Tag Archives: hillary clinton

One problem with candidate Hillary Clinton

In losing to an awful no good racist sex criminal who happened to be the Republican nominee, we have in Hillary Clinton a bad candidate. An historically bad candidate. We have someone who did not know the country, did not understand its current politics, and could not connect with voters. Frankly she just wasn’t interested. The job was already hers, why should she bother?

The GOP may have gotten stuck with a hard charging despoiler, but, after the most painful presidential campaign in history, America preferred him.

That’s how bad Hillary was. This is how badly the Democratic party ended up doing. And don’t annoy me, not everybody in America is a scumbag, okay? Not everybody is an uneducated bozo. There should have been obvious ways for Hillary to win. It should have been easy.

But she stank. In a time where politicians, Republicans particularly, are a bunch of entitled do-nothings that know fuck all about America, and obviously don’t care, she looked like an example of the problem. Nobody has a proper idea of the things Hillary Clinton has done for anyone. Nobody has any idea what it is she really gives a damn about. The Iraq War, the Bankruptcy Bill, the incestuous ties with the party – we’re all familiar with that. But what’s her true passion? Where’s the soul of this politician?

Barack Obama didn’t help.

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

What about John Kerry? He too was a Senator. Not just for a paltry eight years, for twenty-eight years. Now he’s the Secretary of State, just like Hillary was. Has there never been a more qualified person to serve as president than him? Is he someday the greatest candidate ever?

How about Chuck Hagel? He was a senator for 12 years, then he became the Secretary of Defense. Has there never been a more qualified person than Chuck to serve as president? Will we someday call him the candidate of the century?

It makes no sense. What’s Obama getting at? Why would he go out of his way to say this? Answer: Because the candidate was once the spouse of a president. That’s the sizzle in the argument – this person once lived in the White House. She’s been there before.

How dumb is that? She didn’t have any constituents, she had no official duties. She did not participate in the government, never argued for or against any legislation, never ruled on a case before the Supreme Court, and cast absolutely no votes in Congress in eight years. But Obama, like so many other giddy Democrats, actually thought Americans would ultimately be swayed by this mundane fact. The difference between Clinton and all those other senator-secretaries is…she used to be First Lady.

This is what made the candidate a slam-dunk. This was why no discerning person could vote for Donald Trump. This was why, without a doubt, there’s “never been a more qualified person to serve as president.” Because she once was married to a president.

Imagine saying the exact same thing of another candidate. Imagine saying that of someone who happened to be a man-person. If somebody named Steve Smith were a former first gentleman and senator/secretary? If he ran for President? Would Democrats say he was the greatest candidate ever? Anyone making that argument would get laughed at. If anything, people would find it a reason to vote against him.

Americans didn’t buy the hype, and you can’t blame them. The sad truth is that Hillary Clinton is probably more of an idea than she is a politician. But you can bet the “Mrs. White House” argument made it much easier for all those smartypants neoliberal gurus to run her campaign. I mean, hell, who doesn’t love a first lady? President Donald Trump would like to thank every one of them.


Venn diagrams are EAZY hard

Candidate Clinton ptew tweets shit at the enemy d’you feel the heat?

…I mean if you were The Congress you’d be all like OH NO a tweet from someone running for ZZzzzzzz. Some folks are really very good at pissing in the wind.

And Washington Post then comes in to flaunt their genius.

What’s that?

FiveThirtyEight’s Ben Casselman put it succinctly on Twitter: “This isn’t remotely how Venn diagrams work.” (His tweet, as of writing, has more retweets than the Clinton campaign’s.)

He’s right. A Venn diagram is meant to show the overlap between two groups of things — ideally, to scale. One problem with the Clinton diagram, for example, is that “gun owners” in this context is a group that exists entirely within the universe of “Americans.” What’s more, if the overlap is meant to be “supports universal background checks,” the overlap should cover 90 percent of the circle of “Americans.”

The ‘circle’ is ’90 percent of Americans’. So we should overlap the whole thing? Der? But certainly a WaPo writer should feel unencumbered at all times in whatever mocking duties they self-prescribe to taint other people as stupid. Completely fuck-all. Like, really?

wapo venn fail

Note: The title of this second-grade finger pointing, from WaPo’s The Fix column, natch, is unfailingly – wait for it, waaaaait – We fixed Hillary Clinton’s terrible Venn diagram on gun control. Because stupid Hillary know-nothing Clinton wouldn’t have a clue what a “Venn Diagram should have looked something like” if she’d tripped over it in the sandbox. Har! C’mon!

Haha snootface. Candidate cat brains. Our graphs are red hot, your graphs are doodley squat boomp boomp. BY THE WAY there is an additional atom sized footnote, a mild little meaningless ortlike bugscale tangent. Ahem:

(We didn’t use circles, because we didn’t feel like doing advanced math to calculate the size of the curved overlap.)

When we make a Venn Diagram WE don’t “use circles.” Mmkay? Got that? But do feel free to widdle and diddle my smartypants brain dong. Go willy and/or nilly on the ole’ Clintoris. Because journalism n’ me we just done fixt ya whole life, that’s right.


Goldman is Hillary’s problem

Who would Goldman Sachs pay $225,000 to give an hour-long speech? Who would they choose to address their meanest sharks and biggest whales? One wonders. Who would the fat cats think is worth that kind of money? A famous liberal of course.

When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs…

This is Goldman Sachs remember, the vampire squid of capitalism. They were likely using Hillary Clinton as a palliative.

…Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.

Did you have a hand in the economic collapse? I didn’t. I doubt you did. For a politician running on the strength of her keen intelligence to accuse innocent people of taking part in an epic crime is a bit off-putting. One thing for sure: We did not all get into this mess together.

But Hillary was willing to say as much and that surely made a difference, for the powerful and guilt-ridden to feel a little less bad about what they did. Over the last couple years she made 2 million dollars soothing the likes of UBS, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as “pure trolling,” while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.

Goldman Sachs was nice to Clinton, giving her more than half a million dollars. Hillary was nice right back to them, pretending they weren’t to blame for millions of people being thrown into deprivation and misery. Confronted with Hillary’s marketable nice-ness…

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

…a campaign spokesman bristled: It’s “pure trolling.” There’s the problem. If it’s so insulting to Hillary Clinton why did she do it?


Hillary’s problem

I wanted to say something pithy about the Sanders vs. Clinton conflict other than to insist it’s wholly necessary. They have to fight it out, it’s got to be done. En garde. I would have liked to say something wonderful about this in a timely and sophisticated manner but it looks as if other people are better at blogging than I am…

Even more head scratching is her attempt to claim that she isn’t part of the Establishment. She’s the former First Lady, a former senator from New York, and a former Secretary of State. She’s worth millions, and she and Bill run the Clinton Global Initiative that deals with the Establishment of countries all across the world. Saying that she’s not the Establishment is ridiculous on its face…

And that’s before we add in that she can walk into the Conrad Hotel in Lower Manhattan to talk to Goldman Sachs executives and walk out a couple of hours later with a check worth more than her opponent’s total net worth.


…Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders’ critique of Clinton is not that she’s cartoonishly corrupt in the Tammany Hall style, capable of being fully bought with a couple well-compensated speeches, but that she’s a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it’s true. It’s not that she’s been bought, it’s that she bought in.

Eight years ago candidate Clinton would visit a state, give her campaign speeches and her local polling would stay right where it was. Nothing happened. She was so well-known and her campaign so routine that appearing in some bowling alley was anti-climactic.

With the challenger it was different. Obama would swing by, give his talk and his numbers would get a big bounce. There was a flesh-and-blood contrast between the candidates. People were impressed with Barack, they took to him. They felt he was genuine and sincere. We’re seeing almost the same thing now with Sanders as the challenger. Some of that is because Hillary is so much a part of our politics that she’s almost invisible.

BONUS: Let’s play ‘Name That Republican’:

[She] made an alarmingly sexist remark on “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night, suggesting that young, female supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders only support him because dudes do, too…

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” she said.

Somebody doesn’t think too highly of young women, right? Was it tipsy Peggy Noonan? Smarty-pants Camille Paglia? Was it the ole’ war eagle, Phyllis Schlafly?

Nope, it was Gloria Steinem. Nice going dumbass.

BONUS BONUS: It’s not because The Boys…

In Iowa this week, women 29 and younger voted for Clinton’s challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders, by a stunning margin of roughly 6 to 1, much as young men did, according to the poll of voters arriving at precinct caucuses conducted for the television networks and the Associated Press…

The problem is not rejection of feminism – surveys suggest millennial women are the most staunchly feminist group of voters in America. They want to see a woman in the White House. Just not necessarily this woman…

“Young women cannot remember a time that Hillary was not a household name, and it confuses them what she stands for,” said Nichola Gutgold, a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, who wrote a book, “Almost Madam President,” about Clinton’s 2008 quest for the nomination. “Rejecting her is a way of rejecting the establishment.”

Longtime feminist leaders have found that development flummoxing and have dived into the campaign to try to turn the tide – so far, to little effect.

“I will be honest. We are engaging sooner than we expected,” said Eleanor Smeal, who runs the Feminist Majority Foundation, which days before the Iowa caucuses put resources into the state to try to boost Clinton’s chances.

Politics is strange stuff, huh?


National Review is an excellent periodical he lied

She looms.

Hillary, Relentless and Shameless
National Review | February 14, 2014

The phrase “Clinton fatigue” entered the political lexicon during the previous century; by this point, we surely must have entered the age of Chronic Clinton-Fatigue Syndrome.

Clintons are bad. Bad I tells ya. And if there’s one thing we can say about Hillary now…what would it be? What’s the word? Maybe ‘invisible.’ It certainly wouldn’t be ‘relentless’ or ‘shameless.’ Those would be accurate descriptions of National Review. Also: Pubescent. Pathetic.

It transpires to nobody’s great surprise that Mrs. Clinton was more than a passive victim in the sexual scandal that preceded her husband’s impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice…

She was an active victim of the Lewinsky sex scandal? Clearly she arranged the little contretemps to her benefit. I’d ask where the hell you get off in squeaking such a fart, but of course Bill Buckley’s still rotting in his grave. I could blame you, but I can’t really be too sure.

President Clinton strutted into church waving a Bible the size of a telephone directory while Democrats painted his critics as the second coming of Roger Chillingworth, if not Padre Torquemada.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, after bitterly dismissing the cookie-baking, “Stand by Your Man” model of wifehood, did precisely that. (The chocolate-chip-cookie recipe she shared with Good Housekeeping was excellent; Bill would later plagiarize a cookie recipe for a cook-off against Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama)…

Eva Braun stayed with her husband! Caligula stole a cookie recipe!

The Clintons are our national grotesques.

I can’t imagine what climate scientist Michael Mann is going to do with Buckley’s house of slobber. Turn it into an ammonia works. Or a whorehouse. A torture chamber, with a fresh coat of paint.


Clinton Derangement Syndrome: The Relapseding

We’re about two and a half years away from the Iowa Caucus. Which means it’s about time for the Clinton-fixated to wet their eyes and start the hunh-hunh stabbing of their voodoo dolls. It’s been – what – seven hours, and fourteen days? Can you feel the love, tonight? What good is a case of tooth-gnashing psychosis if you can’t wave it around like a stick of dynamite every decade or so?

A new ad released Wednesday by an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC is hoping to scare people away from supporting the former secretary of state in a potential 2016 presidential run.

The spot, released by the recently formed Stop Hillary PAC, looks like it got some help from a horror movie director. In the ad, a reverberating Clinton voice reads the inaugural oath over haunting sound effects, while scandals and conspiracy theories that have hounded the Clintons over their decades in politics flash across the screen.

The auteurs threw in a shot of Vince Foster’s grave.

And a shot of the whistleblower/stool pigeon, Vince Foster. Deceased.

Which is almost too civilized a thing to talk about.


Conservatives, women and Twitter: #LiberalTips2AvoidRape

It all started with the comments of a Colorado state Representative. Then some clown invented the hashtag #LiberalTips2AvoidRape because what Salazar really meant was ‘It’s better to fart loudly or piss yourself than shoot a rapist.’ So do you squishy liberals have any more terrific tips for women guffaw?

That’s when Twitter exploded in rib-shattering comedy:


Hillary crushes Ron Johnson’s manly pride

Polyester manufacturer Sen. Ron Johnson harbored himself a real whopping hard-on for Benghazi. [Libyan Tom Jones jokes here.] And boy did he get the chance of a nutter’s lifetime yesterday: The dissembler, the coward, the Clinton!, Hillary finally deigned to show up before him and weasel out of the truth.

If she figured the hearing would be a cakewalk, the Senior Senator would destroy the idea. Because the Benghazi charade was about to be exposed by a simple Ron Johnson fact: You could have made a phone call. The Secretary of State could simply have talked to anybody near the tragedy and cleared the whole thing up. Fairly obvious! Ring up that payphone hanging on the compound wall and say “This is Hillary Clinton. Now tell me what happened.” Done.

Forget all the CIA spooks and intelligence nerds and khaki security rangers and the careful way in which an entire government labels someone a “terrorist” though you well know this has life-and-death consequences and why not leave it all up to some random civilian? Hmm?

Oops, alright. She’s not just a coward and a Clinton and a liberal squish. She knows what’s she’s doing, and she gives better than she gets.

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. The fact is that people were trying, in real time, to get to the best information.”

The Senator then yields his inquiry like the pig who bit the porcupine. That wasn’t fun.

And then he runs right to the press. Because everybody in America, and soon to be everyone with an internet, has seen him get his sorry butt kicked from here to the moon. Things didn’t go as planned for you, did they Senator? Your comments?

“I think she just decided before she was going to describe emotionally the four dead Americans, the heroes, and use that as her trump card to get out of the questions,” Johnson told BuzzFeed after the Senate hearing. “It was a good way of getting out of really having to respond to me.”

Translation: She beat me like the better man she is. Ouch.


Clouted clotted blotted and besotted

There’s just no stopping some fools.

The Clinton clot plot thickens… or thins… with anti-coagulants.
Ann Althouse | January 1, 2013

So we were just talking about the oddities of the Clinton clot story. We noted that no sooner was it said that Hillary Clinton would testify, as Secretary of State, on the Benghazi attack, than there came an announcement that Hillary Clinton had entered the hospital with a blood clot. The coincidence raised suspicions of an effort to engineer an evasion of this testimony.

Oh please.

Later, Clinton’s doctors released a statement saying that the clot was in a vein inside her skull, and that she’s “making excellent progress” and likely to “make a full recovery” . . You may remember that the analysis I discussed at that first link contained the assertion that “anticoagulation is never given to persons with clots around the brain.”

The Secretary of State assembled her staff. “I’m going to New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital to fake a blood clot underneath my skull. Tell the university physicians I want a trumped-up MRI within an hour. Let Public Relations know I’ll need a rough draft of their release before dinner. I expect everybody to jeopardize their licenses and careers so I can dodge a 2012 scandal that the public slept through. Now where did the digito-cerebral black satellite interface and controller go?”

That is what Ann Althouse suspects Hillary Clinton of doing.

And, by the way, I’ve gotten some pushback in email and on the web, saying that it was “shameful” and “appalling” for me to tie Clinton’s health problems to a possible intent to avoid testifying about Benghazi. Let me tell you that a core motivation to my blogging — and I’ve been going at this for 9 years now — is to stand tough against people who try to cut off debate with this kind of shaming.

Althouse is just dumb. Trifling details are her professional obsession, and they never fail to transform into devastating attacks upon public figures. As if her disastrous bleating could have any consequences in real life. As if there’s any karmic balance between some impotent imbecile and the Secretary of State.

When people say “Shame on you,” it’s as much for disgracing her adulthood as anything else. But this is not right, why no, how dare you! The liberals are bullying her from Secret Truth. Ann knows it, she knew it. She’ll not be turned away!

I’m glad that this performance of outrage was directed at me. I know it when I see it, and it fires me up. You want silence? You want backing down? You want me not to dare say a thing like that? That’s how you want to control political debate in the United States? Thanks for reminding me once again how deeply I hate that and for giving me an (easy) opportunity to model courage for the more timid people out there who are cowed by the fear of shaming.

As if demonstrations of stupidity were powerful orgasms. I’m in love with BLOG, Daddy! You can’t stand between us!


Masters of War and Civility

Some people are so fucking civilized they have to prove it to you.

A kid sitting next to me in the café in Charlotte beat his plate with a fork and yelled at the top of his lungs for about half an hour. It sure was annoying until I realized it was a good chance to remind him that he wasn’t as special as his mother had told him. Sure, his mother was sitting right next to him. But she was too drunk to raise an objection. And who could blame her for drinking after giving birth to a monster like that?

A guy nearly knocked me down in a mad rush to get his bag off the conveyer belt. I told him to be careful because he might knock the safety off of my concealed 45 Auto. He didn’t get the joke, largely because he didn’t speak English. That gave me an excellent opportunity to remind him that he wasn’t mucho especial.

See how Mike did that? Telling the Mexican off in his own Español? Class.

Speaking of John Fucking Bolton . .

“You know, every foreign service officer in every foreign ministry in the world knows the phrase I am about to use, when you don’t want to go to a meeting or conference or an event, you have a ‘diplomatic illness,’” he said on Fox News. “And this is a ‘diplomatic illness’ to beat the band.”

And now Secretary Clinton is in the hospital. Pretty goddamned civilized.


Wingnuts and 9/11 pride

The bodies of Ambassador Stevens and three others killed in the attack on the Benghazi consulate were flown home recently. The President and the Secretary of State were present at a somber reception at Andrews Air Force base.

It was an “amazing ceremony,” [Chris Matthews] insisted. After an Obama clip, he said, “There was a moment in American history right there. Last week, when Obama spoke at the Democratic National Committee down in Charlotte, he said, ‘I am the president.’ Well, this week, he showed what it means to be president.”

Matthews’ commentary drove Brent Bozell crazy.

“This was a moment for pride? . .

If George Bush had been president, the arrival of these four caskets would have been painted as a sickening sign of failure and incompetence, of public servants needlessly losing their lives because the White House couldn’t piece together their intelligence reports. Matthews would have railed against Bush and “Cheeney” for failing to protect their diplomats in unstable Arab nations. Now it was time to tingle over the unified Democrats instead.”

I recall George W. Bush being president when three thousand people were killed by the bad Muslims. And the failure to save those lives was unequivocally Bush’s fault. He knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was. He knew Al Qaeda were planning to kill Americans. He knew a spectacular attack was imminent. But he never did a thing to prevent it.

Yet among the wingnuts you still hear crap like this:

“President Bush had at Ground Zero probably the most important moment in, uh, maybe in American history. It was when this wounded nation watched their commander-in-chief stand on that rubble and say they will hear us, we are going to avenge this . .”

Bush literally stood on the bodies of the people he failed to defend and did a tough guy routine. It was one of the most appalling spectacles in American history. But to fans like Bozell, Bush and his bullhorn beat the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Factually speaking, it was really Condoleezza Rice who liked it better than the moon landing, but why quibble? When Bush’s incompetent National Security Adviser can weigh in on Bush’s incompetence with tingling awe, we’re way out of Chris Matthews’ league.


Devastating us with Twitter vaginas

More of their satire. More political napalm. If you haven’t seen conservatives laugh at us via use of the #OverheardAtDNC2012 hash tag on Twitter, well just take a look. It’s a wonder there are now threads of liberalism left at all. It’s a miracle there are a few of us still around to huddle over a can of Sterno and sing commie labor anthems. Down by the railroad tracks. With vaginas. They’re really taking it to us. Stop. Ow. Owww.