Replies

The article is correct about Hilliary!'s bitterness and her reluctance to promote her true ideas.

In a sane world, someone like Hilliary! would have gone no farther in life than teaching at some backwater college or junior partner in a no-name law firm.

But this is not a sane world - she is a US senator from a large state - and being seriously considered as a candidate for president.

Hilliary! represents the last gasp grasp for ultimate power of the so-called 60's generation - radicals, ex-hippies, socialists, communists, and other assorted mal-contents. They've of course moved on - they're now prominent in government, academia, and the media. But they're never lost that disdain they once had for all things "American". They still wish to tear down "the system" and replace it with some socialist utopian paradise.

Hilliary! - ruthless, humorless, true-believer that she is -represents to them their last best chance to achieve "nirvana".

Before the onset of the sixties, both major parties achieved whatever goals they set out for incrementally. Some important ones like ending segregation were great victories for our country. But these victories were achieved through the common agreement and work of both parties. That is how most change should be done: incrementally so that the country has time to weigh the consequences of what it is about to change.

With the end of the sixties came the takeover of the Democratic Party by the radical leftists who previously had played a marginal role in their strategy. Most of the very conservative Southern Dems joined the Republicans and the Dems were left with a party dominated by its radical constituency. McGovern wouldn't have had a chance for nomination without the upheaval of the sixties. But the Dems were so severely stomped in the 72 election that the radicals knew they had overplayed their hand.

They then embarked on a strategy, we'll call it the east coast-west coast strategy, of gradually implementing their leftist anti-American agenda. They have been very successful in many non-political areas like education and popular culture changing the minds of many gullible Americans little bit by little bit to accept their Marxist schemes. The election of a radical like Hillary Clinton would make their dream of a thoroughly socialist U.S.A. one step closer. Bill Clinton was not a true leftist. He was simply the shrewdist most opportunistic finger-in-the-wind sociopath to ever inhabit the White House. Power was his only goal. He adopted whatever ideology that would suit his purpose at the time. Committed leftists like Hillary and her backers have bigger things in store if she ever gets elected.