Here's why nothing sticks to the old witch ...
Posted on 08/02/2015 4:55:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton. What can be said about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t been said? Nothing, really. She’s all things to all people and nothing at the same time. She has all the excuses of her husband, but none of the charm. Aside from which restroom she uses, what exactly is her appeal?
Hearing Hillary Clinton give a speech is like sitting in on a college civics class taught by someone who thinks she’s speaking to kindergarteners. Condescension squared is about as close to an accurate description as you can get. With all the charm of sweat socks and the warmth of the moon, Hillary Clinton is still leading a major American political party’s race for their nomination.
Granted, it’s at least half a year before people who haven’t already made up their minds even begin to think about the election, but there is no viable alternative for the Democrats. Hillary’s mere existence has propelled her to a position she is simply unsuited for.
It’s not the first time. In 2008, Hillary was a given. She’d been a senator for eight years, stood by as her husband humiliated her, and was a woman – it was her time. Democrats had another idea.
Rather than go with someone with a padded resume, they went with someone with no resume. They passed on someone with few accomplishments in favor of someone with none. Hillary was expecting to be Neil Armstrong, but ended up even being passed over for the role of Buzz Aldrin, finding herself Michael Collins instead.
That’s unfair. Barack Obama did accomplish something few, if any, people would dare to even try: He wrote two autobiographies before anyone knew who he was. Hillary has matched him in the number of books about herself, but no one believes them. Whereas Obama was an unknown, Clinton is too well known for her own good.
Hillary is a formidable candidate in the abstract; it’s just reality where people don’t like her. It will, eventually, be chalked up to sexism. Like Bill, there will come a point where Democrats can’t get out, they have to go on through.
Benghazi, the emails, the family foundation … these aren’t “conspiracies;” they’re par for the course. And they aren’t going away.
It reminds me of the Morrissey song “The More You Ignore Me.” The lyrics, “The more you ignore me, the closer I get. You’re wasting your time” might as well be Hillary’s campaign slogan. Had she addressed each of them at the time they broke, she probably could’ve walked away from them; scathed, but under her own power. Now she’s just coasting.
But that’s the story of the Clintons – their wounds are always self-inflicted. Yes, they damage others around them too. In fact, it’s these others who pay the highest price to their credibility. But they always end up wealthier for their loyalty. Throwing yourself on a grenade for a Clinton is a growth industry.
Think of how many from the Clinton social circle are household names with high-paying jobs. Now think of any of them with credibility. There isn’t much of a Venn diagram there.
Judging by the enthusiasm gap, indifference is the only thing Hillary Clinton inspires in those who don’t stand to earn seven-figure salaries after their association with her.
None of these scandals and character flaws, individually or collectively, will be enough to beat Hillary. The media is that devout Catholic in a loveless marriage who doesn’t believe in divorce – they may want to leave, but they aren’t going anywhere. Simply because its standard bearer is a sociopath, the “Clinton mystique” won’t die. It has to be beaten.
So how do you beat someone against whom nothing, no matter how outrageous, sticks? Eventually.
Every revelation, every lie lands on an older one. No single incident of influence peddling or profiteering will break the camel’s back, but the camel can be buried in them to the point it can’t breathe. Republican candidates should remember that every day they sling arrows at their fellow Republicans is a day they aren’t burying that camel.
Whoever the GOP eventually nominates will need the help of those who were defeated to vanquish the Teflon Dame. The sooner all the candidates realize what they’re eventually going to be up against, and act accordingly, the better the chances they can stick on Hillary Clinton the only label that matters – loser.
I think using the term “Dame” in reference to Hillary is an affront to dames everywhere (for both the haughty context, and the cruder American slang kind.)
The only literary context for her for me comes out of Shakespeare; specifically, the “Three Witches” kind.
She is an ineffective presidents wife and thats all. The danger is we now have another ineffective hateful anti american president who has one up on hildabeast he has a wife who is all of the above and shes black.
All one needs is a judge in the right position, who has no skeletons in his closet and no allegiance to progressive rats.
A tall order, admittedly.
“Dame” is German for Lady, she is no Lady
Also an English title of sorts. Like I said - in any context, the reference is absurd if connected to her.
Bill is Slick Willy and Hill is Slippery Slope.
An ex-President.
Here's why nothing sticks to the old witch ...
Teflon, my azz. Hillary is and has been for a long time CORRUPT TO THE CORE!!
She’s not teflon. Rather the media is failing at its job. The MSM is either willfully blind to, or complicit in (same thing) her crimes.
I do not understand the negative campaigning among people of the same party. Each campaign should be positive. This is my position. This is may plan. Here’s my goal and my approach. Instead, they waste precious resources with vitriolic attacks that leave a bad taste in the mouths of their supporters and alienate the supporters of the candidates they vanquish. They need to use honey, rather than vinegar.
DNC hauled in VP wannabe Castro ...... and other Democrats....to an on-campus rah-rah session for Hillary....but few millenials showed up.
In other bad news----a "Young Americans for Hillary Party" had no takers.
Satan’s daughter.
“Felony” Clinton bump
I remember in the 2004 presidential election when all of rat candidates acted like as if they wanted to share the presidency
“I do agree with you, but on the other hand aren’t they competing against each other? “
Products compete against each other all the time. The winner is the one that distinguishes itself as better. You can either build up your side or tear down the other. But the latter approach leaves collateral damage. I don’t recall Reagan going negative. (But I think some of his supporters did.)
It’s not that she’s coated with Teflon, it’s that the Men Seeking Men mediums keep wiping her ass.
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.