That’s just the whole point. I mentioned in another thread earlier today that even though she is a lousy speaker and godawful to watch in public, all that is needed is to trot her out on “Oprah” or “The View” and the drive bys will deal with her in tones sweeter than honey and prop her up big time.
If you were to compare how ones like Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons covered Hollywood (under the control of ones like Louis B Mayer and Harry Cohn) in the 1930s through 1950s era to how Oprah, Rosie, Norah, and others (under the control of the Democrat machine)cover politics today, you’d be hard pressed to find any difference.
Dear American who intends to vote for Hillary Clinton,
I don't know how to put this tactfully, so I'm just going to say it.
You're a moron.
You know how Bill Clinton came out yesterday to defend the Clinton Foundation and his $500k speeches by saying he's "gotta pay the bills?" Do you find it odd in the slightest that Hillary hasn't answered a single question about that? Doesn't it concern you at all that it's her husband doing the talking, and while she's running around Chipotles trying to pretend she's interested in the "everyday American" she's seemingly oblivious to the fact that he thinks it's completely normal to talk about NEEDING $500k speech income to cover their bills?
(Side note: I don't begrudge them making zillions of dollars from people stupid enough to pay it to them, by the way. But I DO begrudge them trying to pretend as if they have the FIRST CLUE about the plight of the everyday American.)
Do you find it odd in the slightest that she wiped her server clean after doing all kinds of government business via the personal email account connected to that server? Do you genuinely see nothing wrong the fact that when it comes to transparency, the Clintons are absolutely opaque? Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. If you haven't figured that out by now, then you're worse than a moron. The way that Hillary is behaving in her campaign (guarded, only speaking to "regular people" who've been carefully vetted, and avoiding the press at all costs) is EXACTLY how she'll behave as president. Is that really ok with you? And if it is, WTF is wrong with you that you're willing to tolerate that from your own president?
Don't you find there to be a problem with a woman who was quick to blame a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" on her sleazy husband's infidelities, and then neglected to apologize for that remark after it was clear that her husband lied to her AND the entire country?
Do you really want the first woman president to be so sheltered and elitist that she hasn't even driven a CAR in the last couple of decades? Do you really want the first woman president to be someone who allowed herself to be completely humiliated by her husband?
Are you even remotely aware of the utter failure Hillary Clinton was as secretary of state? She was woefully unprepared in Libya, which has devolved into utter chaos, she was caught off guard by the Arab Spring, she completely misjudged Syria's president, and the list goes on and on. By nearly every measure, the world looks less favorably at the US than they did even during Bush's tumultuous time in office. Even SHE isn't good at describing her accomplishments. Doesn't that concern you?
So what exactly do you see in her? It can't be her charisma or her likeability, because let's face it, she's at best unpleasant. Is it her economic approach - to do the same crap that Obama has done - which has more people on public assistance than ever, more debt than ever, and more bureaucracy then ever?
WHAT IN THE HOLY HELL are you thinking?
It's not enough that she's a woman. That's like the lamest reason to vote for someone EVER. What we need is competence, not to make some sort of feminist statement.
Use your brain, look at her candidacy honesty and critically, and then if you still want to vote for her, please find the nearest available person, and ask them to punch you in the face repeatedly.
Because you deserve it.
Love,
Mock