Third Party & Independents Archives

Hillary Shmillary

What is it about this woman? It absolutely blows my mind that people still view Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. Her hands are so dirty and her reputation so tarnished, does it really even matter what these emails say? This is political suicide for Democrats no matter how you look at it.

I truly think that even the most devoted Democrats have genuine concerns about a Hillary run no matter how party loyal they may be. Her husband is one of two ever impeached presidents, and 16 years later she's a solid option?

If Hillary Clinton were so qualified to be President why hasn't she won yet? A woman of old politics, not today's politics is suddenly relevant today? Yes, she has been in political positions consistently, but there's a reason she never became the the Democratic pick before. Choosing Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate is like going back to a flip-phone from your Android or iPhone. It will be 2016, not 1996.

It's so typical of Democrats and their selective memory to "forget" the last 20 years and Hillary's shortcomings, but the fact of the matter is Hillary is NOT a 21st century candidate. She's old news. Not just because she is in fact older, but Obama had the same advantage facing McCain who 24 years his senior and had been in Senate since the 80s.

There's an excitement about having the first female President, but is Hillary honestly the right woman to be the first? In my opinion, no. Hillary Shmillary, she has gone the way of the Walkman in my eyes.

Posted by MichaelMears at March 12, 2015 10:11 AM
Comments
Comment #390511

I voted for her in 2008 as I thought she would make a fine President. Lousy person probably, lousy manager, lousy administrator, but good President.

What made Nixon, Reagan and Clinton good Presidents was their ability to say one thing and do another. You can’t get that with a Warren, a Cruz, or a Paul, because they are boxed in by their positions; the minute they try the old Potomac Two Step it’s over for them. Hillary has what it takes for a thankless job that any real person would never want and that’s why I’ll probably vote for her again.

Posted by: George in SC at March 12, 2015 3:08 PM
Comment #390513

George, many thanks for my best laugh today.

You write that the primary asset for a good president is the “ability to say one thing and do another.”

In some informed circles that is called lying. I understand the necessity for a president to use subterfuge at times when it comes to national security. I even understand the characteristic of most politicians to tell voters what they want to hear to get elected if it doesn’t violate their basic principles.

To adopt lying, obfuscation, and false statements as a tool as the chief executive is beneath contempt, despicable and totally disengaged from good governance. It is abhorrent.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #390514

By the way George…thanks for the assessment of Hillary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2015 3:53 PM
Comment #390515

The difference between Hillary and Warren, Cruz or Paul is that Hillary is interested in governance, while the others are ideologues. We need an executive that is capable of representing all the people, not a conservative or liber-in-chief.

Representing everyone means compromise. That is not the same as saying one thing and doing another, or lying, or being unprincipled. It means working together.

Obama has consistently offered to compromise, and the GOP conservatives have rejected that. The most extremist and radical wing is so ideologically driven, they cannot even work with their own party to pass basic legislation. Again and again, it is up the Democrats to step forward and save everybody’s bacon.

Hillary can do at least as well. She has the experience, the poise, and the intelligence to be a capable president. Don’t get me wrong. There is plenty to criticize with her. No question about that. I would like to see a progressive somehow upset her and win the Democratic nomination, but that is just not realistic.

Compared to everyone else, she is still far and away the best choice out there.

Posted by: phx8 at March 12, 2015 4:19 PM
Comment #390519

Interesting analysis, George in S.C.

It is not just compromise that characterized the tenures of Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. They had the ability to finesse their bases in achieving important pragmatic goals that were by all appearances antithetical to their ideological roots. Nixon initiated relations with communist China. Reagan initiated nuclear arms reduction with Russia (START) and engaged in enormous deficit spending. Clinton signed a major welfare reform bill and cut spending to reduce the federal deficit and debt.

Of all the current candidates, Hillary is, in my opinion, the most likely to get away with ideological heresy. While certainly a liberal, she holds her cards closely.

Conservatives, like Royal, want their candidates “pure.” But, the reality of governance dictates frequent departures from the purity of ideology. Sometimes, it is just the necessity of political compromise to move forward and sometimes, it is just that circumstances and reality dictate a departure from ideology.

Posted by: Rich at March 12, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #390521

Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that said “I never had a text with that woman”

And there are some who believe she is ok when she cannot sign the OF-109. That makes her a criminal. When she says she never used her email for sensitive documents. When in 2011 there were over 1 billion emails from the state department and she only handled 37 thousand.

I could go on and on ad nausem.

If anybody on this site can make the valid claim that she would be an honest president, then you need to take a course in integrity-101 with a ten commandments as an entry to that course.

She is one sick woman.

And BTW 298 million in her foundation with large donations from foreign govt who are champions of womens rights sharia style. And she was broke after leaving the WH?

How many more lies can the American people tolerate? I will answer that-none

Posted by: tom humes at March 12, 2015 6:33 PM
Comment #390522

Rich writes; “Conservatives, like Royal, want their candidates “pure.”

I have written many times Rich that I want every single person who takes the oath of public office to uphold our constitution and our nation’s laws.

I want a president to enforce all our laws, not choose which ones to enforce.

The constitution clearly delineates the power, and limits, of all three branches of government. We must insist that each branch follow what was agreed upon by the states, in forming a Republic, and all subsequent amendments to that governing agreement.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 12, 2015 7:04 PM
Comment #390524

Royal,

With all due respect, it strikes me as extremely arrogant for you and other “Tea Party” type conservatives to claim exclusive ownership of our Constitutional heritage. The last I checked, there is still a Supreme Court responsible for its interpretation.

As phx8 pointed out, if you are concerned that this President has exceeded his Constitutional authority, then seek redress in the Courts including the Supreme Court. Simply declaring something unconstitutional does not make it so.

Posted by: Rich at March 12, 2015 11:30 PM
Comment #390525

“Simply declaring something unconstitutional does not make it so.”

Simply declaring something constitutional does not make it so.

Posted by: tom humes at March 12, 2015 11:52 PM
Comment #390527

Rich, there are many suits against this administration in our courts. It will take time before we learn the outcome.

Frankly Rich, I believe our executive, congressional and judicial branches are so compromised that nothing short of a Constitutional Convention can place us back on the track our founders envisioned. They provided for a convention for just this scenario.

The states formed our Republic and it appears that they will have to fix it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 13, 2015 3:37 PM
Comment #390529

I agree with you Tom. I just can’t get by her history and I can’t comprehend the selective memory we see from the ample supporters. It’s crazy.

Posted by: Michael Mears at March 13, 2015 4:37 PM
Comment #390580

Royal, your two statements above are the problem:

“I have written many times Rich that I want every single person who takes the oath of public office to uphold our constitution and our nation’s laws.”

and

“Frankly Rich, I believe our executive, congressional and judicial branches are so compromised that nothing short of a Constitutional Convention can place us back on the track our founders envisioned.”

I wasn’t going for a laugh so much in my statement above but rather being pragmatic about where we are with our current government. While you want to live in , and probably vote for, a world where your first statement is true you at least realize that it’s not where we are.

Posted by: George in SC at March 16, 2015 8:50 AM
Comment #390584

George in SC, pathways to a convention are blocked by Corpocracy. I believe it will take a 3rd party specifically designed and targeted at reform.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at March 16, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #390588

Roy I haven’t seen the “party of no” strategy work yet. Rhinehold is hopeful for the Libertarian Party but the best they’ve ever done in a Presidential is 1%.

Ross Perot managed 18% of the popular vote but I don’t think he got any electoral college votes. It’s going to take that kind of Presidential candidacy to get a foot in the door as that office is the only single office a reformist can win and make an impact. And if they were to win you would see a hell of a fight from the established politicos. They would probably dredge up some kid he/she beat up in grade school or a poor old lady they didn’t help across the street.

The reality for me is that the U.S.’s ticket got punched a long time ago. The only game left is to play by the many rules until the game can’t be played anymore. Then, just as my forefather did in coming to South Carolina 250 years ago I will be looking for my New World. Costa Rica is looking good right now.

Posted by: George in SC at March 16, 2015 6:22 PM
Comment #390592

George, IMO, just another 3rd party should not/will not ever gain much traction. I think voters realize that just another 3rd party would quickly be purchased by Corpocracy.

Before going to Costa Rica you better check and make sure Carlos Slim doesn’t own 99% of everthing, and so on - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at March 16, 2015 8:33 PM
Post a comment