Posted on 01/28/2008 6:05:22 AM PST by Dukes Travels
If someone is going to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, then so be it. If someone is going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black, then so be it. But for the New York Times to endorse Hillary Clinton because they consider her brilliant, and in possession of powerful intellect, is a real fairy tale.
Give me a break, please!
It is no surprise that the Times endorsed the most liberal Democrat and the most liberal Republican of the presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and John McCain. But to try to justify their predisposition toward Hillary with empty assessments of her is worse than the empty political rhetoric she uses to disguise her real lack of intellect, bad ideas and huge lack of experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Hillary’s greatest achievement was to be the only partner of the Rose Law firm not to go to prison because was able to hide the evidence in the only place in America no one is allowed to look.
The Rose Law Firm is *still* in business, and has been since 1820.
The interesting aspect of Hillary’s law firm (she’s a full partner there) is that as of 1994, and perhaps to today, this old law firm never had a Black Man as a partner: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E2DB163AF935A15751C0A962958260
Maybe she can stop by my house and help my child with the rare odd AP Physics problem - she’s so darn smart...
CORRECTION: Hillary left the Rose Law Firm in 1992.
Inquiring minds ask: What was the racial makeup of the judges selected by Hillary in Arkansas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.