Hillary, the Loser

American Thinker ^ | J.R. Dunn

[RoosterRedux]

Hillary has already lost one presidential campaign.

This fact was stuffed down the memory hole so fast that it took a large number of political commentators along with it. How else do we explain how, in all the discussions of the upcoming elections, it has simply failed to come up? Nobody talks about it. It’s as if it didn’t happen.

It’s a rule in American politics that a major figure who blows one presidential campaign has little hope for a second act. But like all other rules, this one goes by the board when the name “Clinton” is involved.

This is particularly true in light of the way she lost. She didn’t simply lose the nomination, or the general election. She lost in one of the most ignominious ways possible: a pure dark horse appeared out of left field (metaphors have a life of their own, don’t they?) blew straight past her, and relegated her to an unimpressive second by the time the convention rolled around. For any other politician, that would be the end of the road. For Hillary, it’s one more thing to paper over and ignore.

Looked at from this viewpoint, Hillary pretty clearly fails as a viable candidate -- which is one reason why the fact has been buried by our honest media. If we were to make a closer examination, we might learn a little too much about Hillary and her actual chances. Close study of 2008 would pay great dividends, which is why the Dems and the media today are oohing and ahhing at Photoshopped pictures of Chelsea instead.

[GreenHornet]

women who aren’t lesbians or radical fembots can’t stand Hillary.

Also, Hillary thinks the younger voters who usually vote Democratic (those in their 20s or early 30s) view her the same way that demographic viewed the Clintons back in the 1990s. Those who fall into that same demographic today were too young to remember the 90s image of Hillary Clinton, and see her instead as just a rich old white woman with real credibility issues.

[Pagey]

BTTT!