Posted on 10/24/2016 7:58:47 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
On July 4 last year, Mrs Clinton was in Gotham, New Hampshire, to press the flesh months ahead of the primary – which she went on to lose badly. Things turned a tad messy as a gaggle of protesters emerged to harangue her about Benghazi. So out came the rope, behind which the press were corralled as she made her serene and carefully controlled progress through the town.
~snip~
Even since getting the nod, Mrs. Clinton has at times displayed an annoying smugness rather than the passion one would hope to see from a candidate. It is a struggle to remember anything Mrs Clinton has said over the past 16 months apart from the odd slogan such as “deal me in”, when she was accused of “playing the woman card”.
~snip~
But there has been no soaring rhetoric for Mrs Clinton, no memorable speeches. Quite bluntly she has been one of the weakest people on her campaign team. The star has probably been Michelle Obama, followed by her husband. Bill has put in a pretty decent shift as well. As I discovered in Nashua, voters still have a lot of affection for him.
Yet the election of America’s first woman president should have felt as historic as when the country elected its first black head of state eight years ago. Instead it will be an anticlimax, and that is rather sad.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
When Maggie Thatcher became the first woman PM in British history, did you hear all this crap about her being the first woman?
Only liberal women matter in their world.
Hillary! and the word “anti-climax” just seem to
go together...
She’s not running a voter campaign - she’s running a media manipulation and psyops campaign coupled with the biggest fraud operation ever conceived. Don’t be fooled into thinking she has actual enthusiastic voters in her toolkit.
They aren't even voting for that. You're mistaking Hillary Clinton's public stance with her private stance. Her agenda will be whatever her owners at Goldman Sachs tell her it will be, and I don't think the voters who support her are going to be happy about it.
Will “we” scrape the bottom of the barrel for the first woman president as we did for the first black president?
No we didn’t — it seemed beside the point. She was a conservative lady and, apart from some unfortunate errors, seemed to fit the part as well as any gentleman could.
Even fraud needs SOME veil of plausibility. If her actual support swoons, then there’s a limit even on what the vote cookers can do.
We shouldn’t; that would be so wrong.
The conservative way is to raise up a woman like Margaret Thatcher. She’d need to be of independent means since the very nasty lefties would be trying their hardest to personally undermine her.
Well, they have not been ecstatic about Theresa May, who is liberal.
The entire Rat Media Complex is nothing but a claymore aimed at conservatives.
Yes, that’s true...there’s the basic ~40% there all the time for any Democrat. BUT! This time, none of them are avid, enthusiastic supporters. This time it is unenthusiastic rote support that will boil down to “how much of a bother will it be to go out and vote for that bitch?”
She's still a Tory.
Let’s look at the math. Obama (with charm and enthusiasm) pulled 69 million votes in 2008. Four years later, with less charm and enthusiasm, he generated 59 million (roughly ten million less).
When you look at the boring campaigns of Romney (57.1 million in 2012) and McCain (59.5 million)....you start to wonder about this.
I would say this...there is practically no way that she can top Obama’s 2012 59-million vote count. At best...you can figure 5-to-10 less less than that. So if Trump just does as well as Romney, then he wins.
For Hillary, this was the lowest enthusiasm campaign that I’ve seen in forty years. If the DNC had played fair with Bernie, and he had some more effort into the south....I think Bernie would have beaten her.
Berning resentment, so to speak, will tax the Democrat vote.
Hillary's strategy in 2016 is the same, on steroids--"don't vote for Trump--he's a horrible person." No argument needed as to why to vote for her (of course her sock puppets keep reciting the mantra that she is the best-qualified person ever to run, putting Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and even her own husband in the shadows of her greatness).
I saw a Hillary ad this morning on "Fox & Friends" that was entirely about Trump being too scary to vote for--no positive reason for Hillary was offered.
The best-qualified and highest-character men and women rarely run for high office because of the smear machine they will face. Trump is not a paragon of virtue, but the tsunami of smears and piling-on directed at him still is a good example of why the best people don’t run.
She is a nasty, lying, cheating, ugly, overweight grandma who viciously has attacked other women because her husband either raped them or had an affair with them.
What’s not to love?
You can see in the rare instances of her before a crowd at a campaign event. The media doing the reported has to go to PIXAR to make their magic in manipulating the crowd pictures in GGI.
When the election is rigged, why bother? Just plan the coronation.
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.