Donald Trump’s much-anticipated speech attacking Hillary Clinton Wednesday seemed more designed to reassure the candidate’s Republican base than to broaden his appeal to independents or Democrats. The fact is Trump raised valid questions about Clinton’s foreign policy positions, fund-raising practices and email quandary — but he did so in his vintage over-the-top fashion, with so many personal insults that many will ignore or forget the substance of his criticism.-CNN
CNN has now weighed in with an analysis of Trump’s Wednesday speech acknowledging its emotional appeal and criticizing Hillary for apparent ethical lapses.
This is a much more balanced analysis of Trump’s speech than the one we analyzed yesterday from the AP.
Our analysis of the AP article explained that it missed the point of what Trump was trying to do.
Sure, he might have exaggerated or made some factual errors but in the largest sense, the speech was effective because it caught the essence of Hillary’s corruption and lack of moral commitment.
CNN rectifies the AP’s errors by explaining the emotional competence of Trump’s approach.
Trump’s speech wasn’t about debating policy points, it was an all-out trashing of Clinton designed to rally conservatives … Indeed, Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, and donations to the Clinton Foundation raise important questions about potential conflicts of interest that the campaign has not fully answered.
We would argue that Trump’s approach will appeal to far more than conservative voters ultimately. At least CNN acknowledges it.
And CNN goes farther than that. Instead of merely cataloging Trump’s factual lapses, the CNN article actually begins to mention some of Hillary’s questionable dealings.
[Here are] several questionable relationships between the Clintons and donors. The Clinton Global Initiative, a tax-exempt charitable organization (and spinoff of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation), in 2010 helped arrange a $2 million commitment from a Canadian businesswoman and CGI member to invest in a for-profit company owned by Clinton friends, according to a Wall Street Journal article last month.
That year, Bill Clinton lobbied then-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu for a grant; the Department of Energy gave the company an $812,000 grant, the article said.
Another big donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, a Chicago trader ended up on the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board.
These are just two examples among what are surely many more.
As Secretary of State, Hillary seems to regard politics as a kind of “pay to play” environment.
Probably it is, but Hillary seems especially blatant about it and seems to have broken laws as a result of her practices.
The CNN article concludes:
What’s left is the kind of red-meat, anti-Clinton bombast Trump has been serving up from the podium for a year now. Clinton-haters love it, but it’s hard to see how it will change minds in the swing states likely to settle the election in November.
This doesn’t strike us as especially accurate. Trump will have appeal wherever he goes because he is skilled at touching people’s emotions.
Of course, if Hillary is indicted, still a possibility, Trump may not have to run against her at all.
Conclusion: Bernie Sanders remains in the race and he seems to feel that he may have a chance to emerge as the Democratic presidential candidate. He may have a better feel for Hillary’s fate than others. But no matter who Trump runs against, his skill at speechifying will serve him in good stead.