March 12, 2015

Unless you’ve been living under a rock – and if you have and can still get this blog you must have some kind of Internet access – y’all know about Hillary Clinton’s latest woes: that while Secretary of State the Clinton Foundation took millions upon millions of dollars from foreign countries, not all of them friendly to the whole concept of women’s rights, and that while Secretary of State she eschewed the use of secure government e-mail and instead did all e-mailing via her own e-mail server and domain. Now everyone and everything is about the minutiae of politics and legalities: did she break any laws, statutes, regulations, etc? Is she still the presumed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Does this hurt her politically? If so, how much?

My take on this: Is anyone really surprised at any of this? Does a leopard change its spots?

Hillary Clinton has been who she is from the moment she hitched herself to Bill Clinton’s coattails decades ago. She is, and has been from the very beginning of her national political life, a smarmy, sneering, in-your-face, know it all phony elitist. From the very moment her husband Bill became a Presidential candidate and his personal foibles became public she’s played an equal role in distancing Clinton, Inc. from public scrutiny and accountability (and some might say, reality). The darling of the liberal media, she hates the media with a passion. Immersed in politics, she despises the rough and tumble of the political arena and – many would say – is a lousy politician. Think about it: is there anyone out there who truly thinks if her last name was Smith she’d be sniffing the Democratic nomination for President? Of course not.

More than anything else, in the words of legendary New York Times columnist William Safire, Hillary is a congenital liar who from the very beginning has played fast and loose with the truth. She’s always seen herself as above those silly standards and ethics expected to be practiced by you and me. And she gives “disingenuous” a whole new meaning: her trumpeting of herself as the standard bearer of women’s rights is a joke, a cynical and calculated persona designed to get her into the White House so far removed from her own record as to be breathtaking in its scope. Taking money from foreign countries with abysmal women’s rights records, defending rapists, attacking her husband’s accusers with vigor, and paying and placing women in the Clinton Foundation less than men – it’s all a fa├žade.

Of course, Democrats love her and will go to the hilt for her, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone – after all, they’ve wildly supported a President who has played pretty fast and loose with the rule of law himself – it’s all about power and keeping it in the White House. But I have to wonder exactly what Hillary’s chances are. I mean, she’ll get the liberal vote, but how much more than that? Look at 2008 when she was in the same position as the de facto nominee: she ran a lousy campaign, was viewed as a lousy candidate, shrill to the point of obnoxious, aloof, and unlikeable. Sure, Barack Obama ran a solid campaign against her, but what’s to stop the same thing from happening in 2016? Who knew about Barack Obama at this time in 2007?

The one given about Hillary is that the more you see her the more she’s diminished as a viable candidate. And the latest scandals surrounding her ought to serve as a warning sign to Democrats. Do they really want to hitch their wagon to someone so completely divorced from any measure of ethical standard, so divorced from reality that she thinks people will buy her laughable excuses for having all her e-mail as Secretary of State on her own e-mail server? That there was no risk to our national security? That she can be trusted to decide which e-mails belong to the State Department and which ones can be destroyed without an independent arbiter? Are you kidding me?

The fact that Hillary Clinton is utterly void of personal integrity doesn’t disqualify her for the Presidency; the fact that she willingly and recklessly put her own personal interests above the nation’s security most certainly does. But I don’t expect that to bother Democrats a bit – after all, they put Barack Obama back in the White House. Twice. The difference is, Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama, and Democrats ought to think carefully about if this is who they truly want carrying their banner into 2016.

Filed in: Politics & World Events by The Great White Shank at 01:08 | Comments (2)
  1. Surprised if Clinton wins the nomination. She turns off Democrats for all of the same reasons Republicans hate her. 2016 is the Republicans race to lose. The pendulum has swung back to the right amongst the middle voters. Before ascribing credit to the right or blame to the left, it should simply be noted that the middle is fickle. The left and the right are just plain stupid. They never learn from their past mistakes. They are forever being undone by their excesses.

    Comment by Rob — March 12, 2015 @ 4:33 am

  2. Can’t disagree with you there, Rob. I think the middle wants something fresh and a new start. And Hillary is anything but that. On top of all that she’s so damned unlikeable. The one thing Bill had was a sense of likeability – I mean, I know he’s a world-class bullshitter, but I’d bet he’d be a great guy to play a round of golf and toss a few beers back with. Hillary comes across as every man’s ex-wife – shrill, bitter, a pain in the ass. Which is why she will never get elected if Democrats allow her a clear path to the nomination.

    I’m no Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, but you can’t tell me they can’t do better than Hillary.

    Comment by The Great White Shank — March 12, 2015 @ 10:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Search The Site

Recent Items


September 2021
April 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006



4 Goodboys Only

Site Info