Klein: White House Woos Hillary

As the Biden-Clinton chatter swirls, best-selling author Edward Klein says the White House has “put out feelers” to the Clinton camp about the veep spot.

KLEIN: Larry, just before we went on the air tonight, I checked with my sources in the Clinton camp and I took notes because I want to be careful. And here is what they told me: Up until just a couple of weeks ago, the White House was putting out feelers to see if Hillary would accept the vice-presidential nod and replace Joe Biden. Bill Clinton was, I’m told, urging his wife to accept the number-two slot. He saw this as a great launching pad for her for running in 2016. But, then, Hillary had lunch in the White House a couple of weeks ago with Valerie Jarrett, Michelle’s best friend, senior adviser to both the first lady and the president. And she told Valerie Jarrett that she would not accept the vice-president spot. The lunch was ostensibly about other matters, but it came up. The vice-presidential thing came up. Hillary felt burned out after four years as secretary of state. But I’m told there were more important reasons for her not accepting.

KLEIN: Number one, she felt that if she were on the ticket with Obama and he lost, she would be tarred as a loser when she tried to run in 2016. On the other hand, if she was on the ticket and he won, and he continued his far, left-wing socialistic policies, she would have to defend those policies when she ran in 2016.

And no, I’m not new here. Are you?

No, I am not new here, which is really a STUPID question.

Most seasoned posters on this forum take advantage of a feature which allows members and lurkers alike to click on the posters screen name to view the poster's profile. Sometimes posters place information that they would like public, but at least the profile gives the date the poster became a member of the forum.

If you had clicked my profile as I had clicked your profile you would have known that I became a member of this forum on December 17, 1998 as you became a member on October 6, 2008 which gives me roughly a decade of seniority on the forum.

It is common practice for seasoned posters like myself to NEVER reply to ANY poster without first checking the date that the poster became a member because this is a way of assessing if the poster is a newbie who may be a troll.

My point still stands Juanita Broaderrick the woman that Clinton raped testified under oath before Kenneth Starr that Bill Clinton told her that he was sterile. This means that if Clinton was telling the truth which he rarely did in public but may have been more likely to tell the truth in the stress of a private moment, then he could NOT have been the father of Chelsea or anyone for that matter.

NO ONE on this forum ever doubted that Clinton RAPED Juanitta Broderrick in 1998 when I became a member of this forum.

In point of fact, Clinton has NEVER publicly gone on the record that he did NOT rape Juanitta Broderick as he went on the public record denying that he had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Obviously, any innocent and decent human being would publicly deny that he raped someone if publicly accused. But Bill Clinton was given the legal advice to NOT publicly deny the charges by his scumbag lawyer David Kendall who advised him to publicly deny the charge would be to open up the opportunity of civil legislation and give Juanitta Broderrick the justice of a day in civil court even though circumstance and the fact that he was Attorney General of Arkansas at the time of the rape had denied her, her day in criminal court.

I believe Bill Clinton was STERILE and could have never fathered a child. Sterility is often the result of promiscuity with diseased whores with whom his youth was spent. Clinton grew up with whores as his mother was a whore or more politely a "party girl" passed around the by the comingled criminal and political gangs that populated Hot Springs Arkansas.

Oh, I didn’t know that there is a heirarchy here at FR, Bb...and that you apparently are at the top. LOL.

Gosh, I wish someone had given me that directive when I signed up. “You will be a back bencher to all who came before you, especially Bb, our King, and will know your place and will NOT be subordinate”.
I guess I didn’t get that memo!

As for your long and boring lecture...which I didn’t read, I have only one response:

“If it looks like a Der Sleek and acts like a Der Sleek, chances are it is (the offspring) of a Der Sleek!

As for your long and boring lecture...

It could only be viewed as a lecture by an intellectual inferior such as you.

An intellectual equal or possibly an intellectual superior would have taken it as it a challenge for intellectual debate or argument.

But you have NO foundation for an intellectual argument so you can only offer immature smart ass misspelled retorts.

Bill Clinton ASSERTED that he was sterile and unless Chelsea appears on Maury Povich to prove otherwise, I take him at his word.

I appreciate your response and I defer to you as you have been on this forum longer than myself.

The Whitewater Forum is difficult to explain to those who were not a direct witness to it.

The criminality of the Clintons was breathtaking.

Vince Foster and Jerry Luther Parks tragically died far too young.

Webster Hubbell did not share the fate of Vince Foster because he was Chelsea’s father and he acted as stupid as he looked and kept his mouth shut and did the time for Hillary’s crime at Lincoln Savings and Loan.

I appreciate your response.

When discussing the Clintons, ideology means LITTLE.

It is all about criminality.

Alamo-girl documents how dangerous it was to be associated with the Clinton crime family whether you were an intern by the name of Mary Mahoney or happened to be the brother of Betty Curry who was Clinton’s personal secretary, it was of no matter, both met very violent deaths.

Alamo-girl and this forum documented how criminality and evil can occupy the highest elected office that Our Republic can offer.

Barry Obama may represent an ideological evil but the Clintons represented criminal evil incarnate.

There's more to it than this.

When Clinton took over in 93, the Cold War was over and the economy was already growing for a year and nine months. Not having to budget for the Cold War and punting the WOT to the next administration had plenty to do with the "balanced budget".

All of those jobs he created? Besides the fact that the economy was already growing when he took office, take away the tech boom and all of the jobs created to set up the servers for ecommerce, update the mainframes for Y2K, and migrate the mainframes to modern servers, and Clintonomics looks a lot like Obamanomics.

He inherited a growing economy, the tech boom, and the end of the Cold War, and left us with the tech bust, the start of a recession, and the WOT. That's what we need to point out.a href =

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.