Posted on 03/10/2008 7:08:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Do You Know Where Your Husband Is On Day One? March 13, 2008 Hillary Clinton’s ambition to be the next President has more to do with her DNA coming from Walter Mitty and Don Quixote than being “ready on day one”. Let’s face it...Hillary lives in a dream world and she wants the American electorate to pay for it. As a Presidential candidate, Hillary has been touting the “35” years of “leadership” experience that makes her ready to “lead on day one”. When referring to this magical 35 years of leadership experience is she talking about: her work on the Madison Guaranty scandal; the two years she spent “looking” for billing records that were sitting in her own reading room; her failed socialized healthcare scheme; her time “managing” the White House travel office; her “vetting” of the disastrous Janet Reno or...is she recanting her years as a gumshoe tracking her forever-unfaithful husband’s whereabouts? Even if we forgave all of these shortcomings, there is still a central point...if Hillary plans on running the nation the same way she is ru(i)nning her campaign, we are in deep doo-doo. Even that bastion of liberalism, the Washington Post, has said that Clinton’s leadership experience has produced a “combustible environment...an operation where internal strife and warring camps have undercut a candidate once seemingly destined for the Democratic nomination”. Running against a virtual nobody (at the time), Hillary has managed to take a pre hoc nomination certainty and run it into the ground. The woman who says she can save the U.S. economy because “she knows how to run it” managed to raise $134,536,488 in campaign funds as of January 31. And how did she care for this $134,536,488 of “other peoples’ money”? When her “advisors” told her the campaign was financially insolvent shortly before the February 5th primaries she responded in true CEO fashion, “God, I've raised all this money. What have you guys done with it?" How do you spell “Clueless”? From the “experienced” Senator who can save America when the White House phone rings at 3 A.M. we get such a state of preparedness that when her staff was repeatedly warned about Teddy Kennedy’s pending defection to Obama, her lieutenants were “slow to react”. And, after the Kennedy bomb exploded, the Clinton wiz kids went prostrate as they gasped, “'Oh, my God, this can't be happening”. Maybe when Hillary asks “Who do you want answering that phone” in the White House at 3 A.M. she is referring to call from a hot-sheet motel clerk asking her what he should do with her drunk husband and his “bimbo”? And this crap about “someone who already knows...the military” is just a pile of...crap. As co-President, Hillary really got to know the military and the record proves it. As Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Robert “Buzz” Patterson who served from 1996-1998 as Bill Clinton’s Senior Military Aide (responsible for the President’s Emergency Satchel, aka the “Nuclear Football”) points out in his book Dereliction of Duty, President Clinton had “sown a whirlwind of destruction upon the integrity of our government, endangered our national security, and done enormous harm to the American military in which I served”. Patterson exposes that in “less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million... out of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts....the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12...the Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380...the Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50...and the pay freeze instituted by Clinton was targeted at a military in which 80% of our troops made $30,000 or less”. Clinton destroyed U.S. military morale and viability. If this is Hillary’s version of knowing the military, it proves three things: (1) Clinton hates pay benefits for our troops more than tax benefits for the rich; (2) Clinton would rather have our troops applying for food stamps than deprive terrorists lodged at GITMO of “culturally appropriate meals” and (3) she indeed does know the military and...hates it. And, to top off examples of her self-proclaimed superior “judgment” we turn to the closing moments of a December 30th appearance with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC Television Sunday talk show This Week.
In response to a final question from Stephanopoulos, Hillary gave one of her typical gasbag answers, “So from my perspective, you get up every day and you get out there and you make your case and you reach as many people as possible. That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run”. And then her arrogance bubbled to the surface...”It's not a very long run. It'll be over by February 5th.” Oh really? I have my doubts if I would want Hillary answering a phone in India to help me with my computer problems. Hillary is forever “tilting at windmills”. Hillary promotes herself as the born leader...born to lead our nation. Yet, she: can’t control her husband; keep track of her campaign finances; voted to go to war in Iraq without even reading the 90 page National Intelligence Estimate; arrogantly assumed she would cinch the nomination by the Super Tuesday primaries and had no contingency plans for the future and, after saying “Americans are tired of the president’s efforts to play politics with national security”, is now trying to scare Americans into voting for her with a silly 3 A.M. scenario. In October of 2004, Hillary’s co-President Bill lectured the nation that, “Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” Like I said...Hillary can’t even control her own husband. |
Hey Doc!
This is great. Really tells it like it is.
Saving this to use in case she becomes the nominee.
Thanks for posting it.
I disagree. Some people vote with the love of their nation in their hearts.
There is a huge difference between short and long term gain and good people will do what is right even if it isn't always in their self-interest.
Unless , of course, you would wish to define unselfishness and patriotism as self-interest.
Not to forget about BO saying he was against and voted against the war from the start. He started his first US senate term in 2005. The war started in 2003. Lying libs is nothing new.
And SHE was correct. For all intent and purpose it was over for her. She just refuses to acknowledge it yet.
I don’t know how old Hillary is, but I am 54 years old, and I remember playing soccer while in Elementary School in the California East Bay Area.
However, for the life of me, I cannot remember if it was co-ed!
Are you a female? Guys played in a lot of towns with ethnic groups from Europe, but girls were way behind n picking up the sport.
No, I’m male. I can’t remember if the PE was co-ed or not. Probably not. We only played soccer at recess or during PE, not an after-school-hour sport.
We did also, but just the guys. No biggie, I was just trying to show one of her stories that are not quite provable.
Certainly patriotism is motivated by self-interest, wanting to preserve the nation for continued good times. Leftist anti-patriotism is also motivated by self-interest, wanting to loot a wealthy nation out of envy that others have more than they do. People on the right scratch their heads at some leftist proposals, "won't a new tax damage the economy?" Yes, it will, and for leftists that's actually the point, to placate their feelings of envy. They want other people to stop gaining wealth faster than they do.
Can you give me an example of someone genuinely voting unselfishly on purpose, there being nothing at all they will personally benefit from? That may occur but it is extremely rare and is not a significant driver of voter behavior.
And I’m sorry if you thought that I was somehow challenging you.
Every time a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his comrades would you say the satisfaction he received from sacrificing his life to save others was selfish because he gained satisfaction from saving his buddies?
Or the people that will vote for McCain instead of sitting it out because the alternative is so bad for the country although it will have little personal affect on them.
You can always split hairs but many people do what they do because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
I don't think it is fair to say that many people do the RIGHT things in this world because of self-interest.
I'll probably vote for McCain as a side effect of voting against 12 bond measures sure to be on the ballot but I don't feel he's worth jumping on any grenades for. I slightly prefer McCain but I'm ok if Obama wins, just not Hillary. At least Obama wears the Democrat brand. If we want another Reagan we have to take 4 years of another Carter first. Let China invade Taiwan for a few years with a pacifist at America's helm. It may just regenerate America's greatness for a generation.
Lord knows they have the support of millions in their attempt to re-make the Federal Government of the USA into another "Gleichschaltung".
Great article, Dr.Syn! You're right... how the heck is she going to run this complex country as Commander in Chief {{shudder}} when she can't even simply control her own husband...?
Hillary promotes herself as the born leader...born to lead our nation.
Yet, she: can’t control her husband; keep track of her campaign finances; voted to go to war in Iraq without even reading the 90 page National Intelligence Estimate; arrogantly assumed she would cinch the nomination by the Super Tuesday primaries and had no contingency plans for the future and, after saying “Americans are tired of the president’s efforts to play politics with national security”, is now trying to scare Americans into voting for her with a silly 3 A.M. scenario.
ping
She’s clueless...and very dangerous.
Nice blog, and excellent article, Dr.Syn.
Thank you, nutmeg!
1) named after Sir Edmund Hillary (born in ‘47, Hillary climbed the mountain in ‘53)
2) Brought peace to Ireland ... Irish Nobel Prize winner not only scoffs at her take but laughs at the Fairy Tale
&&&
Don’t forget about when, during her run for her Senate seat, she put on a Yankees cap and claimed that she had “secretly” always been a Yankees fan.
As for your comment:
Don’t understand why the degreed women who are voting for her don’t see that she’s a Mad Hatter.
&&
Those women are for her because they share her disdain for men, her nasty shrillness, her anger and arrogance. For them, no matter how far they get in their careers, life will always be unfair. They will never get all that they so richly deserve as the queens they think they are — mainly because of men.
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.