Tag: hillary clinton

Hillary Clinton: still ‘likable enough.’

Let me just summarize this video: Democrats are… OK with having Hillary Clinton as their candidate, but she’s not the candidate that they want.  Let me summarize it further: Hillary Clinton will lose the 2016 Presidential election, but the Democrats haven’t worked it out yet. Via the Washington Free Beacon:

Continue reading Hillary Clinton: still ‘likable enough.’

Mercenaries vs. holdouts: the Democrats’ 2016 dilemma.

Oh, yeah. Like Dan McLaughlin, I forgot that Hillary Clinton said this. Or possibly burned it out of my mind:

Continue reading Mercenaries vs. holdouts: the Democrats’ 2016 dilemma.

Moral of the story: get Condoleezza Rice for events, not Hillary Clinton.

This is pretty straightforward, actually:

Former SecState Condoleezza Rice will cost less to speak AND will raise more money for your charity than former SecState Hillary Clinton does and will. It’s just basic math. Mind you, Rice was also a better SecState than Clinton was, anyway…

Paranoia strikes deep: the Clintons have been paranoid for a long, long time.

Decades.

Clinton Foundation head Donna Shalala privately expressed concerns about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s mental state in the mid-1990s, saying they had become “paranoid” and fixated on “right-wing conspiracies,” according to previously unpublished audio recordings obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

In 1994, four years before Hillary Clinton said a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to take down her husband’s presidency, top aide Shalala said this theory was already embraced by the Clintons.

And this was from one of her friends. Read the whole article, listen to the whole audio. You’ll hear nothing that you didn’t know already, but it’s nice to get the confirmation. I should also note that if Hillary Clinton has been a functioning paranoid for this long… well.  She’s not going to stop. Assuming that she even can.

Via Hot Air.

Tweet of the Day, This Is Even More Awful Than It Looks For Hillary Clinton edition.

These numbers are horrible enough for any Democrat…

…but here’s the thing: Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. If she can’t break 40% on national security with that on her resume, it becomes clear that there’s actually very little reason for Democrats to run this woman. And yet, they will! This is going to be a heck of a campaign, let me tell you.

Quote of the Day, I’m Mostly Joking About The Demonology Part, Of Course edition.

To over-use the cliche: it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at this.  Frank Bruni, on a (male) Democrat infuriated that he has to vote for Hillary Clinton:

So here he stands, or rather squirms, exhilarated by what Hillary embodies and repelled by what she represents, wanting to see her take the oath and wanting never to lay eyes on her and Bill again, determined that they reclaim the White House and despairing of the muddy road there and the certain muck beyond. He’s a riot of warring emotions, a paradox with a pulse.

Continue reading Quote of the Day, I’m Mostly Joking About The Demonology Part, Of Course edition.

NYP: Hillary can’t fill a woman-only fundraiser! …Or a regular one, either.

Submitted without too much comment: “Hillary Clinton’s “women only” fundraiser shifted its invitation list at the last minute to include anyone who would buy a ticket after sales for the $2,700/person event dwindled, a new report alleges.” Target number of 125; got 50 on the first pass-through; boosted up to 90 or so after men were invited.  And it’s that last part that may be even more significant.  Hillary Clinton just doesn’t bring the Wow, does she?

Via Hot Air Headlines: the Page 6 article is here, and it’s kind of a hoot, too.

Nicholas Kristof tries the Otter Defense on behalf of the Clintons.

Start off by reading this:

I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?

But the problem is not precisely the Clintons. It’s our entire disgraceful money-based political system.

Now watch this.

For those who do not have access to YouTube, this is of course Otter’s Speech from Animal House:

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests – we did. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

You know, I didn’t realize when I woke up this morning that’d I would be writing a piece that had to point out that Animal House is not a good rhetorical template for a New York Times author to use. Then again, I imagine that Nicholas Kristof didn’t wake up a few days ago expecting that he’d end up using said template, so I suppose that that’s a wash.  Still… really?  This is going to be what they’re going to go with? “The way that all that dirty money was prancing around and showing everybody its denominations, it was just asking to be grabbed?” I tremble for the Republic.

No, not because of corrupt politicians.  We’ve had to deal with those, right from the start.  But we’ve never had a more useless set of political pundits.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Hillary Clinton and the Merchants of Death.

Oh, come ON, Hillary Clinton: “The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report…. State approved $165 billion worth of weapons sales to 20 foreign governments during Clinton’s tenure, the International Business Times reports. Among the countries involved in the sales were Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.”  And the Clinton Foundation got anywhere between fifty to a hundred and fifty million in donations from relevant parties in that time.

:pause:

OK, it’s not just me, right? This looks bad on a basic level, yes? It is not ridiculous to be upset that the Secretary of State was taking millions of dollars from the countries that she was funneling billions of dollars’ worth of business – weapons business – to, correct? Because as the Hill did not particularly note – but the International Business Times (H/T: Hot Air) did – these weapons sales represent a significant increase (read: ‘doubling’) over arms sales as those made during a similar chronological point in the Bush administration. Simply put: the State Department turned on the arms spigot, and various foreign governments and companies started filling up the Clinton Foundation trough.

So what’s the point?  The point, my friends, is that you may now tell your liberal friends and colleagues that Hillary Clinton, by the Left’s own rules, can be fairly called a bloody-handed Merchant of Death* who profited off of the American government’s lucrative arms business.  Watching them process that should give you some amusement.

Especially when you remind them that they’re voluntarily going to vote for a woman who made money from arming regimes that oppress and execute their own subjects.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*”Lady of War” is far too nice-sounding. I frankly wouldn’t trust her to run a paintball tournament, at this point.