Hillary Clinton for President!

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dear Reader (Including those of you who have merely stumbled onto this “news”letter via the filthy Internet rather than receiving it via the space-age pneumatic technology it was intended for),

Say you work for a company that depends on sales (“Um, are there other kinds of businesses?” — The Couch).

Imagine you have a saleswoman who everyone says is the best — THE BEST!! (ideally said in a Kenny Banya voice). Whenever you point out that her sales numbers stink, everyone calls you “sexist” or insists that you just “don’t get it.”

You respond, “What has she done?”

The universal answer is, “She clocked more miles on sales calls than anybody in company history! She’s driven a million miles! One. Million. Miles!”

You ask: “Yeah, but has she, you know, sold anything?”

“Sexist! You don’t get it!”

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m talking about Hillary Clinton. When you ask her diehard supporters what she did as secretary of state they start with, “She travelled a million miles! More than any secretary of state.”

Put aside the fact that the “more than any secretary of state” part isn’t actually true — Condi Rice flew more. When you ask, “Okay, what did she get for it?” you get a blank stare or you get some stuff about championing women’s rights. Two people have told me she did good work in Myanmar, but I’ve never really gotten to the bottom of that. I suppose I could look it up, but at the end of the day we’re still talking about Myanmar, which is not the locus of America’s most pressing international problems. (“That’s right, because Hillary prevented the Myanmarese hegemony,” someone at MSNBC just shrieked. “She stopped it cold.”) While the Wikipedia page on her tenure doesn’t even mention Myanmar, it does mention her championing of better cook stoves in the Third World. That’s good. And so is improving the plight of women in various countries where their status ranges between “Slightly More Important than the Village Mule” to “So Incredibly Delicate We Must Keep Them Covered with Burlap Sacks All Day Long Even Though It’s Like 115 Degrees in the Shade Today.”

But when I take out my handy pocket realpolitik calculator, I just can’t make all that add up to much. Particularly when you compare it with our worsening problems in the Middle East, Asia (minus Myanmar!), Europe, Russia, and South America. Those problems are by no means all her fault (nor are they all Obama’s fault). But Clinton was the second most important foreign-policy official. If you were, say, the assistant coach of the 1999 Cleveland Browns or the deputy spokesman for Baghdad Bob during the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might — just might — want to highlight other things on your résumé. So it is with Clinton. As our chief diplomat, she presided over a long slide into foreign-policy suckitude. On her watch, America’s standing got worse every place it matters (except Myanmar!), despite all of those sales calls.

Jonah Goldberg, NRO

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/ekrayewski/2013_05/hillaryclintonben_cspan.jpg?h=188&w=250
At this point, what difference does it make?


http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb334/joef1/wendysgirl.jpg
A lot of difference you freaking moron!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

T or F



She lied about the movie.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Hillarious base are old maid librarians and 3rd rate men who long to be old maid librarians. or count negroes for the EPA.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES

"And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake. The bureaucracy did it!

"Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

"Shut up, they explain.

"Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It’s also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren’t reporters camped outside Clinton’s home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn’t close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?"

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I’ve been saying for a while, if by a while you mean two decades, that Hillary Clinton has never lived up to the hype. She wasn’t an effective senator, she was effective at managing her image as a senator. She wasn’t an effective manager; HillaryCare was a paper behemoth that never even came up for a vote, but nonetheless helped her party lose control of the U.S. Congress. She isn’t a great politician; she’s the wife of one. She’s not even charismatic. As I wrote last May in USA Today:

Clinton has been in the news for two decades. And even with Obama’s glory in full fade, it’s worth noting he’s still a vastly more compelling personality. Watch January’s (journalistically vapid) 60 Minutes interview with both Clinton and Obama. The president comes across as engaged and energetic. Clinton seems like the person who comes up to tell you “there’s no eating in the library.”

Jonah Goldberg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Will she lead with a big behind?

 

[Adre]

So do you plan to vote for her to teach America a lesson, or will you get behind a candidate whose policies and goals you approve of?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So do you plan to vote for her to teach America a lesson, or will you get behind a candidate whose policies and goals you approve of?

The question is, why will you decide at the last minute that she is better than any and all Republicans?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I didn't think so...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Schweitzer for President?
Bruce Walker, American Thinker
January 18, 2014

I have written before about the importance of conservatives using their superior numbers to do what the left has been doing for decade: fight within their opponents' base political party. We ought to push within the Democratic Party candidates who are sympathetic to our ideals.

Brian Schweitzer, the two-term governor of a Montana, a state which has gone Democrat in the presidential election only twice in the last sixty years, may be such a man. Schweitzer is not a perfect conservative, but he is a principled opponent of much of the stupidity and wickedness that is entrenched leftism.

He supports aggressive development of domestic energy, and he also understands the issues involved in energy policy. He has been an aggressive defender of states' rights, displaying the sort of suspicion of Washington any good governor of Montana ought to have.

Schweitzer has been a fiscal conservative not only in rhetoric, but in reality. The voters of Montana, who were last rated by Gallup as the 15th-most conservative in the nation, not only elected Schweitzer governor twice, but also have given him one of the highest performance ratings as governor during his time in office.

Governor Schweitzer is a vocal opponent of ObamaCare, and he can be relied upon to aggressively push its repeal. When questioned about the good things that Obama has done, Schweitzer poured withering contempt on Obama and mocked his presidency. Schweitzer's idol is Teddy Roosevelt, that fiercely independent and high-testosterone president who even today defies conventional ideological definition, but whose personal integrity and plain speaking have not been tarnished in the last hundred years.

Despite this public dismissive attitude towards the Obama presidency, Schweitzer has been feted at Democrat national conventions. He could not reasonably be portrayed as a closet Republican, and his tenure as Governor of Montana included tough attacks on state Republicans, but these were often for being too free with the taxpayers' money.

What would happen if Schweitzer ran? His principal opponent would surely be Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton,

who would treat him as just another bimbo eruption or the Rose Law Frim Billing records...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Democrats would crush him; they're all Socialists now...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hillarious failed in 2008 running against a Negro Messiah no one knew. She's the fat wallflower with a moustache no one really wants to dance with. She's no trophy, and an embarrassment that you cant do better.

She wont get the nomination.

 

[Adre]

The question is, why will you decide at the last minute that she is better than any and all Republicans?

I'll answer yours even though you dodged mine. I won't make a decision until I see what Republican shows up. If it's another Romney I'll probably go along with Bob Gates's assessment and vote for Clinton. If the Pubs got creative and drafted Condi Rice that could easily sway me. Rick Perry, not so much.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hillarious failed in 2008 running against a Negro Messiah no one knew. She's the fat wallflower with a moustache no one really wants to dance with. She's no trophy, and an embarrassment that you cant do better.

She wont get the nomination.

All of her positions will evolve.




Maybe she'll come out of the closet. Lesbians are the new Black.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'll answer yours even though you dodged mine. I won't make a decision until I see what Republican shows up. If it's another Romney I'll probably go along with Bob Gates's assessment and vote for Clinton. If the Pubs got creative and drafted Condi Rice that could easily sway me. Rick Perry, not so much.

Did I dodge your question or did I engage in conversation in exact imitation of yourself?


And you make my point. No matter what, you will find a way to dismiss the Republican because you're an "Independent."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The only reason you say Condi is because she is a woman, but she won't be the best woman when the time comes; the press will give you plenty of reasons...







Aunt Thomasina.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

If Schweitzer stayed in the fight through the Democrat Convention in 2016, he could create enormous problems for leftist Democrats. The last time this happened was in 1972, when George Wallace garnered more primary votes than any other Democrat and carried a number of states like Michigan and Maryland. McGovern won the nomination, but he lost every state but Massachusetts in November. Democrats in the aftermath of that disaster moved publicly and dramatically toward the political center.

Schweitzer may have an even better chance than Wallace. If Democrats suffer a pummeling in 2014, then they may be already looking for a genuine alternative to radical leftism by the time of the 2016 presidential election. Schweitzer is a Rocky Mountain governor far outside the Beltway, and he is the man who opposed ObamaCare from the start.

Schweitzer could actually win the nomination, if the despair among party faithful is great enough in 2016. Schweitzer could even win the White House if Republicans choose some Beltway insider as their nominee. President Schweitzer, de facto leader of the Democrats, would be in a unique position to actually transform government in Washington.

Even if he wins, conservatives might not have to despair. He might even wind up being what conservatives have wanted for a long time: a real-game changer in the White House.

This guy doesn't stand a chance with the National Press...

 

[Adre]

Two ascriptions in a row, you're on a roll. I don't need to answer because you know everything.

 

[Saint Peter]

So do you plan to vote for her to teach America a lesson, or will you get behind a candidate whose policies and goals you approve of?

The question is, why will you decide at the last minute that she is better than any and all Republicans?

Maybe he should draw you a picture.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

All of her positions will evolve.




Maybe she'll come out of the closet. Lesbians are the new Black.

I look for it. Perhaps her old Jewish ancestor was Bi, I'm speaking of the old lady who was the Yankee fan.

 

[lovecraft68]

So do you plan to vote for her to teach America a lesson, or will you get behind a candidate whose policies and goals you approve of?

None of us would ever vote again in that case

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Have two presidents from the same family ever been impeached?

 

[Liar]

The American "Thinker" croons:

Governor Schweitzer is a vocal opponent of ObamaCare, and he can be relied upon to aggressively push its repeal.

They may want to have a look at the context:

In advance of health reform, Schweitzer has a new idea: build a statewide, universal health-care system, modeled after that of Saskatchewan, the Canadian province just north of Montana.

Yep, he doesn't like Obamacare because he's a single-payer kinda guy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I cant believe blacks are so goddamned dum they aren't more interested in prosperity than faggots cornholeing each other or Mexicans stealing their jobs.

If I was a GOP candidate I'd go to their churches, get across the idea that I wanna create jobs, and fuck the Mexican in the ass to celebrate gays and illegals.

 

[miles]

The Hildabeast could easily become the nominee and the next President. In the eyes of liberals the time has come for a female to be elected president, and they will turn out for her in droves. Nothing that happened in Benghazi will effect her including the bold face lie she told about that stupid video. The press loves her. The GOP will run another Casper Milquetoast RINO and conservative voters will stay home like they did in 2012. It's a perfect storm for her.