will these controversies make Clinton vulnerable during the general election, they also provide the American people further reason to look at her as someone who is dishonest, untrustworthy, and incapable of leading the country toward a better future.

RELATED: Why Does Everyone Hate Hillary So Much?

From Around The Web

You May Also Like