Hillary Scares Me

Most especially as a woman, I have become more and more concerned that Hillary Rodham Clinton just might be elected as the first female President of the United States in 2008.  And that possibility curls my hair, dangerously accelerates my heartbeat and sends shivers down my spine. 

I have been following Hillary's "life" since she first made a blip on the national radar during the 1992 election.  Back then, my own perception of her was that she was kind of pert, sort of pretty, and that she might even be slightly smarter than that absolutely charming husband of hers - the candidate.  When I learned that she had her own Yale law degree and that they were being billed as the "two-for-one" presidency, I actually thought to myself that it might be a good deal for the taxpayers.  Pay one President; get two.  I do always try to give a new President - and First Lady - the benefit of the doubt, as due respect for our Republic and the electorate dictates.

But that was 15 years ago.  In that time, I've read six biographies of Hillary (4 admittedly unfavorable, 1 gushingly favorable, and 1 supposedly neutral).  With such a preponderance of damning evidence against her already widely disseminated, it strikes me as more than a little strange that this woman is not in prison or a mental institution.  That she has managed to remain not only free, but center-stage in the Democratic Party and a Senator from an "adopted" state is an indictment of our press and her Party.  If she succeeds in lying and manipulating her way into the White House, it will be an indictment of us all.

Even Carl Bernstein admits (A Woman in Charge; Knopf; 2007; p. 554) that Mrs. Clinton is the human equivalent of a chameleon, changing her colors and her story to suit her audience:
"As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self." (emphasis mine)
In real life - as opposed to fairytales - misrepresenting facts is called "lying."  Constantly changing yourself (and your "truth") according to the company you are in is called "a lack of integrity."  A lack of integrity is considered by most normal folks to be a glaring character defect.  Now, if even Carl Bernstein is able to admit that Hillary is a liar and has a substantial lack of integrity, why would we even elect her POTUS?

On the other hand, she is a Democrat, and unfortunately, it looks as though they are about to foist her upon the rest of us.   William Saffire, in his 1/8/96 NYT editorial, "Blizzard of Lies," cut straight to the chase with a great deal of prescience, when he wrote:
"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady (Hillary Rodham Clinton) - a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation - is a congenital liar." 
So, let it be said from my all-female mouth now and on the record:  If Hillary Clinton is elected as President of the United States, it will set the cause of any sort of feminism back for at least 250 years.  Whether we like it or not, she will be the "ruler" by which future female candidates are measured.  And she will be judged for the woman she is - not for the man she isn't.

So, just for a moment try to forget Travelgate (cronyism at its vile lowest), Whitewater (phony S&L scheme that cost taxpayers $4 million), campcon (FBI investigation into illegal Chinese government political contributions to Clintons and DNC), Monica-gate (don't even go there), and Pardongate (the final-hour pardons granted by the Clinton "Co-Presidency," including a host of Clinton & Rodham relatives, friends and big contributors).  Just forget all about those little "problems" with Hillary's integrity, and think about some of the petty stuff.

Let's take the matter of her faith.  You know, the faith that she says sustained her during Monica-gate.  Now, I know a lot of Methodists with pretty strong beliefs in Jesus Christ.  Yet, I don't believe I've ever heard any of them espousing the benefits of "channeling" the spirits of dead people for guidance.  It was Bob Woodward (THE CHOICE) who revealed Hillary's desire to commune with Eleanor Roosevelt in this manner, and that new-age person of note, Jean Houston, facilitated the "conversation."  So, when she says that her "faith" got her through "it," is she referring to her faith in God or her faith in Eleanor Roosevelt?  Actually, Eleanor Roosevelt would know a thing or two about philandering husbands, but isn't Hillary, devout Methodist that she claims to be, aware that séances are deemed part of the occult (Satan's province) and strictly off-limits for Christians?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.  So, I'm not too impressed with those "faith" credentials.

Another thing that concerns me - again, this might be construed as petty - is how she has dealt with her husband, Bubba.  According to every single book I have read on Mrs. Clinton, she was fully aware of his predilection for rampant promiscuity all the way through their relationship.  During courtship.  While they were living together out of wedlock.  After they married and became the first couple of Arkansas.  Through the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.  Why, according to the volumes that have been written on this one subject alone, there was nary a soul in Arkansas political/business/legal circles that didn't know of the boy Governor's proclivities for "special encounters" with the opposite sex.  Of course, Hillary knew; she's no idiot.  Obviously, she knew and she didn't care.  But she knew that we the public cared about the character - or lack thereof - of our President.  So, she lied about not knowing.

And besides the bald-faced lying, here's what rubs me the wrong way.  Hillary Clinton's thirst for power has been so great that she has knowingly trampled the feelings and rights of all the women she called "Bimbos," enabled an out-of-control man to escape due punishment, and now dares to play the long-suffering, loving wife with no thought to the real-life consequences borne by all the "other" women that litter the roadside of Bill Clinton's life. 

This one issue alone invalidates any claim she ever had to the real Women's vote.  Her cadre of elite feminist loyalists can clamor all they wish for solidarity of the "sisterhood," but I don't know a single woman over the age of 18 who is buying it.  If Hillary Clinton gave one whit for the respectability of women, she would have trounced Billy boy a long, long, long, long time ago.

And why on earth would an educated electorate buy the simpleminded notion that a woman who cannot even stop a philandering husband from, well, philandering, could ever stop terrorists from, well, terrorizing?  Surely, we are too smart to trust this woman with her little manicured finger on the "A-bomb" button.

If not, then we probably deserve what we will get from her.  If you have real questions at this point about what that would be, get yourself a copy of Rules for Radicals, by the infamous Saul Alinsky, the left-wing guru of ethical relativity, an avowed means-justify-the-ends Marxist, who was the topic of Hillary's senior thesis at Wellesley.  Don't bother trying to get a copy of her paper, though; it's sealed up, though a purported bootleg copy made it onto the web. I have been unable to verify if it is genuine.

I would give just about anything to be able - in good conscience - to vote for a woman for President.  Just not this particular woman.  She doesn't even know who she is anymore.  How could she possibly know who we are?  She thinks we are the means to her end.  That's all her idea of "sisterhood" has ever been.

It's all about her.  And only her.
Most especially as a woman, I have become more and more concerned that Hillary Rodham Clinton just might be elected as the first female President of the United States in 2008.  And that possibility curls my hair, dangerously accelerates my heartbeat and sends shivers down my spine. 

I have been following Hillary's "life" since she first made a blip on the national radar during the 1992 election.  Back then, my own perception of her was that she was kind of pert, sort of pretty, and that she might even be slightly smarter than that absolutely charming husband of hers - the candidate.  When I learned that she had her own Yale law degree and that they were being billed as the "two-for-one" presidency, I actually thought to myself that it might be a good deal for the taxpayers.  Pay one President; get two.  I do always try to give a new President - and First Lady - the benefit of the doubt, as due respect for our Republic and the electorate dictates.

But that was 15 years ago.  In that time, I've read six biographies of Hillary (4 admittedly unfavorable, 1 gushingly favorable, and 1 supposedly neutral).  With such a preponderance of damning evidence against her already widely disseminated, it strikes me as more than a little strange that this woman is not in prison or a mental institution.  That she has managed to remain not only free, but center-stage in the Democratic Party and a Senator from an "adopted" state is an indictment of our press and her Party.  If she succeeds in lying and manipulating her way into the White House, it will be an indictment of us all.

Even Carl Bernstein admits (A Woman in Charge; Knopf; 2007; p. 554) that Mrs. Clinton is the human equivalent of a chameleon, changing her colors and her story to suit her audience:
"As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self." (emphasis mine)
In real life - as opposed to fairytales - misrepresenting facts is called "lying."  Constantly changing yourself (and your "truth") according to the company you are in is called "a lack of integrity."  A lack of integrity is considered by most normal folks to be a glaring character defect.  Now, if even Carl Bernstein is able to admit that Hillary is a liar and has a substantial lack of integrity, why would we even elect her POTUS?

On the other hand, she is a Democrat, and unfortunately, it looks as though they are about to foist her upon the rest of us.   William Saffire, in his 1/8/96 NYT editorial, "Blizzard of Lies," cut straight to the chase with a great deal of prescience, when he wrote:
"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady (Hillary Rodham Clinton) - a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation - is a congenital liar." 
So, let it be said from my all-female mouth now and on the record:  If Hillary Clinton is elected as President of the United States, it will set the cause of any sort of feminism back for at least 250 years.  Whether we like it or not, she will be the "ruler" by which future female candidates are measured.  And she will be judged for the woman she is - not for the man she isn't.

So, just for a moment try to forget Travelgate (cronyism at its vile lowest), Whitewater (phony S&L scheme that cost taxpayers $4 million), campcon (FBI investigation into illegal Chinese government political contributions to Clintons and DNC), Monica-gate (don't even go there), and Pardongate (the final-hour pardons granted by the Clinton "Co-Presidency," including a host of Clinton & Rodham relatives, friends and big contributors).  Just forget all about those little "problems" with Hillary's integrity, and think about some of the petty stuff.

Let's take the matter of her faith.  You know, the faith that she says sustained her during Monica-gate.  Now, I know a lot of Methodists with pretty strong beliefs in Jesus Christ.  Yet, I don't believe I've ever heard any of them espousing the benefits of "channeling" the spirits of dead people for guidance.  It was Bob Woodward (THE CHOICE) who revealed Hillary's desire to commune with Eleanor Roosevelt in this manner, and that new-age person of note, Jean Houston, facilitated the "conversation."  So, when she says that her "faith" got her through "it," is she referring to her faith in God or her faith in Eleanor Roosevelt?  Actually, Eleanor Roosevelt would know a thing or two about philandering husbands, but isn't Hillary, devout Methodist that she claims to be, aware that séances are deemed part of the occult (Satan's province) and strictly off-limits for Christians?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.  So, I'm not too impressed with those "faith" credentials.

Another thing that concerns me - again, this might be construed as petty - is how she has dealt with her husband, Bubba.  According to every single book I have read on Mrs. Clinton, she was fully aware of his predilection for rampant promiscuity all the way through their relationship.  During courtship.  While they were living together out of wedlock.  After they married and became the first couple of Arkansas.  Through the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.  Why, according to the volumes that have been written on this one subject alone, there was nary a soul in Arkansas political/business/legal circles that didn't know of the boy Governor's proclivities for "special encounters" with the opposite sex.  Of course, Hillary knew; she's no idiot.  Obviously, she knew and she didn't care.  But she knew that we the public cared about the character - or lack thereof - of our President.  So, she lied about not knowing.

And besides the bald-faced lying, here's what rubs me the wrong way.  Hillary Clinton's thirst for power has been so great that she has knowingly trampled the feelings and rights of all the women she called "Bimbos," enabled an out-of-control man to escape due punishment, and now dares to play the long-suffering, loving wife with no thought to the real-life consequences borne by all the "other" women that litter the roadside of Bill Clinton's life. 

This one issue alone invalidates any claim she ever had to the real Women's vote.  Her cadre of elite feminist loyalists can clamor all they wish for solidarity of the "sisterhood," but I don't know a single woman over the age of 18 who is buying it.  If Hillary Clinton gave one whit for the respectability of women, she would have trounced Billy boy a long, long, long, long time ago.

And why on earth would an educated electorate buy the simpleminded notion that a woman who cannot even stop a philandering husband from, well, philandering, could ever stop terrorists from, well, terrorizing?  Surely, we are too smart to trust this woman with her little manicured finger on the "A-bomb" button.

If not, then we probably deserve what we will get from her.  If you have real questions at this point about what that would be, get yourself a copy of Rules for Radicals, by the infamous Saul Alinsky, the left-wing guru of ethical relativity, an avowed means-justify-the-ends Marxist, who was the topic of Hillary's senior thesis at Wellesley.  Don't bother trying to get a copy of her paper, though; it's sealed up, though a purported bootleg copy made it onto the web. I have been unable to verify if it is genuine.

I would give just about anything to be able - in good conscience - to vote for a woman for President.  Just not this particular woman.  She doesn't even know who she is anymore.  How could she possibly know who we are?  She thinks we are the means to her end.  That's all her idea of "sisterhood" has ever been.

It's all about her.  And only her.