The Idaho Democratic Caucus resulted in Bernie Sanders winning with 78 percent of the votes while Hillary Clinton ended up with 21.2 percent.
I think it”s fair to say that none of the candidates from either party are ideal leaders of the country, so regardless of who gets the nomination the country will still be a hot mess.
However, I felt a particular pride in calling Idaho my home when I saw that the majority of voters were “feeling the Bern.” This is dedicated to the 21.2 percent of Idahoans who still haven”t come to the realization that Clinton is just bad news.
Jessica Gee
Argonaut
Clinton has had a long history in the U.S. federal government, and based solely on her past, it is obvious she is deceitful and unfit for the presidency.
One word should come to mind when people think about Clinton – Benghazi. This tragic attack brought light to Clinton”s private email, which she used for secretary of state business.
According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, “This meant Clinton”s work-related emails, which are owned by the public, were not directly searchable or accessible in response to subpoenas from court cases and Congress, or in response to Freedom of Information Act requests from the public and press.”
This also means Clinton likely left important government business unprotected by using a personal email server. Clinton”s continuous changes to her story regarding the email controversy also exemplify why she would likely not be the best leader when it comes to transparency in government.
Any candidate that is not only working on a presidential campaign but also defending herself in investigations should make voters rethink their options.
Another aspect voters should pay attention to when considering Clinton and Sanders is where their campaign funds are coming from. Sanders campaign funding makes him far more appealing of a candidate because he isn”t bought by large corporations. On the other hand, Clinton has indulged in multiple super PACs in her campaign, which makes her funding much less transparent than Sanders.
A lot of people support Clinton because they want to see the nation continue to make history by electing the first female president.
Though that logic is airtight, I”m going to base my vote off of something more relevant to running a country than whether or not a candidate has a uterus.
This seems to be a main campaign point of Clinton”s, especially when she had former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speak on her behalf at a rally in February.
“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it”s done,” Albright said. “It”s not done. There”s a special place in hell for women who don”t help each other.”
Clinton laughed in response to this, I think without realizing the weight of the statement. Because I”m a woman I have an inherent duty to follow Clinton blindly? No one should be basing their political opinions exclusively on the physical traits of a candidate.
Sanders is not a candidate that”s been bestowed upon us with all of the solutions to the problems our country faces. However, institutional problems such as money in politics will only become worse if Clinton is elected.
It is by no means anti-feminist to oppose Clinton, regardless of what her campaign supporters are spewing out at her rallies. When considering between the two Democratic candidates, it”s vital to inspect their merits over all else.
Jessica Gee can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @JessicaC_Gee