Ezzeddine 1

Sammy Ezzeddine

Mary Lou Hall

UNIV 200

5/10/2016

Dear Democratic voters,

In this upcoming primary elections, the Democratic Party has narrowed it down to two

final candidates. The first candidate and current leader of the race is Hillary Clinton. Her

experience comes from being First Lady behind Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001, a United States

Senator for New York from 2001 to 2009, and the 67th United States Secretary of State from

2009 to 2013. Over the past two decades she has gained experience but also has been involved

in several controversies. The paper will look into her two most recent controversies, the

Benghazi attack and private email server which both took place during her time as Secretary of

State in an effort to measure her qualification to be president.

Ezzeddine 2

The second candidate, Bernie Sanders, who has been picking up some steam the past

few months has differentiated himself from usual candidate. He began his experience as the

37th Mayor of Burlington Vermont for eight years, then a Member of the U.S. House of

Representatives for Vermont from 1991 to 2007, then in 2007 he assumed currently holds

office as a United States Senator for Vermont, and starting in 2013 served as Chairman of the

Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs for two years. While building his experience he has self-

proclaimed the title democratic socialist. In this paper I will argue that Hillary Clinton’s recent

scandals make her unfit to be president, while Bernie Sander’s focus on democratic socialism as

an option for the United States, makes him a viable candidate.

Before beginning the argument it is important to know the events that took place during

the Benghazi attack as described by Anup Kaphie, Deputy Foreign Editor for Buzz Feed News

and previously a writer for The Washington Post. On Sept. 11, 2012, armed militants launched

an organized attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Starting at 9:40 pm

Eastern European Time Unidentified gunmen launch an assault on the U.S. diplomatic

compound, quickly over powering security forces. U.S. personnel who retreated to another

building come under siege for two hours (Kaphie). At 10:30 pm ambassador Chris Stevens and

State Department information management officer Sean Smith take refuge in a safe room in

the main building. The attackers set fire to the building causing Stevens and Smith to be

overwhelmed by smoke (Kaphie). At 11 pm a surveillance drone arrives overlooking Benghazi.

President Obama goes into a meeting with the Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff (Kaphie). At 1 am EET a rescue team arrives in Benghazi from Tripoli. Thirty

Americans are rescued and Stevens is taken to Benghazi Medical Center and pronounced dead

Ezzeddine 3

on arrival due to asphyxia (Kaphie). At 1:45 am news breaks of at least one American dead in

the assault (Kaphie). At 4 am an assault using mortars on the CIA annex kills two Americans. At

4:08 am Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues her statement on the attack hinting it was

because of a video (Kaphie). The following day sept. 12, Obama announces Stevens’s death

among those killed and also hints at the cause of the attack being a video (Kaphie). In October

2012, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a senior

leader the militant group Ansar al-

Sharia is identified as a ringleader of

the attack (Kaphie). This timeline

reveals the poor security and

handleing that will be argued in the

paper.

Hillary Clinton’s orchestrated overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya set the stage for

the attacks in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton: Unfit for the Presidency, written by Bruce Fein, who

served under President Ronald Reagan and served on the Joint Congressional Committee on

Covert Arms Sales to Iran, and on the American Bar Association's Committee on Presidential

Signing Statements, talks about Clintons actions related to the war. Fein introduced many

issues with the war to overthrow Gaddafi some of which prove Clinton’s decisions set the stage

for Benghazi. The first issue according to Fein was that, the war in Libya violated the United

States Constitution because “The war, initiated by President Obama without congressional

authorization, violated Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution—a high crime and

misdemeanor that justifies impeachment and removal from office”. The war in Libya was a war

Ezzeddine 4

Clinton supported. According to Fein this action also broke law made by the United Nations for

“bombardment-not justified by self-defense” because “The war constituted the crime of

aggression under the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the United Nations Charter, and

the International Criminal Court”. To elect Clinton and make her the most powerful person in

the world, when she has proven willing to violate not only U.S. laws, but laws set forth by the

United Nations, is absurd.

Another issue that Fein introduces is that “The war eventuated in the transfer of

Muammar Gaddafi’s vast inventory of conventional weapons into the hands of terrorists”.

More weapons in the hands of terrorist increases the threat they pose to us and others, and

keep in mind this is prior to the attack in Benghazi. To make matters worse Fein says that “The

war created a power vacuum that gave birth to ISIL in Libya, and it now dominates the port city

of Sirte.”, and now ISIS, the greatest threat to the United States, has a safe haven in Libya

because of the lack of control caused by Clinton’s

war. Despite these negative outcomes and many

more Clinton still called the war “smart power at

its best…” (Fein) which means she saw it as a

successful and smart mission, which Fein correctly calls “glibness” and “even worse than

President George W. Bush’s post-Iraq invasion delusion of “Mission Accomplished”. Although

orchestrating an overthrow and thinking it was successful is not a scandal itself, it was this

decision that set the stage for what was to come.

Not only did Hillary Clinton set Libya on a path towards chaos, she allowed the attack on

the U.S. embassy, which killed four Americans to happen. First and foremost, Clinton as

Ezzeddine 5

Secretary of State is responsible for the safety and security of these compounds around the

world. Information from Benghazi story Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to know, provided by

Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative

reporter for Breitbart News Network Aaron Klein,

helps to show that despite the level of danger in the

country, critical security measures at the U.S.

compound were despicable. The first example Klein

provides is that “Guard towers were denied; a

special reaction team was pulled from Libya’s hot

zone; an aircraft was recalled.” On top of that external protection was comprised “entirely by

poorly trained, unarmed local Libyans who had virtually no capabilities to fend off armed

attackers”. Internal security was also left to the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade militia, a ragtag

group affiliated with the al-Qaida-linked, Islamic extremist Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization

that was later implicated in the Benghazi assault” (Klein). Security at the compound was not up

to United States standards by leaving its protection to non-American personnel. Klein says that

“The Benghazi facility required a special waiver since it did not meet the minimum official

security standards set by the State Department” and Clinton and her deputies should be held

accountable for denying the requests for improvement because “In spite of a large number of

requests from U.S. diplomats on the ground, there was little change in the dismal state of

‘security’ at the mission”. Her blatant disregard for the safety and protection of the compound

is an example of the types of decisions she could make as president.

Ezzeddine 6

Another reason why Clinton should be responsible for the attack is because she wanted

Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya at the time, to be there despite the well-known

and immediate threat. The reason Stevens went to the compound that day according to Klein,

was because “Clinton wanted to convert the shanty complex ‘into a permanent constituent

post’ as a symbol of the new Libya” and to do so, approved the “co-location” requirement that

kept intelligence and state department officials in separate locations. The separation of the

two was Clinton’s decision, and she must take responsibility for her decisions. The approval of

this requirement “means Clinton herself approved some aspects of the U.S. special mission,

including separating the mission from the seemingly more protected CIA annex” (Klein). The

whole situation could have had a better outcome if Clinton did not decide to place Americans

lives in a compromising situation with pitiful security. Foreign affairs, like the protection of

Americans overseas is one of the key factors that go into a presidential candidate and Clinton’s

bad judgment in this field prove that she is not ready for the presidential aspects that include

foreign affairs.

Although evidence shows Clinton was at fault and she had accepted responsibility for

what took place she continued to fight against the investigation process. In the article

Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed, written by Stephen

Collinson, a senior enterprise reporter for CNN

Politics, covering the 2016 presidential

campaign and politics across the United States,

examines Clinton’s demeanor during her

hearing. Collinson explains that during the

Ezzeddine 7

Benghazi hearing it was clear that Clinton was using it as publicity and was not treating it as an

investigation. An example of this according to Collinson is shown with “Clinton's refusal to

provide any new answers on the attack”. Even though she claimed responsibility for the tragic

event, she would go on to deflect questions or share new information that could possibly show

she was responsible by saying “I was responsible for quite a lot… that is not something I was

responsible for” (Collinson) when speaking about the security at the compound. Collinson says

the publicity she gained was from “when Democrats teed up questions for Clinton that allowed

her to speak at length and in personal terms about the events in Benghazi”. While her feelings

showed she felt guilty, the questions were not relevant to the hearing and were just an

opportunity to let her promote herself for long moments.

Again she tried to fight the investigation process by claiming it as a GOP partisan attack

made to damage her reputation. Clinton let her fellow party members argue while she sat back

and watched the argument unfold, ”top Republican, Trey Gowdy, and Democrat, Elijah

Cummings, began shouting and interrupting each other over what information the committee

should release while Clinton sat silently in the witness chair, watching the heated exchange and

nodding her agreement with Cummings” (Collinson). Arguments about the investigation

process became heated, according to Collinson “the heated exchanges highlighted that the

hearing is not only limited to an examination of Clinton's record on Benghazi but also the extent

to which partisanship has shaped the investigation”. Even though the hearings purpose was to

find the truth, Hillary did not want the information to be released and tried to stop it by

claiming partisanship. Overall she benefited from the hearing by allowing others to argue for

Ezzeddine 8

her and not helping the investigation find the truth and under U.S. law, withholding the truth is

obstruction of justice and she might be willing to repeat these actions as president.

The last point to argue about Clinton’s connection to Benghazi is that she lied to the

public about the cause of the attack. In Clinton Emails Became the New Focus of Benghazi

Inquiry, written by Eric Lipton, a Washington-based correspondent for The New York Times and

winner of the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism in 2015, information about her email

use was discovered through the investigation “when documents the State Department was

handing over showed that she had been using a personal account”. The personal email server

she was using contained classified information and also showed that Clinton privately said one

thing through her emails but publicly stated another. Before the email server was discovered, it

was agreed on by the Select Committee on Benghazi, that the administration’s post-attack

talking points about a protest related to a video were “flawed but not deliberately misleading.”

(Lipton). Now Clinton’s emails show a different story. According to Laura Koran, a producer

with CNN National Security, in an article titled, Some of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi-related emails

released, Clinton said publicly the night of the attack that “the attack erupted out of protests

related to the video” The video she was speaking of was an anti-Islam video released in the

United States and the protesters, according to her, were not connected to any terrorist

organization. This directly contradicts what she privately told her daughter that same night, “In

the exchange from the night of the attack, Clinton told her daughter Chelsea -- who was using

the pseudonym ‘Diane Reynolds’ -- that the attack was launched by ‘an Al Queda-like

group.’”(Koran). Describing the attackers as an “Al Queda like group”, Al Queda being a well-

Ezzeddine 9

established terrorist organization, shows Hillary’s knowledge of the attack included a suspicion

of terrorism. Clinton knew what she was telling the public was flawed but choose to still do so.

Clinton did not correct her mistake despite knowing the truth about who was

responsible for the attack. Koran said, “She spent over a week telling the families of those

victims and the American people that it was because of a video”. Jim Jordan, a member of the

Select Committee on Benghazi stated, "’That [a protest attack] won't hurt you. But a terrorist

attack will, so you can't be square with the American people. You tell your family it's a terrorist

attack, but not the American people’" (Koran). The only reason for Clinton to lie to the families

of the victims and the public was to protect her image. A candidate that lies to the people only

to protect her image is a candidate unfit to run a democratic country that is built on the people

having power.

The second of Hillary Clinton’s recent scandals is her use of a private email server while

secretary of state. While this may not seem like a big issue, it is against the law for a public

official to use a non-government email. Domenico Montanaro, National Public Radio’s lead

editor for politics and digital audience, writes about the laws that relate to her emails in Fact

Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails and the Law. To summarize Montanaro’s article, he says

Ezzeddine 10

the reason for this is to protect information, record communications, improve public access,

and unauthorized access to classified information. Deroy Murdock, a Fox News Contributor

who has been a regular on PBS, a founding staff commenter on MSNBC, and has appeared on a

wide range of national TV and radio programs, writes in Hillary’s E-Mailgate Woes Immune to

Primary Wins, that while Clinton claims “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my

email. There is no classified material”, She clearly lied because “at least 22 e-mails that are Top

Secret” and 104 listed as classified were found her server. She broke the law because “Having

classified information outside a secure government account is illegal” (Lipton). Murdock also

says that “Classified messages must have been moved, physically, from State’s secure system

and then onto Clinton’s freelance server” this is a huge problem because it means copies of

classified material were made, which is also illegal.

To continue about the private server, Clinton also claims that she “saw it as a matter of

convenience” using her own server, but that is contradicted by the fact she paid Bryan Pagliano

$140,000 to manage the server, when the more convenient thing to do would have been

keeping the money and following standard procedures (Lipton). The worst part of this scandal

is that some emails contained the location of ambassador Stevens. On at least two occasions,

March 27th and April 24th included the location of the ambassador (Lipton). It is unknown if

there is a similar email from the day of the attack because according to Lipton, Clinton erased

“roughly 30,000 “personal” e-mails”. This whole scandal is clouded with lies because Clinton

repeatedly does not tell the truth. If we are looking for an honest president, Hillary Clinton

would be an unfit choice.

Ezzeddine 11

In summation, a key quality of a good leader is taking responsibility for doing something

wrong. Hillary Clinton does not have this quality by continuously dodging questions about her

actions. As seen earlier during the Benghazi scandal, Clinton has a problem with accepting

responsibility. During the Benghazi scandal she denied denying security, emanate danger, and

knowing who orchestrated the attack. Another issue that she denies ever doing, is sending

classified information over her private email server. The Inspector General found emails that

should have been classified at the time when they were sent and Clinton’s defense to this

found in Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails, posted by her campaign website

says “it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified”. She

has a habit of denying responsibility by not answering question initially asked. When asked if

she withheld any work emails the response directly from her website wrote “She provided the

State Department with all work and potentially work-related emails that she had” but Sid

Blumenthal provided the committee with emails she did not. She tried to deny the importance

of this by saying in the article “it is important to note that none of those emails provide any

new insights” but her website does not address the possibility that there are more emails,

when it’s already been proven that not all of them were turned in to begin with.

Other questions that she problem answering include When asked if she used an iPad to

access the email account, her website answered by first saying that “she was as curious as

others and found it great for shopping, browsing, and reading articles when she traveled” and

then saying further down “sometimes used it for that too” the answer she provided avoided the

question and then tried to slide it in. When asked who the service provider was her website

claimed “there are concerns about broadcasting specific technical details about past and

Ezzeddine 12

current practices” which is a clever and understandable response if it needed to be kept a

secret, but never does it mention Bryan Pagliano who ran the servers. The reason she does not

mention him is because she does not want to be connected to the six figure salary that he was

paid, which contradicts her defense of convenience. When it comes to Hillary Clinton taking

responsibility for her actions she never provided quality answers and showed deception. When

it comes time as president to make decisions she will avoid the tough questions if things go

wrong but take a victory lap if they go right, and that type of behavior is not acceptable as a

president.

Bernie Sanders’ focus of democratic socialism has proven to be successful in Western

Europe. Americans have grown to fear socialism because of the perceived threat to freedom

associated to the word. Professor of Economics at American

University, Jon Wisman, has written about the success socialism

has had in Western Europe in the article What to Make of

Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialism?. Wisman writes,

according to Freedom House, “the U.S. clocks in way down — at

30th from the top” as the freest country in the world, far behind

other Western European countries. That certainly does not

correlate to thinking that socialism threatens freedom and Bernie is trying to show that. More

evidence Wisman uses to reinforce this is the Human Freedom Index, which measures personal

and economic freedom which “ranks the U.S. 20th, well below 11 Western European countries”

proving again freedom is not threatened. Americans still believe in the idea that democracy

provides everyone with equal opportunity and freedoms to get ahead, but Sanders has brought

‘The U.S. clocks in way down— at 30th from the top’ as the freest country in the world” –Freedom House

Ezzeddine 13

to light the flaws in this idea. Equal opportunities and freedoms have been lost because

Wisman writes “multiple studies have found that there is less vertical mobility in the U.S. than

in other rich societies such as Canada, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Austria, Norway,

Finland and France” and also states “In the U.S., there’s a greater chance that the rich and their

children will stay rich and that the poor and their children will stay poor” for most of history the

U.S. was the land of opportunity and freedom but now it takes a backseat to socialist and

democratic socialist countries, but with Sanders’ focus he can bring America back to the top of

rankings.

In the same article Wisman provides us with the “quality of life index which includes

nine variables: material wellbeing, health, political stability and security, family life, community

life, climate and geography, job security, political freedom, and gender equality” this index has

the U.S. ranking in at tenth, behind eight other European countries. Many of those eight

countries employ socialist ideas, suggesting that the use of socialism is more successful than

democracy alone. Bernie has spoken immensely on these topics and has suggested that

implementing socialism into our democracy can benefit us. There is also the Where-to-be-Born

Index which measures opportunities for a healthy, safe, and prosperous life which has “the U.S.

ranked 16th, behind 10 Western European Countries” (Wisman). Also “the U.S. fares poorly” in

many discrete measures of life including life expectancy, children in poverty, homicide rates,

population in prison, paid vacation time, parental leave, and wealth inequality (Wisman). In all

of these measurements the U.S. falls behind European countries at astonishing rates and all

these European countries share socialist ideas, but with Bernie’s focus we can improve life

measurements to the same level as the Europeans. The success of Western Europe provides

Ezzeddine 14

the evidence needed to prove that Bernie Sanders’ focus on democratic socialism is a viable

option for the U.S. and it undeniably surpasses

that of a solely democratic system in terms of

freedom and quality of life.

For the United States to successfully

employ a democratic socialist system it needs

Bernie Sanders’ focus and use of Denmark as a

prototype. Chris Moody, senior correspondent for CNN politics and elections, provides us with

insight on Denmark’s system in the article Bernie Sanders' American Dream is in Denmark. The

article includes a quote from Sanders saying “I think we should look to countries like Denmark”

when asked to describe democratic socialism. The article also quotes Sanders saying “the U.S.

could learn from the way the Danes have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties

that comes with economic insecurity", He said that because “All Danish citizens have access to

child care, state-guaranteed medical and parental leave from work, free college tuition, free

health care and a generous pension”. If American citizens had access to all these things then

we would also feel more secure and have less anxieties. Sanders notices that this feeling of

security for the Danish comes from knowing that the government is there to help you. Knowing

this has given them a freedom we do not feel we have in the United States, but Sanders is

trying to change that.

As it has shown in the studies listed before, Denmark and others have more economic

freedom than the United States, which is why Sanders uses Denmark as a prototype for trust

and happiness. This trust in the government has helped in the polls, Moody says, “More than

Ezzeddine 15

85% of Danish citizens participated in the nation's general election”. That number is a dream for

the United States and it is a result of the trust between the people and the government.

Another reason Denmark is a prototype according to Moody, is the “consistent ranking by

research organizations as having the happiest citizens in the world”, it cannot be denied that

we all seek happiness and the countries that employ socialist ideas are consistently happier

than we are. Using what has been successful for Denmark can drastically improve the system

we are using now in the United States.

The last reason they Denmark is an outline is that they are not a pure socialist country,

which Bernie has reiterated will not happen. Moody quotes the Prime Minister of Denmark,

Lars Lokke Rasmussen saying “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a

market economy”, this is how Bernie wants the United States to feel about our system, a blend

of democracy and socialism that brings out the best in both systems. Denmark is the prototype

of a successful country that implements socialist ideas in its government, and Sanders knows

this and is why the United States can grow and learn under his lead.

There is fear that socialism will not work well with our democratic system, but many

pundits will agree with Bernie Sanders that there is no basis for this fear. The article Is

democratic socialism the right path for America? Published by CNN, collects many different

writers opinions on the topic. Peter Dreier, author and professor of politics at Occidental

College, points to the fact that socialist ideas have already been implemented into our system.

One being Social security, and “What had once seemed radical has become common sense” this

could be for all things socialist that just need time to develop. Social security in not the only

thing, others include the civil rights movement, voting rights, and universal healthcare. A

Ezzeddine 16

professor at Cass Business School, Andre Spicer also talks about socialism in plain sight, like the

military, “it provides housing, education, health care, food and shelter for millions of

Americans” and people have raised little issue with this example of socialism because they gave

up some rights and freedoms to receive other benefits in return. All these ideas are applicable

to the United States and if given the chance, Bernie Sanders will add these positive additions to

the ones we already use in our democracy.

Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like

Sanders, also believes democratic socialism is a good thing for our country. As Acemoglu would

put it “It fosters markets and private entrepreneurship, but with a powerful welfare state

providing a strong level playing field”, which goes against the argument of stealing from the rich

to give to the poor because it is intended to provide the poor with an opportunity to move up

in society just like the rich do. While her view point may be biased, Maria Svart, the national

director of the Democratic Socialists of America, makes a good point “If we had a truly

democratic political system, the U.S. economy would work for ordinary people instead of just

the greedy few who have rigged the game.” What she means by this is that the rich control our

system while the poor continue to work for the rich. Svart also says the rich stop change

because they “try to discredit democratic socialism by equating it with authoritarianism. It's a

weapon they can use over and over again to prevent any reforms to rein in corporate power”

Bernie knows that corporations hold power in our democracy, which is no longer a democracy,

but wants to change that if he becomes president. The rich have succeeded in implementing

the idea that socialism is something to fear, but Bernie wants to change that. Socialism does

Ezzeddine 17

work with a democracy and if merged properly together how Sanders intends to, provides

those involved with the best option for prosperity and happiness.

Ezzeddine 18

Another debated issue of democratic socialism is the cost needed for it to work. Bernie

Sanders has tackled this issue head on and in the article How Bernie pays for his proposals

found on his campaign website has a well-developed plan to raise the funds needed to afford

all his spending programs that he had introduced. The First of his plans to benefit the

businesses and workers is the Rebuild America act, which is aimed at rebuilding infrastructure

and creating jobs. The funds for this will come a tax on the money that corporations have been

holding in offshore accounts. Bernie’s website says “Congressional Research Services estimates

may currently create losses that approach $100 billion annually” that offsets the one trillion

dollar price tag of this plan in just ten years and continues to profit from then on. Another plan

to help workers is paid family and medical leave which will protect the jobs of workers that are

injured or become mothers/fathers. This would be paid for by a “payroll tax that would total

$1.61 a week for the typical American worker” while everyone would chip in for this, it is one

thing that only the U.S. does not do compared to other developed countries, and in most cases

everyone will eventually use this benefit. Sanders is also pursuing clean energy with a plan to

invest in clean and sustainable power sources. His solution to this is simple, as he puts it

“stopping taxpayer-funded giveaways to oil, gas and coal companies”. Stopping the funding of

energy sources that are damaging our

earth and putting it towards cleaner

energies is something everyone will

benefit from now and in the future.

Other plans that will benefit

citizens include free tuition for public

Ezzeddine 19

colleges and universities which benefits us according to the article by, “substantially reducing

student debt, in a plan that would cost about $75 billion a year”. Imagine relieving the financial

burden of higher education by “imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators that would generate

about $300 billion in revenue” according to Sanders which will lead to better growth and

development in the future while having billions leftover to spend elsewhere. Taxing Wall Street

speculators is not a bad thing to do because the tax enforced is very minute and stops risky

behavior like kind that caused the 2008 recession according to sanders. Expanding social

security is another thing Sanders wants to do for older citizens and by “lifting the cap on taxable

income above $250,000” the rich will have to pay the same percentage as working people, and

that extra money is enough to help expand social security. At the other end of the life cycle,

Sanders has proposed Youth jobs programs to “create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young

Americans”, this will be paid for by closing interest loopholes for billionaire hedge fund

managers. Both of these programs would benefit citizens by providing them support in their

most vulnerable time and coming at the cost of the super-rich is not a bad thing. The most

expensive of Sanders’ plans is to expand health care to cover all Americans. According to the

article, he plans to do this with “a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by

employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households” along with adjusting

other forms of tax that already exist. While people may not like the idea of increased taxes, it

would make better sense for the United States to join the rest of the developed world and

protect its citizens when they need medical attention. While Bernie admits the costs of

democratic socialism is high, he lays out a plan showing that the costs can be overcome with

Ezzeddine 20

new legislation. With his structured plans presented, Sanders has shown his focus on

democratic socialism is a viable option that would be to everyone’s benefit.

Bernie Sanders has proven himself as a viable candidate for the democratic nomination,

even though there are fears related to his focus on democratic Socialism. Democratic socialism

has proven to be more successful according to the rankings. Bernie believes Denmark can be a

prototype for the United States considering it success there. Socialist ideas are already being

used in our system and Bernie uses that to suppress fears. Lastly, the cost associated with the

system can be overcome by the plans Bernie Sanders has laid out. Overall Bernie Sanders’

focus on democratic socialism as an option for the United States, does not disqualify him as a

viable democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand, in part to her recent scandals make her unfit to be the

democratic nominee and even more the president. She has shown willingness to break laws

and incite war. She does not have a good record when it comes to foreign affairs, which is a key

quality as president. As head of the executive branch she will be tasked with enforcing the laws

but has proven her willingness to obstruct justice. She has lied to the American people on

multiple occasions only to protect her image. These flaws of Hillary Clinton make her an unfit

choice as president.

Ezzeddine 21

Works CitedFein, Bruce. "Hillary Clinton: Unfit for the Presidency." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16

Oct. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Murdock, Deroy. "Hillary's E-Mailgate Woes Immune to Primary Wins." National Review Online. N.p., 18

Mar. 2016. Web. 10 May 2016.

"Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton's Emails." Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton's Emails.

Hillary Clinton, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.

Collinson, Stephen. "Hillary Clinton Weathers House Benghazi Committee Hearing." CNN. Cable News

Network, 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Lipton, Eric, Noam Scheiber, and Michael S. Schmidt. "Clinton Emails Became the New Focus of Benghazi

Inquiry." The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Koran, Laura. "Some of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi-related Emails Released." CNN. Cable News Network, 1

Dec. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Wisman, Jon. "What to Make of Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialism?" The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Moody, Chris. "Bernie Sanders' American Dream Is in Denmark." CNN. Cable News Network, 17 Feb.

2016. Web. 10 May 2016.

"Is Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialism Right for America? (Opinion)." CNN. Cable News Network, 28

Oct. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.

Kaphie, Anup. "Timeline: Here's How the Benghazi Attacks Played out." Washington Post. The

Washington Post, 17 June 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.

Klein, Aaron. "Benghazi Story Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Want You to Know." WND. N.p., 15 Jan. 2016. Web.

10 May 2016.

Montanaro, Domenico. "Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law." NPR. NPR, 2 Apr. 2015.

Web. 10 May 2016.

"How Bernie Pays for His Proposals - Bernie Sanders." Bernie Sanders RSS. Bernie Sanders, n.d. Web. 10

May 2016.

Ezzeddine 22

Image 1: Hillary with microphone. I chose this image because it is a neutral image. I use it to show who I am talking about in my paper. I place it next to Bernie Sanders’ picture because then the audience will know both will be talked about in the paper.

Image 2: Bernie Sanders with microphone. I chose this image because it is also a neutral image. I use it to show who I will be talking about in my paper. I place it next to Hillary’s picture because then the audience will see that both will be talked about in the paper.

Image 3: Shows a table is room in disarray. I choose this image because it shows the aftermath of the attack. The reader can use it to imagine how the rest of the building could look like. I place it at the end of the timeline for Benghazi so that the reader connects it to the attack.

Image 4: Isis troops in formation with weapons. I chose this image because it captures both the weapons and ISIS troops which is the main subject of the paragraph. The audience will not just read the words but also see the words as a picture. I place it in the middle of the paragraph right after I introduce ISIS because after reading the sentence they will quickly see it.

Quote 5: Dismal state of security. I chose this quote because it captures the essence of the paragraph, which is the security at the compound was not up to standards. I place it after I introduce the topic for the paragraph and also after the writer who is quoted is introduced. If there is one thing I want the reader to take from the paragraph, it is that quote.

Image 6: Hillary on the stand. This image was chosen to show Clinton’s demeanor during the trial. I place it right after I introduce the author and what his article will talk about. Her attitude and demeanor is important to the paragraph and this image represents it quite well with her on the stand with an angry face.

Quote 7: A protest attack. This quote was chosen because it plays an important in showing Hillary’s lie. I placed it before the paragraph that has it to set the tone. The paragraph before the quote talks about her lying even though she knows she is doing so. The paragraph after attacks her for trying to protect her image. The quote prepares the reader to see why she lied.

Quote 8: Freedom House. I chose this quote because it is the first ranking that will show the reader that the U.S. is not at the top. I placed it next to when the quote mentioned but a reader will see it just before they read it. It will reinforce what I will be arguing during the paragraph.

Image 9: Denmark dock. This image shows the colorful and vibrant Denmark on the water’s edge. There are plenty of people and the picture captures Denmark’s beauty. This is supposed to correlate to Denmark being a prototype for the U.S. I placed it just after Denmark is mentioned but before it goes into discussion.

Image 10: U.S. debt. The image is there to show the rising debt in America. I place it after the first paragraph talking about money and just as the second is beginning. The reader will be reminded of the debt that the U.S. faces but Bernie’s plans will not cause any debt.