Editor,
Jill Stein is spearheading a recount effort, and Hillary Clinton decided she wants to jump on board. I’m not sure what dog Stein has in the hunt other than she’s just trying to pander to Democrats who are willing to pass blame to anyone for Clinton’s loss, Stein included. This recount effort looks and smells like something Clinton would do while unwilling to personally commit as Al Gore did in 2000 and was thoroughly embarrassed when it failed. That’s the real reason why Stein initiated the recount and not Clinton. With that there are some questions.
Is this the same Jill Stein that…
Only managed to capture 1 percent of the total vote but is now interested in a recount and willing to pay lavishly for it knowing the net benefit to her bid is negligible?
Only managed to raise approximately $3.5 million in donations to finance her campaign over several months, but managed to raise approx. $6 million for a recount effort in a matter of days?
Strongly urged progressive voters to vote Green while she embraced Bernie Sanders’ platform after he was displaced by Clinton for the Democratic nomination?
And is this the same Hillary Clinton that…
While campaigning ignored the very states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that she and her campaign are willing to participate in a recount for? Why is Clinton only now paying them attention?
Claimed for weeks up to the election that the swing states were North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada?
Claims while her campaign is participating in the recount yet they see no evidence of foul play? How can one justify spending millions of dollars on a recount under those pretenses?
Said she would accept the results of the election claiming it would upend democracy otherwise? “Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy.”—Hillary Clinton
Conceded the election to Donald Trump?
It seems certain this effort is a way for Clinton to renege on her commitment to accept the election’s results without leaving fingerprints. Moreover, by casting pre-emptive doubt of foul play in the election Clinton could later say ‘I told you so’ if nothing is found or she could say ‘I’m surprised’ if the recount yields something substantive—and in the end she’s still Hillary Clinton, doesn’t cost her anything either way. Don’t be fooled as Clinton is hedging her bets in her own game using Stein as a pawn. Typical Hillary. This is still about Clinton’s poor judgement, lack of attention, and mismanagement and nothing less.
Clinton is embarrassed by the fact that she got beat in those states she’s questioning because her faith in them was misplaced. In short she took them for granted as if they were California or New York. “The Blue Wall” Clinton was counting on in the recount states was toppled by Trump long before the ballots were cast, and Clinton failed to notice because of her own ignorance and arrogance. Interestingly enough, too, is that this effort wasn’t even announced until after Michigan was called for Trump after waiting nearly two weeks for the reliably blue Wayne County (Detroit) to report, and when it finally did it reported blue again. If hacking is suspected, wouldn’t Clinton want to be looking at the states lost that her campaign identified as swing states and not the states targeted for recount?
If Clinton is now changing her tune and saying the recount states were the true swing states, then the entire premise of a well thought and managed campaign is completely out the window, and the campaign was doomed from the get-go anyways. It’s fairly obvious why Clinton is targeting Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania – it’s not because they’re swing states, it’s because she is looking to cast blame on something other than herself… again.
Jeff Rieth
Zionsville