She’s been dipping in the personal popularity polls lately. A few unguarded remarks about what it’s like to have momentary cash flow problems while you’re in debt to lawyers defending your husband’s impeachment crisis and the losing effort to keep him from being disbarred in Arkansas. Plus a curious inability to articulate any single actual accomplishment she’s had in her high profile career as a carpetbagging U.S. Senator from New York and a do-nothing, go everywhere Secretary of State for the worst foreign policy president in our history. You know. Little stuff like that. Nits and picks.
Apparently it’s not supposed to matter. An article yesterday at Real Clear Politics is typical:
Not “If” Hillary Runs for President, But When — and How
Yes, let’s get that out of the way: Hillary Rodham Clinton is not deciding whether to run for president; she’s already running for president. If she doesn’t make it to the starting gate for the 2016 Democratic primaries, she will have quit running. When has a Clinton ever quit anything?…
The feigned indecision is part of the 2016 Clinton campaign rollout, as is the new autobiography, “Hard Choices,” and its accompanying book tour. Legendary literary editor Michael Pakenham referred to such volumes as “unbooks.” Like all Washington memoirs, its unofficial subtitle should be “If They Had Only Listened to Me.” Their purpose isn’t to entertain, educate, or enlighten. It’s to keep the author’s name in the news, make some money, and pave the way for the next gig. “Hard Choices” does all three, which is nice work if you can get it, considering the project is a ghost-written campaign manifesto…
This week, she lashed out at liberal interviewer Terry Gross for having the temerity to ask if the Clintons had changed their minds about gay marriage or if they had changed their public position when it became expedient. It’s an interesting question, actually, and one I’ve wondered about since the night during Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign when he signed the Orwellian-named Defense of Marriage Act into law. Hillary also fudged on the date in the Gross interview, citing the year 1993, a reminder that another trait she shares with Bill is a willingness to bend the truth…
So she has flaws, yes, but tremendous strengths as a candidate, too. I’ll go into them next Sunday when I explain why HRC is almost certain to be the next president of the United States.
Let me repeat that phrase “tremendous strengths as a candidate.” Let’s see. She’s a do nothing phony who has a record of lying, vengeful personal attacks, and represents a mirror of her husband’s say anything corruption without his political skills. Yeah. What would the strengths be?
She’s a woman. She has name recognition. The Democrats have nothing like a credible candidate to be president of the United States. And she’s a woman.
That’s it. The Dems are planning to parlay their fraudulent War on Women meme to another presidential election based on the idea that it’s this minority’s turn to occupy the Oval Office.
It’s just possible that eight years of Obama will have convinced people that demographics aren’t sufficient reason to hand the keys of power to an incompetent of the politically correct victim class.
More than that, Hillary’s qualifications as a gender warrior in the War on Women battle for equality and respect, etc, are even thinner than Obama’s claim to be an African-American.
Exhibit I in the campaign to come. A new revelation about Hillary’s early legal career. In 1975, she agreed to defend a 41 year old man who was almost certainly guilty of having raped a 12 year old girl. She chatted jocularly about the details of the case with a reporter, on audiotape, and laughed about both her friendly relations with the judge and the technicality on which she managed to acquit her client. At no point did she express the slightest concern for the victim.
You can read the whole story here. Please do.
The victim of that assault is not inclined to forgive:
Now 52, the victim resides in the same town where she was born.
Divorced and living alone, she blames her troubled life on the attack. She was in prison for check forgery to pay for her prior addiction to methamphetamines when Newsday interviewed her in 2008. The story says she harbored no ill will toward Clinton.
According to her, that is not the case.
“Is this about that rape of me?” she asked when a Free Beacon reporter knocked on her door and requested an interview.
Declining an interview, she nevertheless expressed deep and abiding hostility toward the Newsday reporter who spoke to her in 2008—and toward her assailant’s defender, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Being pro-abortion might have been enough cover for her husband’s shoddy if not criminal behavior toward women. I’m inclined to think, though, that women will not be as willing to overlook the indulgence of child rape by Bill’s wife.
What do you think? Inevitable? Maybe a comeuppance for a life of unscrupulous and convenient decisions, accompanied by a uniquely voracious thirst for power. Obama ain’t the only one, and maybe Americans won’t fall for it yet again.
One can only hope.