Lots of things about Clinton’s pending Dem presidential nomination are ‘historic’ but most in a bad way

(Clinton.news) You might as well get used to it because we’re going to hear about it from now until the end of the Age: Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential nomination is historic because she is the first woman. If she somehow manages to win in November, well…you remember how often we’ve heard about how President Obama is the first black president, right? [Actually, they used to call Bill Clinton “the first black president,” but that was before we actually had one.]

Okay, so granted, Hillary’s nomination – barring any convention chicanery and sneakiness from her chief Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders – is historic. She is the first genetic woman [hey, you have to say that these days because people are now allowed to “identify” as something they aren’t, genetically speaking] to be nominated for the nation’s highest office.

But Clinton’s nomination is historic for many additional reasons, none of which are good.

She’s the first presidential nominee to be under investigation by the FBI. That’s truly historic.

She is the first repeat Democratic presidential nominee to lose more than 30 percent of the primary vote in one of the nation’s bluest states, California. Historic!

She is the most scandal-ridden presidential nominee ever, and that is really historic (usually candidates become scandal-ridden after they’ve been elected president).

And she is also the only presidential nominee in history to be accused (by some) of abandoning an American diplomat (Amb. Chris Stevens, who was killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, after repeatedly asking the Clinton-run State Department for additional embassy security). Historic, but definitely not in a good way.

Oh, and this, too, is historic: Her chief rival, likely GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, managed to capture historic numbers of primary voters, many of which were won when the Republican candidate field was in double digits. Clinton couldn’t receive more voters than she got last time (in her losing bid to a little-known, slick-talking U.S. senator from Illinois) with just two people in the Democratic race – that’s history!

Here’s another historical reality: Clinton is the least trustworthy of any previous presidential candidate or, at least, any candidate since the advent of political polling. As reported by The Daily Caller:

“Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed as the least honest and trustworthy of all Democratic and Republican candidates, according to the latest YouGov poll.

“Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.”

In fact, Clinton’s Democratic rival, Sanders, was considered to be infinitely more trustworthy than her. So was Trump, by four percentage points.

Clinton’s pending nomination is also historic in that she is the wife of a former U.S. president – who was also one of the most scandal-ridden presidents in modern history. He, too, had some historic moments – being impeached by the House; being accused of sexual assault by multiple women; having to actually pay off one of those accusers, Paula Jones; losing his license to practice law; having an affair while in office; and having the most inner circle friends and Cabinet members die during his tenure (advisor Vince Foster killed himself; Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s plane smashed into a mountain in Croatia during a trade visit).

Yes, Hillary Clinton, like her husband, certainly is historic. But for all the wrong reasons.

Now, what that says about them is not nearly as bad as what it says about the Democratic Party in general. Between the Clintons and Obama, there have been more scandals that the American people have had to endure in such a short period of time from that party’s presidents and nominees than…ever.

And, you know, that’s historic.

Sources:

DailyCaller.com

AmericanMirror.com