Few good reasons to vote FOR Hillary Clinton

Jonah Goldberg:

There are plenty of reasons to believe 2016 will be a very ugly election year. Here’s one more.

Bloomberg Politics convened a focus group of Iowa Democrats. Nearly all loved Hillary. “She’s a bad mama-jama,” said one female participant.

Bad mama-jama is good, by the way. The woman explained that Clinton is “not afraid to step up” or “afraid to say, ‘No. I don’t want to do it that way. I’m going to do it this way.’ ”

Another participant insisted that Clinton is a “better woman than I am” — a great standard for selecting a president, to be sure — because of Clinton’s ability to weather various scandals and humiliations.

The awkward part came when Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin asked the room, “What did she accomplish that you consider significant as secretary of state?”

The answers — or rather, the replies, since no one had an answer — were awkward to say the least.

“I really can’t name anything off the top of my head,” one squirming Democrat admitted.

“Give me a minute. Give me two minutes. Go to someplace else,” another Iowa Democrat pleaded. A third let the uncomfortable silence play out before confessing, “No.”

One young man offered the most grudging endorsement he could. “She’s been at a high level in numerous offices for about 25 years now. It’s either going to be that or it’s going to be Scott Walker . . . destroying America’s unions. She’s not perfect.

But she’s been in the eye for a long time — in the public’s eye — and you’re going to have some stuff on her. But, you know, she has great policies, and she knows how to get stuff done.”

So, the best case for her is that she weathered a lot of scandals and, to borrow Robert Hoover’s defense of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity in “Animal House,” Hillary Clinton has “a long tradition of existence.”
...

I primarily vote against Democrats.  Obama's presidency has validated that position, and I suspect the same from Hillary if this country has the misfortune of having her elected.  One thing Halperin has done is conclusive prove that many Democrat are low information voters.  Exposing their ignorance is a public service.  It may also put to rest the myth that liberals are smarter when it comes to politics.