Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

How Do You Defend Hillary?

Over half of Americans think Hillary Clinton is experienced enough to be president, but only 38% trust her. Worse yet for the candidate, 40% do not trust her. Those are not good numbers to begin a campaign with.

Still, apart from the uber question about whether even cares about anything anymore, is whether Clinton can fix those distrust numbers in the face of the near-endless accusations of her murky finances, evasive answers about the email server, and her ties to foreign favors in return for cash flow into the Clinton Foundation. In other words, how do you defend Hillary?

And she needs defending. The generally liberal outlets that normally support Democratic candidates are wary.

As a New York Times editorial points out, “nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation.” But as the editorial also notes, the flow of dollars from donors, including some foreign countries, raises questions about conflicts of interest Clinton faced as secretary of state and would continue to face as president. “The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation,” concluded the Times. “And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign.”

Common Cause is also calling for an independent audit of donations to the Foundation.

The Boston Globe wrote “Surrogates, including Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, are defending the candidate. But the candidate is the one who has to take this on. She’s the only who can say there was never any quid pro quo — but she hasn’t. As historian Doris Kearns Goodwin noted on NBC’s Meet the Press, ‘I think what still boggles the mind, why doesn’t Hillary deal with this herself right now? I think she has to answer this herself.'”

Even the Washington Post reminded readers “The reaction of the mainstream media to the Clinton scandals is telling. News reporters and independent-minded analysts by and large seem to understand the gravity of the claims concerning foreign monies and concede that there is no ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘smoking gun’ required.

Peter Baker of the New York Times is among those who have not been thrown off the scent of scandal. He told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “this is a big issue for Hillary Clinton because, in fact, it goes back to some of the issues we’ve been seeing with the Clintons going to the ’90s, which is the interaction between money and politics, money and the Clintons in particular.”

So how do you defend Hillary? The next phase of the campaign depends on an answer to that question.