« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

One woman NOT fawning over Hillary

If you’ve read the Sunday New York Times article, or watched the Sunday morning talk shows, specifically “Meet the Press”, you couldn’t escape the advent of the political speculation about 2016 and will Hillary run or won’t she?  Newt Gingrich commented:

She’s very formidable as a person and is a very confident person. She is married to the most popular Democrat in the country. They both think it would be good for her to be president. … Every Republican should be focused on what we just talked about. I mean if their competitor in ’16 is going to be Hillary Clinton, supported by Bill Clinton and presumably, a still relatively popular President Barack Obama, trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl. And the Republican Party today is incapable of competing at that level.

 

Hillary Clinton (Getty images)

Next, some illustrative comments from some female Americans on the “Meet the Press” Facebook page:

I think Hillary would be a terrific president. I will campaign for her. I voted for Obama twice and think she could carry on beautifully. She has been a great Secretary of State.

He is absolutely right!

I think Newt is right, “the Republican Party TODAY is incapable of competing at that level”. I think this is a warning, not a prediction.

I honestly believe – if H wants in in 2016 its hers for gthe taking. The Country is ready to try a woman for Pres and she’s proven she’s got the chops to pull it off – as long as Bill stays healthy she couldn’t have a better running mate (smile).

I don’t think it is ever anyone’s time or as Ann R. put it, “it’s our turn.” Hillary has earned it every step of the way. I am glad to see old Newt realizes they have not one candidate worthy to run against her. I think she would win huge, by a landslide.

What is wrong with these people?  What exactly has made her a great Secretary of State?  Twenty years from now or longer when historians, at least the two or three who remained un-politically correct, look back on the Clinton State Dept. era, they’ll be asking who lost Egypt, who lost Syria, who was responsible for Benghazi, how did Iran get the bomb, how did we lose our strongest ally in the MidEast, Israel, amid other muddled messes around the world.

For those who believe Hillary to be so very smart, yes, she’s smart as in politically savvy.  She has Bill to thank for that.  They’re two of a kind, which is why she’s remained married to him all these years.  She needs him to get to the White House.  In 2008, they were defeated in their attempt because people were tired of the Clinton – Bush – Clinton meme, easily recognized and exploited byDavid Axelrod.  The “race card” played against Bill was pure campaign brilliance.

But now, we’re facing four years of listening ad nauseum of will she, or won’t she, and you can bet the MSM has buried in Al Capone’s vault, all history of the Rose law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, the commodities trade jackpot, the healthcare legislation debacle under her guidance, and the beginning of political correctness.  Nor will they mention her Wellesley thesis on Saul Alinsky.  Sound familiar?

But what they can’t bury are the photos and the stories, direct and indirect, of what Hillary and Barack wrought.  With their verbal acquiescence Mubarak fell, and now Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are in power in Egypt, and we read stories such as these, “Egyptian Opposition Fears Violence from Brotherhood“ or “Egyptian Journalist tours Muslim Brotherhood torture facility“.  And, did Hillary know that the President gave the assent to provide arms to Libyan rebels through Qatar, which fell into Jihadists’ hands, and were most likely used to kill our Ambassador and three other Americans at Benghazi.  Bittersweet is the mildest word that comes to mind.

38-year old Hasna, Syrian woman who lost her family when a shell hit their motorbike (Loveday Morris-The Independent (UK)

One photo in particular, from an earlier post, “Syria … Obama’s Bosnia?” illustrates the hollowness and hypocrisy of Clinton’s women’s rights and women’s issues mantra on the world stage.  It also serves to illustrate her continuing ineptness as “Madame Secretary.”  Obama may own his foreign policy since it is conducted under his name, but Clinton implements it, and I gather, advises the President along with the other Councils.  Looking out for American interests is paramount, and the Syrian debacle in such a critical lynchpin area of the Middle East, with 40,000 dead is nothing to be proud of, and coupled with Benghazi is tantamount to gross incompetence.

There’s not enough time or space to begin to include Hillary’s ineptitude in Asia (China declaring territorial hegemony over the South China Sea, for starters), Africa and the Al Qaeda infiltration into South America, but the picture crystallizes.

IF Hillary runs in 2016, it’s Obama in a skirt.

P.S.  Hillary, you really need to do something about that hair.  Meow.

cross-posted at www.political-woman.com

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Great column ‘woman! And even on politics, Hillary and Bill failed to organize caucus states, which allowed Obama to win, ultimately. More later

  • John Liberty

    Great stuff! Is everyone forgetting that Hillary was SOS as radical Islamists seized control of Libya and Egypt and that the current administration continues to arm Egypt even as it calls for the destruction of Israel and total elimination of women’s rights (per sharia law)? Hillary has done nothing to make the world a better, safer place.

  • kipling

    Hillary is all hype and little substance. Good diary!

  • Roger Casey

    She has always been an opportunist, and I see little reason to believe that she isn’t still the megalomaniacal power-broker that characterized her time as the First Lady and carpet-bagging Senate run. Excellent post, and hopefully many will remember these failures if she takes a stab in 2016.

  • mtmnd

    I guess these types of diaries must be cathartic for the diarist and some readers, but they always leave me wondering, what’s the point? More specifically, I’m left wondering how such diaries advance the conservative political movement?

    Is there anything in the diary that will help conservatives defeat Hillary? Anything suggesting or explaining how to make inroads into demographic where she is receiving overwhelming support, including women, minorities, recent immigrants, young people, pro-Isreal factions, etc.?

    The diary author views her as a failure as Secretary of State, but at this point the public seems to think differently. And what if her record as Secretary of State be enough to bring about her defeat? Is there a Plan B?

    Disliking Hillary is easy. Defeating her may prove more difficult. Waxing on about disliking her won’t get anyone any loser to defeating her.

    • Roger Casey

      A very good point. 2016 could likely be hers at this juncture if she really wanted it unless the Republicans find smarter ways to expand the map and put pragmatic leadership in place that is as ruthless as she is.

    • Jack_Savage

      Your comments must be cathartic for you, and they always leave me wondering what the point is. Perhaps you could offer an explanation of your purpose here, because it sure isn’t to rally the troops. A concern troll is my guess.

      As to your comment, Clinton is an utter, complete failure as Secretary of State, and her refusal / inability to even protect her personnel is reason enough for her defeat, much less the catastrophic laissez faire foreign policy she has pursued on behalf of a President who isn’t even interested in his own job.

      • mtmnd

        My point is to try and turn the conversation toward how to win elections. Rallying “the troups” isn’t enough if “the troups” only comprise around 30% of the electorate.

        As for your second paragraph, I never defended Clinton’s performance as Secretary of State. But whether or not you or I think she is “an utter, complete failure,” most people – around 70% last I saw – think she is doing a good job. That is the political reality. They all may be wrong, but self-righteousness isn’t going to win the election.

        • Jack_Savage

          Well, then what IS going to win the election?
          Wait – let me answer for you. Being a better Democrat.
          Got it. Thanks.

          • mtmnd

            Wrong answer.

    • kipling

      The point is that many in the Republican establishment are already throwing in the towel for 2016. As politicalwoman clearly points out, many are already talking about how Hillary has earned the Presidency and how formidable the Clinton team is during an election. They seem to forget that Hillary is a rather forgettable Senator and Secretary of State. Name one accomplishment in either position that says otherwise. 70% may say otherwise but those numbers are pointless. In the heat of a campaign the general vagueness about her tenure will come into focus and she will have some explaining to do. We also tend to forget that Bill Clinton lost the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 1994, was impeached, and has a terrible record of getting Democrats elected to office. He is popular in the Democratic Party but is little more than a rapist who beat the rap, which is apparently why he is the face of the Democratic “war on women.” The Clinton team was so successful in 2008 that an unknown huckster from Illinois ran away with the nomination and managed to play the race card on Bill Clinton. If the Republicans can manage not to nominate a northeastern moderate, then the race can be won.

  • gflyer3364qt

    I would put the pin back in the grenade for now on the preemptive speculations. It’s no doubt that the Clintons would love to be back in the White House but we’ve still got 2 years minimum before anyone announces for 2016 and 4 years until the actual election. A lot can happen in 1408 days. Presidential campaigns are exhausting and we can only speculate what our politics will look like 4 years from now. She is definitely a front-runner but the personal popularity polls don’t mean she’s a shoe-in. Gore was supposed to be a shoe-in in 2000 riding Clinton’s popularity into the White House as well. I do suspect she is resigning SecState to rest up for a potential campaign though. All I’m saying is it’s still far out as of now. If she does run, she’ll have to run as a Clinton and run against Obama policies and against her opponent.