The Frustrating Hillary Clinton

I probably don't need to make public the fact that I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Not only do I think she is by far the best qualified candidate to serve as President, I also believe a Trump presidency would be disastrous for our country and world and the things I care about. And I am among those who believe that voting for either of the oft-mentioned third-party choices is not the way to go. Not only are they sadly lacking in qualifications, but Hillary Clinton will need every vote she can get to make it clear that our country does not want Donald Trump in the White House.

But I really wish there were something Ms. Clinton would or could do to make it easier for me to vote for her. For example, the email controversy. That it won't go away is in some ways as much her fault as it is the fault of her detractors. No doubt, there are people out to "get" her,  and they will not stop until they do.

Why did she use a personal email server in the first place? I've never understood it. You are one of the most influential persons in the whole world engaging in online communications about matters upon which the fate of millions depends, and you write from your home email? Come on!

But she did it. And now she tends to say things that make it worse, either because they are later shown to be untrue, or because they try to cast the blame somewhere other than with her. The latest example is claiming Colin Powell said it was okay. Did you ever let your kids off the hook because someone told them to do something they shouldn't have done? After a while most of us learn (usually the hard way) that such excuses hardly ever work. No she and Powell are into a "did not/did too/did not/did too" exercise.

I like Hillary Clinton for President. I like her a lot. But she is really frustrating...and the only real choice I have.

Presidential Vacations in a Changing Climate

I really do not mind that US Presidents take "vacations," since I cannot believe they are "vacations" in the sense most of us think of the word. I understand that they must choose locations where their security and the security of their families will not be compromised, and where they can be in touch with the whole world at any time they need to be. What fun is all that?

As to whether President Obama should have gone to Louisiana, the clear answer to that seems to be "No, not right away." All they needed was a whole 'nother set of complications to worry about in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

Maybe we ought to spend our time evaluating politicians' responses to flooding in Louisiana (and to fires in California) by talking about what they plan to do to deal with climate change, since these two kinds of natural catastrophes are clearly what we've been told for decades that climate change will bring. The denial of a changing climate can no longer be accepted; the reality of it threatens us all. Who is going to lead us toward at least slowing it down? (Hint: not the guy who wants to revive the coal industry.)