Here's what I don't like about Hillary and why I could not support her: By taking the high road she could have been classy while the Wright scandal carried on for another week or so. The only thing to knock it off course was an unprovoked, over-reaching, seemingly insane deal-breaker like her lie about Bosnia. Oops! She sure stepped in it.
To lie about a serious matter like war-zone danger, to accompany the lie with detailed storytelling, physical gestures and that silly "but I wasn't afraid" smirk indicates pathological behavior.
I don't fault Hillary for being mentally compromised but we have already had 8 years of delusional and "see-me-in-my-flight suit" immaturity. Hillary is as divorced from reality as George Bush is. Neither of them has functioned successfully in the every-day world that makes up life in America. Is Hillary in touch with the "Internets" any more than Bush is? Doubtful, or she wouldn't have stepped into the Bosnia lie.
Nothing I've ever seen in 45 years of listening to campaign parlance is as flat-out disqualifying as the Snipergate lie. It is a lie which Chelsea, when asked at Butler University about the Bosnia incident, said was just as her mother had described it. How can she be so dishonest?
What lies would be told to us if Hillary were President? We, the public, have had 35 years experience since Day One with Clinton manipulations. That is a historical fact.
AuctionAds
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
What We DO Know about Hillary is the Problem
In 1992 and throughout the Bill and Hillary Clinton reign of squandered talents, we were introduced to political porn as we’d never seen it before. All I remember is 8 years of wanting to crawl in a hole as the Clinton’s hung all their dirty laundry, personal and professional, in my back yard, as well as your backyard and the world’s.
A vote for Hillary, to me, makes about as much sense as sending your bank information to one of those charming fellows in Nigeria. Her message? “With me, you win the lottery!” Or maybe her candidacy is like one of those porn spams about male enhancement. Can’t imagine who might be sending those.
It appears as if quite a few hardcore politicians and news pundits are also salivating over potential Clinton spoils. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan has already gotten some huge monetary perks from Hillary. Although she hasn’t endorsed Hillary, she is full of syrupy praise for her gal pal.
Just look at all that spam in your inbox. Each message is worded cleverly as it appeals to a need and is, at the end of the chain, nothing more than an artful scam.
It’s not what we don’t know about Obama that is a problem. It’s what we DO know about Hillary Clinton.
Scandals, victim hood, wagging fingers and wagging private parts, more shady deals than Nixon ever dreamed of and a pathological inability to face reality. We see a lot of political romping in front of the camera and a lot of bad acting. Pundits don’t get it because they are just as phony.
Does the inability to face reality and the shallow quality of stubbornness remind us of anyone we have seen recently? Perhaps if the bar hadn’t been lowered to one inch above the sewer when the Clinton’s were in office, George Bush and Dick Cheney wouldn’t have had the audacity to lie and lie.
Political porn is back big time unless we send Hillary Clinton’s candidacy into the junk mail folder of history.
I really don’t like this chick at all.
AuctionAds
A vote for Hillary, to me, makes about as much sense as sending your bank information to one of those charming fellows in Nigeria. Her message? “With me, you win the lottery!” Or maybe her candidacy is like one of those porn spams about male enhancement. Can’t imagine who might be sending those.
It appears as if quite a few hardcore politicians and news pundits are also salivating over potential Clinton spoils. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan has already gotten some huge monetary perks from Hillary. Although she hasn’t endorsed Hillary, she is full of syrupy praise for her gal pal.
Just look at all that spam in your inbox. Each message is worded cleverly as it appeals to a need and is, at the end of the chain, nothing more than an artful scam.
It’s not what we don’t know about Obama that is a problem. It’s what we DO know about Hillary Clinton.
Scandals, victim hood, wagging fingers and wagging private parts, more shady deals than Nixon ever dreamed of and a pathological inability to face reality. We see a lot of political romping in front of the camera and a lot of bad acting. Pundits don’t get it because they are just as phony.
Does the inability to face reality and the shallow quality of stubbornness remind us of anyone we have seen recently? Perhaps if the bar hadn’t been lowered to one inch above the sewer when the Clinton’s were in office, George Bush and Dick Cheney wouldn’t have had the audacity to lie and lie.
Political porn is back big time unless we send Hillary Clinton’s candidacy into the junk mail folder of history.
I really don’t like this chick at all.
AuctionAds
Hillary is Political Porn
In 1992 and throughout the Bill and Hillary Clinton reign of squandered talents, we were introduced to political porn as we’d never seen it before. All I remember is 8 years of wanting to crawl in a hole as the Clinton’s hung all their dirty laundry, personal and professional, in my back yard, as well as your backyard and the world’s.
A vote for Hillary, to me, makes about as much sense as sending your bank information to one of those charming fellows in Nigeria. Her message? “With me, you win the lottery!” Or maybe her candidacy is like one of those porn spams about male enhancement. Can’t imagine who might be sending those.
It appears as if quite a few hardcore politicians and news pundits are also salivating over potential Clinton spoils. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan has already gotten some huge monetary perks from Hillary. Although she hasn’t endorsed Hillary, she is full of syrupy praise for her gal pal.
Just look at all that spam in your inbox. Each message is worded cleverly as it appeals to a need and is, at the end of the chain, nothing more than an artful scam.
It’s not what we don’t know about Obama that is a problem. It’s what we DO know about Hillary Clinton.
Scandals, victim hood, wagging fingers and wagging private parts, more shady deals than Nixon ever dreamed of and a pathological inability to face reality. We see a lot of political romping in front of the camera and a lot of bad acting. Pundits don’t get it because they are just as phony.
Does the inability to face reality and the shallow quality of stubbornness remind us of anyone we have seen recently? Perhaps if the bar hadn’t been lowered to one inch above the sewer when the Clinton’s were in office, George Bush and Dick Cheney wouldn’t have had the audacity to lie and lie.
Political porn is back big time unless we send Hillary Clinton’s candidacy into the junk mail folder of history.
I really don’t like this chick at all.
AuctionAds
A vote for Hillary, to me, makes about as much sense as sending your bank information to one of those charming fellows in Nigeria. Her message? “With me, you win the lottery!” Or maybe her candidacy is like one of those porn spams about male enhancement. Can’t imagine who might be sending those.
It appears as if quite a few hardcore politicians and news pundits are also salivating over potential Clinton spoils. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan has already gotten some huge monetary perks from Hillary. Although she hasn’t endorsed Hillary, she is full of syrupy praise for her gal pal.
Just look at all that spam in your inbox. Each message is worded cleverly as it appeals to a need and is, at the end of the chain, nothing more than an artful scam.
It’s not what we don’t know about Obama that is a problem. It’s what we DO know about Hillary Clinton.
Scandals, victim hood, wagging fingers and wagging private parts, more shady deals than Nixon ever dreamed of and a pathological inability to face reality. We see a lot of political romping in front of the camera and a lot of bad acting. Pundits don’t get it because they are just as phony.
Does the inability to face reality and the shallow quality of stubbornness remind us of anyone we have seen recently? Perhaps if the bar hadn’t been lowered to one inch above the sewer when the Clinton’s were in office, George Bush and Dick Cheney wouldn’t have had the audacity to lie and lie.
Political porn is back big time unless we send Hillary Clinton’s candidacy into the junk mail folder of history.
I really don’t like this chick at all.
AuctionAds
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Barack Obama Gets the Delegate Win in New Hampshire
Despite Hillary’s 3% Victory Margin with Voters, Obama is No Loser in New Hampshire.
It appears, from blurbs on Politico.com and on CNN.com that Barack Obama may indeed came away the winner in New Hampshire after all. Not a big fan of the Electoral College here, but right now I’m kind of loving it.
Obama has come away with 9 of the New Hampshire delegates and Hillary has come away with 9 of the NH delegates. But, hold on,there are still “super delegates” to be awarded. Of those, Obama will garner 3 more delegates, whereas Clinton will garner 2 more delegates.
According to Politico.com, the margin of difference between Obama and Clinton is less than 3 %. The scorecard at CNN
awards 12 delegates to Obama, 11 to Clinton and 4 delegates to John Edwards.
Appearing on the morning shows January 9th, 2008, Obama, forever a man of grace and leadership, observed that the media had been a bit too hasty to anoint him as an unstoppable force. Pundits and polls anointed Clinton in the summer and Obama in the 3 days prior to the New Hampshire primary.
Obama stressed that a good, tough struggle would be healthy for the country and that he is anxious to be tested and further vetted. Sure, he would have preferred a win, but he's pleased not to have sustained the high percentage defeat that had been predicted less than two weeks ago in New Hampshire.
Still, one always has to fear the establishment machine in politics. After all, that's what this election is all about. Can the Democratic Machine and the Republican Machine successfully be challenged for the White House or will the change and truth-to-power candidates forever get squished?
Until the end of the primary season, if he lasts that long, Obama will always be the underdog. Even with a 20% lead he would be the underdog. The Clinton Machine could always send him to the pound. Or can they?
Although it may not be part of the Clinton lexicon, there's always hope. Hope. Sorry Bill, it's not a dirty word.
And Obama's quite happy with the larger number of New Hampshire delegates. Winning the popular vote was not quite a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton, but not a decisive win for her, either. She has stopped the bleeding. Now, please, lady, stop the pleading.
As an aside, I am so unhappy with the wild and wide-eyed Democratic women in high politics. It would be impossible for them to open their eyes any wider. Must have something to do with botox. Rudy G. has the ol' pop-eyed look, too - brrr, gives me the creeps!javascript:void(0)
No doubt Hillary will pull out all the stops. To be sure, she will bless us with her newly-minted Anna Nicole purr along with a well of victim tears appropriate when petting dogs and babies (provided the camera is rolling and the lighting is right)?
Oh, please, folks - she's George W. Bush in a blue (with braided black piping) pant suit!
Cheers,
Stormy
(I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish)
AuctionAds
It appears, from blurbs on Politico.com and on CNN.com that Barack Obama may indeed came away the winner in New Hampshire after all. Not a big fan of the Electoral College here, but right now I’m kind of loving it.
Obama has come away with 9 of the New Hampshire delegates and Hillary has come away with 9 of the NH delegates. But, hold on,there are still “super delegates” to be awarded. Of those, Obama will garner 3 more delegates, whereas Clinton will garner 2 more delegates.
According to Politico.com, the margin of difference between Obama and Clinton is less than 3 %. The scorecard at CNN
awards 12 delegates to Obama, 11 to Clinton and 4 delegates to John Edwards.
Appearing on the morning shows January 9th, 2008, Obama, forever a man of grace and leadership, observed that the media had been a bit too hasty to anoint him as an unstoppable force. Pundits and polls anointed Clinton in the summer and Obama in the 3 days prior to the New Hampshire primary.
Obama stressed that a good, tough struggle would be healthy for the country and that he is anxious to be tested and further vetted. Sure, he would have preferred a win, but he's pleased not to have sustained the high percentage defeat that had been predicted less than two weeks ago in New Hampshire.
Still, one always has to fear the establishment machine in politics. After all, that's what this election is all about. Can the Democratic Machine and the Republican Machine successfully be challenged for the White House or will the change and truth-to-power candidates forever get squished?
Until the end of the primary season, if he lasts that long, Obama will always be the underdog. Even with a 20% lead he would be the underdog. The Clinton Machine could always send him to the pound. Or can they?
Although it may not be part of the Clinton lexicon, there's always hope. Hope. Sorry Bill, it's not a dirty word.
And Obama's quite happy with the larger number of New Hampshire delegates. Winning the popular vote was not quite a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton, but not a decisive win for her, either. She has stopped the bleeding. Now, please, lady, stop the pleading.
As an aside, I am so unhappy with the wild and wide-eyed Democratic women in high politics. It would be impossible for them to open their eyes any wider. Must have something to do with botox. Rudy G. has the ol' pop-eyed look, too - brrr, gives me the creeps!javascript:void(0)
No doubt Hillary will pull out all the stops. To be sure, she will bless us with her newly-minted Anna Nicole purr along with a well of victim tears appropriate when petting dogs and babies (provided the camera is rolling and the lighting is right)?
Oh, please, folks - she's George W. Bush in a blue (with braided black piping) pant suit!
Cheers,
Stormy
(I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish)
AuctionAds
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Hillary Using the Bush Smirk on Obama
I admit to being an Obama supporter from the get-go. As such I have had a sharp eye out this political season and have seen way more than my share of sound bites, cable clips and debate footage. Hillary has been formidable and I admired her poise and tone. But what I have been seeing lately from the Clinton campaign has me agape!
After the Philadelphia debate, which showed the first crack in Hillary Clinton's composure, she appears to have retreated into the smug, smirking, condescending speaking style of that beloved orator, George W. Bush. Who is advising this woman, anyway?
Hillary's public personality is getting way off track and becoming as managed and contrived as Al Gore's became during the 2000 campaign.
Of course, we love Al Gore for the person we know him to be, but, let's face it, in 2000, he didn't come off as either "real" nor "commanding." (As a presidential candidate, you've got to be either real or commanding with some level of consistency.)
Hillary's 'Bushy Smirk' was evident, for example, when she responded recently to Obama's statement of having an innate talent for foreign policy based partly on spending his most formative years (6-10 years of age)in a third world country.
In velvet tones, Hillary countered the Obama statement with the following: “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that."
What rankled me so much with the response was not the point she made (more rebuttal on that point at another time), but the tone and the body language she used.
Over and over recently Hillary has slipped dangerously close to ridicule and sarcasm in tone. Have you noticed it, too? Ridicule is not a clever tool and sarcasm is a tacky attempt at wit. When confidence becomes haughty and poise looks more like condescension, the democrats will flee in droves.
We've had 8 years of silver spoon "brattitude" and now we're getting it from Hillary. Enough!
Another recent Hillary "slippage" in authenticity came when she attacked Obama's health care plan. No doubt all health care plans have room for scrutiny, but I swear Hillary was acting like she had been medicated. Her voice took on a kittenish purr and her eyes were glazed as she again ridiculed Obama with a half-smile smirk.
I've heard Hillary speak - lots of times - and I never heard that little voice before. It's the kind of thing you see in horror movies when the main character's best friend is exposed as an android or zombie.
What's happening, Hillary? You have not been yourself lately.
AuctionAds
After the Philadelphia debate, which showed the first crack in Hillary Clinton's composure, she appears to have retreated into the smug, smirking, condescending speaking style of that beloved orator, George W. Bush. Who is advising this woman, anyway?
Hillary's public personality is getting way off track and becoming as managed and contrived as Al Gore's became during the 2000 campaign.
Of course, we love Al Gore for the person we know him to be, but, let's face it, in 2000, he didn't come off as either "real" nor "commanding." (As a presidential candidate, you've got to be either real or commanding with some level of consistency.)
Hillary's 'Bushy Smirk' was evident, for example, when she responded recently to Obama's statement of having an innate talent for foreign policy based partly on spending his most formative years (6-10 years of age)in a third world country.
In velvet tones, Hillary countered the Obama statement with the following: “Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that."
What rankled me so much with the response was not the point she made (more rebuttal on that point at another time), but the tone and the body language she used.
Over and over recently Hillary has slipped dangerously close to ridicule and sarcasm in tone. Have you noticed it, too? Ridicule is not a clever tool and sarcasm is a tacky attempt at wit. When confidence becomes haughty and poise looks more like condescension, the democrats will flee in droves.
We've had 8 years of silver spoon "brattitude" and now we're getting it from Hillary. Enough!
Another recent Hillary "slippage" in authenticity came when she attacked Obama's health care plan. No doubt all health care plans have room for scrutiny, but I swear Hillary was acting like she had been medicated. Her voice took on a kittenish purr and her eyes were glazed as she again ridiculed Obama with a half-smile smirk.
I've heard Hillary speak - lots of times - and I never heard that little voice before. It's the kind of thing you see in horror movies when the main character's best friend is exposed as an android or zombie.
What's happening, Hillary? You have not been yourself lately.
AuctionAds
Friday, November 16, 2007
Hillary Clinton Supporters Boo and Heckle Obama and Edwards at Las Vegas CNN Debate
The democratic debate was held tonight in Las Vegas, Nevada. CNN really blew it. Moderated by Wolf Blitzer and John Roberts, the structure was chaotic.
The crowd, clearly packed with Hillary Clinton supporters, bordered on rude as childish Clinton supporters loudly booed Obama and Edwards when they pointed out weaknesses in Clinton's positions. Trailer-park tacky, is about all that can be said.
At the start of the squaring off between the candidates, hecklers were in evidence, as Clinton supporters, unchecked by Blitzer or the other CNN moderators, freely shouted catcalls at Obama. Why Blitzer didn't take some command of the audience is hard to understand. A few words about etiquette would have gone a long way.
Following the debate, a CNN pundit panel is composed of two former Bill Clinton staffers and one republican, J.C. Watts. The spin coming from the pundits is astounding. I'm a democratic and it quite alarming to see a network so in the pocket of a candidate. In addition to Obama and Edwards, Biden and Dodd have good performances, but CNN's panel is much too obvious in it's dismissal of everyone but Hillary.
How could CNN allow the audience to openly boo the candidates without reproach? What a failure of civility. Clinton supporters should know better. To boo someone for disagreeing with your candidate is the height of the politics of destruction.
This debate and the performance of "the Clinton camp" has convinced me, a life-long democrat, that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents everything about politics that needs to change in this country. And CNN is the epitome of what's wrong with the news media.
In short, what was Hillary Clinton's response to opposition? Rather than debating intellectually, she stuck out her tongue at the big bad bullies. And CNN seems to think that's a winning strategy. Amazing.
Oh, poor old Hillary. Boohoo.
AuctionAds
The crowd, clearly packed with Hillary Clinton supporters, bordered on rude as childish Clinton supporters loudly booed Obama and Edwards when they pointed out weaknesses in Clinton's positions. Trailer-park tacky, is about all that can be said.
At the start of the squaring off between the candidates, hecklers were in evidence, as Clinton supporters, unchecked by Blitzer or the other CNN moderators, freely shouted catcalls at Obama. Why Blitzer didn't take some command of the audience is hard to understand. A few words about etiquette would have gone a long way.
Following the debate, a CNN pundit panel is composed of two former Bill Clinton staffers and one republican, J.C. Watts. The spin coming from the pundits is astounding. I'm a democratic and it quite alarming to see a network so in the pocket of a candidate. In addition to Obama and Edwards, Biden and Dodd have good performances, but CNN's panel is much too obvious in it's dismissal of everyone but Hillary.
How could CNN allow the audience to openly boo the candidates without reproach? What a failure of civility. Clinton supporters should know better. To boo someone for disagreeing with your candidate is the height of the politics of destruction.
This debate and the performance of "the Clinton camp" has convinced me, a life-long democrat, that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents everything about politics that needs to change in this country. And CNN is the epitome of what's wrong with the news media.
In short, what was Hillary Clinton's response to opposition? Rather than debating intellectually, she stuck out her tongue at the big bad bullies. And CNN seems to think that's a winning strategy. Amazing.
Oh, poor old Hillary. Boohoo.
AuctionAds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)