The liberals usually don’t make a habit of looking backwards. They are usually too busy taking EVERYONE backwards to consider stopping for a moment to look at the scenery.. The scenery that they have Democratically destroyed with the wanton application of sophomoric socialism.. Of late, this “looking backwards” thing, something that is usually done only by people with a functioning conscience, has taken on a polyester pantsuit perspective..
According to Bloomberg, “the most popular political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago..” (This proves unequivocally that it doesn’t take much to be a popular political figure anymore..) Those were the heady halcyon days when the liberals much preferred being thought of as misogynists as opposed to being thought of as racists.. The puling progressive pettifoggerie that enveloped OWEbama swept the portly progressive-ette out of the political spotlight and for good reason..
Within recent memory, no other candidate going into a primary season had so much momentum going for him or her. Primarily, this shows the complete vacuity of the liberal lineup when Rodham and OWEbama are your MVP’s.. It mattered not because the Democratic drumbeat of the “impartial” media had made even the idea of considering ANY Republican for the presidency in 2008 akin to heresy. In 2008, the ONLY thing that mattered was taking the Democratic primaries and getting the Democratic nomination as anyone with a measurable pulse from the liberal side of the ledger had it locked down. The Republicans didn’t help matters themselves by foisting a candidate onto the stage that hardly seemed to want the job himself..
The Iowa caucus was literally the final nail in the collectivist coffin. The Clinton caravan had been leaking oil for months when all that they had to do cinch things was ANYTHING other than what they ended up doing.. NEVER has a campaign been hindered by such an endless series of miscues and missteps. Obama just wandered about making up fascist fairy tales, so much so that the former First Fondler even had to point this phenomenon out to the adoring progressive public.. Obama by merely standing still politically managed 37.6% in Iowa, the North Carolina Narcissus (John Edwards. The “Lawyer Channeler” or the “Collectivist Cad” if you prefer..) garnered 29.7% and Rodham stumbled in with 29.4%.. After at least two years of nattering nonsense, Rodham, the presumptive favorite, couldn’t close the deal..
Those who now look forlornly at Rodham and start whining that she would have made a “better president” than OWEbama need to look at the pockmarked path that she took before finally “sort-of ending” her candidacy in the embarrassing manner that she did. NO ONE has ever had so much wind at their back when they began their trek to the White House and NO ONE has ever fell from grace in such an ignominious manner. Such a fantastic series of failures leading up to and going all the way through the primaries would certainly portend being a progressive failure similar to OWEbama and his “historic” failures since moving to Pennsylvania Avenue.. There is NOTHING in the Rodham record, real or imaginary, “35 years of experience” or whatever, that would lead anyone with common sense to believe anything otherwise.
That leads us to those who have never retained anything remotely resembling “common sense”, the liberal base of voters. “Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering from a form of buyer’s remorse..” I am inclined to believe that this “nearly two-thirds” is basing this on the fact that Rodham has turned into the Invisible Woman over at Foggy Bottom.. No Secretary of State has accomplished so little when there were immense opportunities to stand tall. Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine and on and on, yet all that we hear are crickets.. Since the presidential brass ring turned green with envy for her, Rodham just seems to be doing what all good liberals want to do, live off of the taxpayers while accomplishing nothing..
The latest polls “show a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010..” It was certainly a tough choice back in 2008 for the liberals as they had to decide whether to try to shake off hundreds of years of oppressing women or hundreds of years of oppressing blacks.. This was truly to become a cathartic moment for the Marxists who somehow decided that it was more noble to tell Rodham to get back in the kitchen than it was to tell Obama to get back to the ghetto..
Hindsight when applied by the blind liberals doesn’t always meet with logical deductions.. “Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and politics and all that goes on..” So says Susan Dunlop.. What is Dunlop basing this intrepid insight upon? Rodham’s “record” as “First Lady” of Arkansas or her memorable (not..) stint as “First Lady” in D.C.? Is it her stellar record as the “Sandbagger Senator” from New York? Is it her narcoleptic term as the Secretary of Statists? Rodham is really only memorable for how poorly she handled her philandering husband and all of the “wardrobe malfunctions” involving his zipper and overweight interns..
Reality has shown that Rodham over OWEbama would have been nothing more than a fascist feng shui, a mere rearranging of the furniture with the same ridiculous reactionary results. Trading one inexperienced liberal for another would also lead you to postulate that the result, as hard as THIS is to imagine, MIGHT have been even worse.. Now with Rodham it’s all sunshine and rainbows for what “might” have been..
“Some of her appeal is that she is not Barack Obama..” This came from the person responsible for the poll that all of this renewed and moony optimism has oozed from, J. Ann Selzer. She needs to define the word “not”. Is she speaking of the obvious, the fact that Rodham is white and Obama is sort of black? Otherwise, there is very little difference between both of these guys.. Maybe Rodham has a better moustache..
They are both Democrats, which makes them both destructive liberals. Both had certified socialists as role models, confidants and heroes. He was a community organizer. She was a surly socialist “First Lady”. This “not” difference would have to come from the inference of some sort of differing political perspective. The difference would have been someone who is diametrically opposed to Obama, not a cherubic white collectivist Democratic clone. Based upon recent history, thinking “diametrically” as a Democrat has proven to be dangerous to your career as a Democrat..
What makes anyone believe that there would have been any difference from the results produced by OWEbama? BOTH had invisible and insignificant “careers” BEFORE coming to the Senate and most revealingly, both were invisible and insignificant AFTER they came to the Senate. There is NOTHING to base such silliness upon but then again, “silliness” is the cornerstone of every element of the liberal ethos, political or otherwise.. When it comes to this “trading horses in mid stream” kind of liberal “thinking” of late, they would be trading a heretical horse for a collectivist cow and nothing more..
This “poll” shows that “42 percent approve of his (Obama’s) job performance in Libya..” Wait a minute, here we have an undeclared war, no votes by Congress, no consultation of Congress, no input from anyone and no information, no timetables, no exit plans, you know, ALL of the things DEMANDED by the left in Iraq and most importantly, NO protests from the liberals who used to hang W. in effigy.. (By the way, why aren’t there ANY “embedded” reporters from the “impartial” media “reporting” on Obama’s War?) Rodham’s State Department should have handled Libya, not “Obama’s Hypocritically Approved Shadow War”. So much for “transparency”.. So much for “consistency” within the liberal base..
“She’s a more stable person who gets results. He really doesn’t do anything, he’s pompous and arrogant..”, this from Joseph Cherney. Shall we ask Dick Morris just how “stable” Rodham is? We could ask Vince Foster but he’s dead by “suicide”.. What “results” has Rodham provided? “He doesn’t do anything..” If OWEbama hadn’t “done anything”, I can guarantee that things would be appreciably better than they have actually been because of ALL that he has “done” since the collectivist coronation..
“She’s more likeable to women, ninety percent of Democrats like Clinton..” They forgot to mention that Obama is at least “ninety percent” popular, at least with blacks, Mooselims and Europeans.. Isn’t it fun to see Obama portrayed as a Democratic Darth Vader by the same socialists who used to prostrate themselves at his fascist feet just a short time ago?
Proving that this was a poll of Democrats, “McCain’s numbers are virtually unchanged from the July 2010 poll..” Even Dick Cheney, a man with a waggish smile upon his face at all times (except when dealing with Pat Leahy on the Senate floor..) said, “She’s one of the more competent members of the current administration..” This proves that either Cheney is a master at speaking with his tongue in his cheek or that within the vacuum of liberal politics, silence truly IS golden..
This whole “Anybody But Obama” socialist soap opera being played out so poorly by the lachrymose liberals will all be forgotten once the Republicans decide upon a candidate. Then it will be back to the “crass separation”, “who will protect your benefits” and “they hate the poor” progressive politics of old. Toss in some deflection of responsibility, add in a dash of outright lies and exaggerations and ham fistedly gouge some eyes with the vacuous charges of “racism” and the fifth columnists and fellow travelers will all fall into line..
On September 9th, the Collectivist News Network (CNN) interviewed Rodham and asked if she had any interest in taking on the Brown Clown again. “It’s below zero. I am out of politics. I am not interested in being drawn back into it by anybody..” “Below zero”.. Is she talking about the temperature of her personality?
I do not believe the words of this feral fascist even for a New York minute.. Shall we look at just a few of the ACTUAL situations that the OWEbama oligarchy has left upon the table? If the Solyndra Scandal keeps heating up as it should. If the “historic” numbers just keep rolling in as they have. If OWEbama continues to golf and vacation his time away between campaign stops. If the light of truth hopefully begins to fall upon the Obama pressure to have General William Shelton alter his testimony for one the benefit of their Democratic donors. Shall we delve into the OWEbama “Fast and Furious” campaign, while we continue to see law enforcement officials slain by the weapons provided by our generous administration? And if ANYONE would call OWEbama on his illegal war in Libya, don’t you think that we might see a different answer? Wouldn’t it be the “civic duty” of Rodham to try to repair things so magnificently broken by the Brown Bolshevik? Wouldn’t this be the “big get even” for the embarrassing drubbing that she took at the hands of this lowly community organizer? Then again, who would want to “inherit” such a “mess”..
In the end, “below zero” will be and would have been, the difference between the “results” garnered by either of these two socialist Siamese twins..