Hello. I am applying for the job of your campaign speech writer, just in case you think maybe you could use a new one.
Please find below a sample speech that I am submitting for your consideration.
Hillary Clinton Campaign Speech, Op. No. 1
By Patti Liszkay
I've vowed that one thing I would not let myself do during this campaign is dive down into the slop-heap next to Donald Trump and attempt to behave as swinishly as he does, no offense intended to swine, who I understand are in fact clean, well-behaved, useful animals. Even if I wanted to take on Donald in a sliming contest, I could no more win at that sort of game than could those of his Republican primary opponents who tried to sink to his level and failed at it. Donald is the master of slime. Unfortunately - no, I think I'll change that to fortunately - we the rest of us, Democrat and Republicans alike, were all too-well-brought-up to be as crass and crude as Donald grew up to be, for all his inherited wealth and privilege.
Still, as Donald Trump has such a propensity for name-calling, it's been suggested that I should at least try and repay him in kind by thinking up a campaign nick-name for him. I heard that a radio station host in Columbus, Ohio invited listeners to call in with suggestions for nicknames that I might use on Donald, and to those Columbus listeners I say thank you, I do appreciate your efforts on my behalf.
But in truth, if I were of a mind to go nasty-name-slinging, I could probably come up with a few on my own: Like Disreputable Donald. Disgraceful Donald? Disgusting Donald would probably work. How about Spoiled Donald? Not in the sense of over-pampered and ill-behaved, which Donald certainly is, but more in the sense of, you know, rancid, kind of like the good business investments that went bad and fell into bankruptcy under his inattentive and sloppy management. Or rather, mismanagement.
But I think the name that would be just the ticket, that would really cover all the bases nicely, would be simply Dirty Donald. Dirty Donald. On mark and to the point. Dirty Donald. Fights dirty. Deals dirty. Dirty mouth. Dirty mind. Forget throwing rocks and bottles during his campaign rallies; what protesters really ought to be throwing at Donald are bars of soap. Get him to clean up his act.
Then at the opposite end, the high end, of the decency spectrum is my colleague Bernie Sanders. Though we are opponents, Bernie, I will say that I consider you, I've always considered you, a good person, a decent human being whose heart is in the right place. In truth, Bernie, you and I, message-wise, policy-wise, we're very close. We may differ in our style, approach and modus operandi, but I believe that in our vision of what we'd hope to accomplish as President of the United States, we differ by mere degrees.
But then there's this annoying little thing called reality. Having a bold vision is one thing, and it's a good thing. But bringing your vision to reality takes so much more hard work, it takes compromise, it takes mutual cooperation, it involves give and take, getting what you can in exchange for giving what you must. Senator Sanders, you always stood your ground in Congress. You crossed your arms and refused to vote for any bill, however beneficial it might have been for our country as a whole if it did not meet up to your standards to the letter. Much of the time you've stood alone, above the fray. This yields idealistic purity. What it doesn't yield is legislative effectiveness. It sends a message. But it hasn't gotten a whole lot done. As I've said before, I'm a progressive, but a progressive who likes to - and knows how to - get things done.
As for me, I've been wrestling so hard and so long for the common good that I've developed muscles, scars and, subsequently, strength beyond belief. In my life, in my career in the United States Senate and as Secretary of State, have I made decisions that have over time, somewhere down the line have yielded unhappy outcomes? Yes. Of course. I won't deny that. But I've made many, many decisions, and people who make many decisions have to deal with the fact that the results of some of those decisions will be determined by circumstances that can't possibly be foreseen. One weighs the known facts, prays for guidance, then takes a course of action and prays for a good outcome. And I promise you that any decision I've ever made, any course of action I've ever mandated, has been with the best interests of our country in my heart.
And yes, all right, I did use of my home server to send work emails while I was Secretary of State - say, can I just clarify something about that? Look, since the dawn of government use of the internet, every Secretary of State before me has used their personal computers to send work-related emails. Then sometime between when the previous Secretary of State was allowed to do it and when I started doing it, a government directive was issued prohibiting this practice it in the future. I have no idea when the directive was issued. But what I'm saying is, this rule prohibiting the use of personal email servers is not right up there with the original "thou shalt nots" - you know, like "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness"...but "thou, Secretary of State, shalt not use your own internet server" just doesn't date back all that far. Nor is it instinctive that I, as Secretary of State, should not have used my own server to send non-classified messages. As I said, in the past it was common practice for a Secretary of State to do this. And I'm sorry to say, I never got the memo that it was no longer okay. I can only say that I wish the Inspector General had come banging on my door to let me know that it wasn't allowed back when I was Secretary of State rather than waiting until years after I'd left that office when I just happen to be running for President. Which kind of begs the question: Inspector General, why didn't someone from your office inform me back then? Why wasn't our national security so important to you back then as it seems to be now?
In any case, believe me, I now know not to use my personal computer for work emails. I know. Not gonna happen again. Believe me.
My personal email will be strictly for communications within the scope of my personal life.
And though it's been made very clear that my government communications must heretofore be kept altogether separate from my personal ones, my personal life is still, for some reason, considered fair game in the realm of my work life.
And as I understand as well as anyone that this reality isn't going away any time soon, I might as well come out and say it now: Yes, I've stuck by my husband through good times and bad, sickness and health, and intend to continue doing so 'til death do us part. So shoot me. What's been done has been done, what been said has been said, so shoot me again if you must, but remember, I'm not the one who said, "Whatever God has joined together let no man put asunder." I didn't ordain those words. I simply choose to live by them. Because, shoot me as many times as you will, I am faithful and loyal and will always be.
In the end, I have experienced - and endured - much in both my personal and public life. I've sat among world leaders and poor young single mothers, and yes, as Senator Sanders has pointed out a time or two, I've even given speeches to Wall Street investment bankers. Because that's what people of my world experience do. We share our accrued knowledge and insights with groups who are interested in what we have to say. And, like everyone else in the world, we get paid for our work. That's how the world works.
But that doesn't change the fact that my heart is in public service. That's where my heart has always been, and it's what my life's work has always been and I pray will always be.
And so, as I've asked you before, I will ask you again: let me continue to be your champion. Give me the opportunity to continue getting up everyday to work for you and to fight for you. Give me the opportunity and I promise you I will. I promise.
(Say, does anybody happen to know how I get this to Hillary Clinton?)