Donald Trump has made allegations against someone he refers to as "Crooked Hillary". I don't really know the details of these allegations. I'm just
going to give a general newspaper/website reader's impression of them, which may only be partially accurate. They relate to two areas of Mrs.
The first alleges that Mrs. Clinton was operating a "pay to play" scheme when she served as Secretary of State. The allegation is that "face time"
with Mrs. Clinton came at a price to certain individuals. That price is alleged to have been paid in "speakers fees" to her or her husband or
donations to their charities. It is suggested that a possibility exists that policies of the United States may have been influenced in favor of those
who made these payments.
I'm not really up to speed on Mrs. Clinton's response to this allegation except that she has denied adjusting policy to favor the interests of anyone
making such payments.
The second allegation against Mrs. Clinton is in reference to the activities of The Clinton Foundation. Funds are alleged to have been mishandled.
Contracts are alleged to have been awarded in ways and for projects that were of more than substantial benefit to selected friends of the Clintons and
perhaps, indirectly, to the Clintons themselves, and not so beneficial to the advertized intended beneficiaries of the foundation.
These are serious, unproven, allegations.
The beautiful thing about them is that they are so simple to describe and so easy to understand. The general population is thoroughly familiar with
this sort of questionable, perhaps illegal, activity. They can be summed up as, "You want something? Grease my palm and you will get it." One also
thinks of the classic "boiler room" style charity scams, where 90% of the money raised by a charity goes to pay the operators of the "charity".
Donald Trump would like to paint what the Clintons were doing in those terms and it is easy to do so. On the other hand, defending activities that
look so much like classic scams is extremely difficult, as I am sure Mrs. Clinton is going to discover during the debate on the 26th.
There is undoubtedly a world of political complexity that could be invoked by Mrs. Clinton to explain why profiting from "speaker's fees", paid to her
husband, when she was Secretary of State, was neither serious nor dangerous to US interests. When it comes to the working of the Clinton's charitable
foundations, explanations, even if entirely innocent and pragmatic, are orders of magnitude more complex. Unfortunately, in a debate, with limits on
speaking time, making her case in a clear and convincing manner will be a very tall order. Damage control is probably the best that one can expect.
Point for Donald Trump. Maybe touchdown for Donald Trump. With conversion that is seven points.
To use a hunting analogy, bringing Mrs. Clinton down, like a galloping buffalo, in her persona as "Crooked Hillary", might require only one or two
well placed shots.
Mrs. Clinton faces a much more formidable task if she tries to attack Mr. Trump on the issue of "corruption". Mr. Trump's "questionable" dealings are
very numerous and doing an ethical evaluation of nearly a billion dollars in alleged "loophole/avoidance/incentive money" would be a monumental
undertaking in a debate. Throughout the campaign Mr. Trump has sailed on, like a dreadnought of old, under a constant barrage of revelations of
suspicious and tricky dealings, which don't embarrass him
, and even worse, don't embarrass his supporters.
These revelations are very numerous and that, in itself, is a problem.
Thus Mrs. Clinton's task, returning to the hunting analogy, would be to attempt to bring down a flock of geese with three or four blasts of a shotgun,
in the time allotted. I don't think it can be done and I think it would be a grave mistake to attempt it.
There is too much detail in his dealings and Mr. Trump has spent his entire career perfecting the art of losing pursuers in that thicket.
Moving to a cooking analogy, if I were Mrs. Clinton, I would use Mr. Trump's various perceived peccadilloes as a condiment to the main dish. They
should be like capers sprinkled around a fillet of salmon, the fillet being his obvious unsuitability, both temperamental and experiential, for the
job of president.
In other words, Mrs. Clinton should bring her strength to the fight, her knowledge, her experience, her professionalism and her program, particularly
the attitude of inclusion behind it. I think Mr. Trump's strength, his dynamism, his entrepreneurial abilities are not the assets he believes they
are. He will attack her because his program is not strong enough on its own to beat her.
I think it would be a tactical mistake for her to attack him on the issue of "crookedness", although I am sure he will use it himself, against
edit on 23-9-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)