The fabulous, er, fabulist Hillary

Kyle-Anne Shiver, writing at American Thinker, cuts through the euphemisms and speaks the truth about Hillary:

Even Carl Bernstein admits (A Woman in Charge; Knopf; 2007; p. 554) that Mrs. Clinton is the human equivalent of a chameleon, changing her colors and her story to suit her audience:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self.” (emphasis mine)

In real life – as opposed to fairytales – misrepresenting facts is called “lying.” Constantly changing yourself (and your “truth”) according to the company you are in is called “a lack of integrity.” A lack of integrity is considered by most normal folks to be a glaring character defect. Now, if even Carl Bernstein is able to admit that Hillary is a liar and has a substantial lack of integrity, why would we even elect her POTUS?

On the other hand, she is a Democrat, and unfortunately, it looks as though they are about to foist her upon the rest of us. William Saffire, in his 1/8/96 NYT editorial, “Blizzard of Lies,” cut straight to the chase with a great deal of prescience, when he wrote:

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady (Hillary Rodham Clinton) – a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.”

So, let it be said from my all-female mouth now and on the record: If Hillary Clinton is elected as President of the United States, it will set the cause of any sort of feminism back for at least 250 years. Whether we like it or not, she will be the “ruler” by which future female candidates are measured. And she will be judged for the woman she is – not for the man she isn’t.

You’ll want to read the rest, here.

I’ll just add that I’ve repeatedly heard women  on TV say that they’ll vote for her, not because of what she stands for (they don’t know), but merely because she is a woman.  That’s the poison of identity politics.


5 Responses

  1. I truly mystified by the impending nomination of Hillary. Are the dems so bereft of talent that she looks good to them? Are they really supporting Bill – the return of the “two for one” Presidency? Do they really think she’s their best shot to win?

    That nothwithstanding, I do not believe that, if elected, she will set feminism back 250 years. I think by now people can distinquish between Jeanne Kilpatrick and Madeleine Albright. I can hardly conceive of a worse AG than Janet Reno,yet I don’t think she set back female lawyers 250 years.

  2. Hillary’s one interesting talent is the ability to character assassinate anyone that gets in her way. That’s a nice ability.

  3. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. The reason is her politics, pure and simple.

    However, looking at the race from purely a performance standpoint, she has done a simply amazing job. She’s moved far enough to the left to keep them from producing a groundswell against her, while maintaining just enough centrism to be able to tack to the center again once she wins the Democrat nomination.

    Most impressively to me, she’s reformed her speaking voice. Nothing set me more on edge than “Shrillary”. When she got going and that voice of hers went up to that pedantic, lecturing shrill tone, I used to shudder in near-revulsion. That voice is gone. She’s actually trained it, and is lowering it and lowering it these days.

    Is she a congenital liar? Well, sure. Any successful politician learns to speak to the crowd of the moment, shading every phrase to appeal to them, and denying mistakes of the past. She is probably worse than most, but all politicians deceive.

  4. […] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article American Thinker, Mrs. Clinton, Democrat, William Saffire, Hillary Clinton, United States    Sphere: Related Content | Trackback URL […]

  5. “congenital”, that means “in the genes”, not “with genitals”.

    safire’s comment all those years ago explains perfectly what we see and hear with our putative POTUS; that she is a leopard with stripes, a baa-baa crying wolf, a female who boasts balls.

    she is a female bill! why are we surprised?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: