Skip to comments.Hillary a Shoo-in for POTUS? Not So Fast
Posted on 06/24/2014 7:41:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
I'm probably in some minuscule minority, but I am just not too worried about Hillary Clinton's prospects to become our next president. I sense that people will detect her lack of authenticity and also properly associate her with Obama's failed policies.
So far, many have given Hillary a pass on her enabling her husband's serial mistreatment of women in his personal life. She was complicit every step of the way, yet many view her as the victim rather than a co-conspirator.
She also seems to have avoided the Obamacare taint, even though her Hillarycare was its bastard forerunner, but it's doubtful that will continue if she runs for president. Even if you buy into the false narrative -- as even many conservatives have -- that Bill Clinton was ultimately a moderate, Hillary has radical roots that remain with her today. It's doubtful she'll receive virtual immunity for those the same way Obama has.
But for a Republican candidate to defeat Hillary -- assuming she gets that far, what with rumors about her health issues on top of everything else -- he will have to be unafraid to expose her record, not just on policy but on character, including the reprehensibly pitiless behavior she displayed in representing the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl.
Her callousness in laughing about her client's passing a polygraph test was not an isolated occurrence. You will recall her indignant response in congressional testimony to questions on Benghazi, Libya: "At this point, what difference does it make?" Hillary's defenders have insisted her statement was out of context, but we knew better then, and we certainly know better now.
For as it turns out, we learn from Edward Klein's new book, "Blood Feud," that Hillary supposedly bristled at Obama's suggestion that the attack on our consulate had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an anti-Islam video.
Now let's stop right here and soak in the multifaceted significance of this revelation. In the first place, it shows that Obama, not any of his subordinates, including Susan Rice, was behind this abominable deception. In addition, the reported exchange leaves no room for doubt that Hillary also knew it was a lie and objected to advancing it.
But she didn't object to putting forth this false story on ethical grounds. Rather, she reportedly told Obama that the story wasn't credible because, among other things, it ignored the fact that the attack had occurred on Sept. 11. Obama was unbending, ordering her to put out a State Department release as soon as possible because the election was in two months and he had still been pushing the fiction that he had al-Qaida on the run.
What did Hillary do? She didn't resign in protest. She did her duty, not to the United States of America, whose highest office she craves, but to President Obama and to her own presidential ambitions. Shortly after 10 p.m. on Sept. 11, she released an official statement blaming the attack on an "inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet."
So please don't twist this report into some perverse positive for Hillary Clinton. She completely rolled over to Obama's dictates and, with him, attempted to deceive the American people she has the audacity to claim she serves. The media then dutifully presented the story as if it were credible -- and darn near got away with it, which shows just how low they've sunk.
Hillary has more recently made headlines with an absurd offhanded comment concerning her and Bill's relative wealth. When The Guardian asked her whether voters would see her as credible on the issue of income inequality -- given her vast personal wealth -- she replied, "We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well-off -- not to name names -- and we've done it through dint of hard work."
Arrogant, self-serving and hypocritical don't do that justice. Is she implying that many others deserve to be punished if they haven't worked so hard as she has? I thought she was a champion of those who don't work that hard. This liberal idea that there's something immoral about people earning money from their investments is just outrageous. Liberals never bother to mention that these people have already paid taxes on the income used to acquire the assets now producing capital gains.
What this illustrates is the unstated liberal credo that liberals demand to be judged on their policy advocacy rather than on their personal behavior. It doesn't matter that Hillary is rich and attacks the wealthy, that Al Gore rails against carbon footprints while making full-fledged body prints of his own, that Barack Obama does the same -- luxuriating in Air Force One while excoriating private jet owners and playing golf while people are suffering -- or that Bill Clinton serially abused women and Hillary handled the "bimbo eruptions" while crusading for "women's rights." Judge them not by their behavior but by their ideology and party identification.
Hillary is doubtlessly a very smart woman who talks a good game about her passion for liberal causes and her compassion for the downtrodden, but her personal life contradicts her public stances and reveals her lack of empathy for those she claims to represent.
Should Hillary get her party's nomination, I believe she will not be nearly so formidable as Beltway elites would have us believe, because her lack of genuineness is rather easy to demonstrate, as is her joinder at the hip with the worst president in American history -- and I'm not referring to Bill Clinton.
Hate to disagree with Dave here, but getting such a Republican candidate would be predicated on nominating a strong fighter with a steel spine willing to pound on this theme.
The last nominee who came even close to that description had the initials RWR.
I was astonished that Obama won in 2008 and even more surprised he won in 2012. The reason for both wins was the GOP failed to find a candidate that bible clutching gun gun worshiping Republicans, or any of us, for that matter, could get behind. So, don’t count out Hillary if the GOP again nominates a Bush or a Romney. I will hold my nose and vote the R. But several million more will stay home.
They had better not, because they will be responsible if they do for what happens.
“...her joinder at the hip with the worst president in American history — and I’m not referring to Bill Clinton.”
THAT’S the double whammy. right there!
She can’t lie big enough or fast enough to make THAT go away!
I am tired of people like you who just want to throw the towel in.
well hold on now....these are the same people that bought Obamas bull hook, line, and sinker, and still do.
That is to temporarily deny the franchise to anyone but property-owning Christian Gentlemen over the age of 55.
Other than that simple step, The Women, The State-Supported Illegitimately Born, Denizens of the Inner Boros, Latinos, Queers of the various officially recognized types, The Tattooed Obese at Wal-Mart Parking lots, and Drunken Reservation Indians will most assuredly make this dimple-butted harridan your next President.
That has been The Dick Morris' Plan. Obama The Simple-Minded Token was in to just draw fire and get the Socialist ball rolling. A far more intelligent, more dedicated Marxist is now needed to consolidate the gains achieved by Team Obama behind their untouchable Gay 'Black' figurehead.
Yo Bubba, how do you say "Pinochet" in American?
FWIW, I'm a precinct election judge and committeeman. I wish more good people would get involved, particularly at the primary election level. There are no shortage of drones and media tools who behave like good little sheep and do as their told. But I insult sheep.
I’ve said all along that the Clintons want their power back that was usurped by the upstart BHO in 2006 or so. They worked all their lives to climb Turd Mountain and then had it taken from them, and I think that’s at least as important as what Hillary does. She may not run herself but she (they) want to be the kingmakers for 2016. They do not want anyone annointed by Obama to become the nominee because that would signal that their reign of power is over, and there’s still Chelsea to plan for....
I am just not too worried about Hillary Clinton’s prospects to become our next president. I sense that people will detect her lack of authenticity
That is exactly what I thought about Barack Obama back in 2007
David, they didn’t even associate OBAMA with obama’s failed policies!
This is conservative whistling past the graveyard.
For the American people not to vote in HRC, they would have to admit that they are wrong, and that they won’t do.
Why should I vote for her? I would be wrong if I voted for her, just as it would have been wrong if I voted for that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Get this I have never voted for a democrat or commierat and never will
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.