Comments

  1. Trimegistus says

    As a Republican, I kind of hope the Dems do nominate Hillary!, simply because she’s so repellent I kind of assume the swing voters would go for someone with more charm — a cuddly-bear like Giuliani, say, or a folksy down-home guy like McCain. Or pretty much any random person dragged off the street.

    But as an American I am terrified because it’s quite possible her cabal of media supporters, thuggish operatives, and mysterious big-money donors could well put her in the White House.

    At which point America, Western Civilization, and possibly the future of the human race are in jeopardy.

  2. JJ says

    It is fascinating that anyone votes for this woman for anything. She hasn’t – as Book points out – taken a question, or answered a question, in years. She doesn’t speak, she screeches; and she is such a fundamentally dishonest person that her continued presence on the national scene is just astounding.

    Her arrogance combined with opportunism knows no bounds, either. Last week, when her senate committee (what the hell is she even doing on the armed services committee? What does she know about that?) was questioning General Petraeus prior to his taking over as head of operations in Iraq, she did not ask a single question. Not one. She used her time to make a speech. McCain, for example, asked 14 specific questions ranging from general strategy to troop morale, and ran out of time. Obviously he could have asked another 14, easily.

    She didn’t ask one. She made a speech. Petraeus was polite, he didn’t lean back and put his feet on the table (I might’ve), but it was fairly obvious he was thinking about other things, and the contrast between them just emphasized the difference between an actual professional, and a dilettante with an endless mouth.

    And this past weekend she just lied, lied, lied about her vote and the reasons for it. She contradicted herself in every substantive way possible – just as though five years ago never happened. Then in Des Moines this weekend: 2007: “I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies” – you’re a goddam liar, Hillary. That is not what you said. 2002: “I can support the president, it’s in the interest of our long-term security.” “In the years since the inspectors left, intelligence shows that he has worked to rebuild his chemical stock, and resume his nuclear program. He has given aide and shelter to operatives of Al Quead, and it’s clear that if unchecked he will continue to increase his capacity ot wage chemical and biological warfare.” March 2003 (talking to Code Pink): “There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put in harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. I doubt he will, and I voted for the resolution after careful study, talking to people I trusted, and I would love to agree with you but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.”

    This is not a white lie, this is an attempt to rewrite history.

    But that’s normal for her, and our sterling media lets her skate.

  3. jg says

    “she is such a fundamentally dishonest person that her continued presence on the national scene is just astounding.”
    (JJ)
    Well said. It needs to be repeated from every media outlet.

  4. Trish Olsen says

    Thanks to JJ for bringing this Hillary stuff out & providing the quotes to prove it. Hopefully the right’s strategists are making careful note of these contradictions…
    2003: “I can support the president, it’s in the interest of our long-term security.” vs.
    2007: “I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies…”
    I smell another flip-flopper element to the anti-Hillary campaign very similar to the anti-Kerry strategy used 2 years ago — with Hillary’s mouth providing all the required substance to fuel it.

  5. Marguerite says

    HRC is like a Stepford wife, almost automated. I’ll bet her dreams are scripted. The most telling event which portrays the real Hillary to me is the Billy Dale saga at the very beginning of her co-presidency, when an honest man was literally thrown out of his office, complete with a cooked up scandal, so they could replace him. They had the perogative to do so, but the disgusting and corrupt way she went about it was her calling card. His mother died not seeing him exonerated. I believe the HRC is for Hillary Ruthless and Corrupt. I know, I know, come on Marguerite, tell us what you REALLY think.

  6. says

    I think the best chance the Democrats have this election cycle to recapture the White House is Governor Richardson. Mr. Obama has charisma and could charm his way in, but I think it’s unlikely, though I also think that the attacking him for not having enough experience to use against him approach some pundits have used is a little silly.

    Hillary, if she wins the Democratic nomination, could very well ensure that any Republican nominee who runs will win. I think many of us who would vote for a third party might move towards the Republican candidate simply to ensure she doesn’t triangulate her way into the Oval Office.

    That said, I am unconvinced that she has the staying power to hold on to the nomination so many people seem anxious to endow upon her right now.

  7. Zhombre says

    I detest HRC and will never vote for her but I can’t concur with Trimegistus that her election will usher in the breaking of the Seventh Seal depicted in Revelations (well, let’s hope not). I think the woman is boring. An awful speaker, often shrill. I can’t imagine even four years of her patently phony, calculating persona reoccupying the White House, with Bill Clinton in a yet undefined role of First Man. They’ve been there before. I say not again. Richardson is the only Democratic contender that elicits my interest since Mark Warner opted out (I get no kick from cocaine, pure alcohol doesn’t thrill me at all, and I get no Obasm from Obama).

    And thanks above to BigAl for giving us a glimpse once again thru BDS-tinted glasses. Every political subject must be viewed through the prism of how much one hates Bush. It is an act of faith, a testimony.

  8. JJ says

    I have no problem with discounting Obama for his complete lack of experience, but there are better reasons to attack him.

    Remember, this is the new democrat government that’s going to be the most ethical congress in history. Remember that? Though the presence of Reid and Pelosi render it something of a joke from the outset, still, that’s the big issue.

    So when Obama was visiting Africa he said: “Now that the dust has settled and the new congress is under way, we need to get down to business and show Americans that we are responding to their calls for change. we now have the opportunity to give the American people what they deserve amd demanded in November – real ethics and lobbying reform that holds their elected officials to the highest ethical standards.”

    But that was only for African consumption, I guess. Back home, just last week, he endorsed Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley for re-election this spring, despite the fact that (to quote from Chicago Trib. columnist Dennis Byrne): “The suspected, indicted, and convicted percolate through his administration like water through a coffee-maker.”

    Ethics for other people, I guess.

Leave a Reply