It’ll be tempting for the 2016 GOP nominee to focus completely on Hillary’s dirty laundry and corruption, of which there’s a ton of to focus on, but I believe focusing on it too much will backfire on him. Besides talking about his own vision, experience, and positive attributes, he has to stress the fact that Hillary also doesn’t have any accomplishments she can brag about.
He must force her over and over again to answer this question: what major or significant accomplishments have you achieved as sec of state, as a US senator, and as First Lady? Force the liberal media to answer that question too. The truth is there is no answer because she hasn’t achieved anything in any of those positions. That’s just as big of a reason why she shouldn’t be president as her corruption and lies. She doesn’t have the character traits or executive experience necessary to lead people and to lead a country.
If you’re the nominee of your party, and you can’t name a single major accomplishment during your time in the senate or as secretary of state, that will be a devastating blow to your campaign, and Hillary won’t be able to. But this topic will only come up if the GOP nominee brings it up and forces Hillary and the media to keep talking about it, which they won’t wanna do because it highlights how incompetent and unqualified she really is to be president.
He also should bring it up in debates. Imagine this moment in a debate: Hillary and the GOP nominee are in a debate on foreign policy and the moderator asks them what makes them qualified to be the commander in chief and lead our military. Hillary answers first and says her experience as secretary of state is what prepared her for the presidency and makes her qualified to be a good Commander in Chief.
Then it’s the gop nominee’s turn to answer. He turns to her and says, ” First of all, I have to challenge Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her time as secretary of state made her qualified to be a good CIC, because in order for that to be true, you’d also have to be a successful secretary of state. Just having that position by itself doesn’t mean much if you didn’t do anything during your time at the state dept. So I’d like to ask, Mrs. Clinton, what is one major or significant accomplishment you achieved during your time as sec of state?”
She’ll obviously be prepared for this and come up with some bs answer about some vague or general policy that “improved relations” between two countries and will take credit for that, but it will make her look terrible because she has no legitimate or specific answer to that question. After she gives her answer, the gop nominee says, “In my mind, and I think most Americans would agree, that’s not a significant or meaningful foreign policy accomplishment, and you didn’t name anything specific that you personally did to implement that policy. Therefore, if you failed as secretary of state, I think it’s reasonable for most Americans to assume you won’t be able to achieve any major goals as president, and we simply can’t afford another president who’s failed at moving us forward like the last president has”. He goes on : “I, on the other hand, have a record of success and of doing the things I said I was gonna do when I ran for office (lays out examples here).
So in one fell swoop he draws a stark contrast for the american people between his record of getting concrete results and success, and Hillary’s complete lack of those things, while tying her to the failed record and policies of the last 8 years under Obama.
This needs to be part of the GOP’s strategy for defeating Hillary in 2016. Just focusing on the emails and all her dirty laundry won’t be enough because she’ll have plenty of people in the media defending her on that. But it’ll be even harder for them to defend something that doesn’t exist, which is any substantive accomplishments during her time in public office.