John Hawkins has written a really scathing indictment of Hillary Clinton attacking, not her political positions, but the fact that she is doing nothing more than ride on Bill’s coattails, having no independent experience of her own that would justify making her President of the most powerful nation in the world during a time of war and instability.
Filed under: Elections, Hillary Clinton, Presidential elections | Tagged: 68 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
I harbor the hope that the rest of the nation isn’t nearly as Clinton-crazy as my fellow New Yorkers. If I’m correct, then Hillary as the Democratic nominee will deed the White House to the GOP for at least four more years. Let’s hope whoever we put there is worthy of the office.
If they get the White House, the Clintons will have one more shot to transform us into Argentina-North. They may succeed.
I’ve been thinking this for a while. Senator Clinton is an uninspiring speaker, a rather flat and boring one, with minimal or no warmth or empathy; she appears to have little ability to connect with people or think on her feet and speak extempore, which her husband could do with amazing dexterity; she also has no executive experience except as the “co-President” during Bill Clinton’s term. Election of the Clintons remains a package deal, making a mockery of the 22nd Amendment. It’s absurd to me. People I know talk about Bill Clinton’s problem solving skills or about how halcyon the Clinton years were in contrast to the Reign of Rethug Darkness they now perceive. And yeah, Danny, they might just pull it off. Look for revival of Evita in 2009.
Is there ANYTHING on this woman’s resume other than: “married to Bill”?
If she weren’t married – or whatever that relationship is – to him, would anyone in the country outside of her immediate family ever have heard of her?
The fact that she’s gotten as far as she has – based on absolutely nothing – is already sobering enough regarding the general wit of America.
Hey all you lawyers out there: does the law say that a husband and wife are one? I.e. is the Constitutional prohibition against being forced to incriminate yourself the foundation for the spousal priviledge? Because if so, then Hill — being one with Bill — is ineligible! Bill/Hill already got their two terms….
Bookmarking now thanks, are you on twitter?