Good read from Charles Krauthammer. About Clinton:
The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job? Asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?”
This isn’t unique to Clinton, though. For a long-time, politics has been more about ambition and entitlement than standing for a set a beliefs. The only beliefs politicians stand for are the ones that poll well. We don’t vote for people anymore. We vote for phony facades.
Peggy Noonan makes a great point in her column, Imagine a Sane Donald Trump. “Oh my God, Sane Trump would have won in a landslide.” Yep.
And this, “Since I am more in accord with Mr. Trump’s stands than not, I am particularly sorry that as an individual human being he’s a nut.”
This Wall Street Journal editorial is also worth a read. On Clinton’s answer to the Supreme Court debate question:
“The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”
Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.
Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”