How did it happen that, in this the land of Washington, Jefferson, Madison et al, someone so fundamentally dishonest and so unbelievably incompetent should not only aspire to be its president, but should actually be taken seriously in this aspiration by one of the country’s two major parties? I cannot recall any presidential contender from either party over the past 60 years as fundamentally undeserving of such a distinction as Hillary Clinton. So let’s just look at the only two things that she is relying on to stake her claim -- her gender and her marriage (i.e. her husband). Aside from the fact that neither should have any bearing on her claim to high office (or, for that matter, any office) in point of fact, neither should have any bearing on her case for both claims are a fraud, i.e. Hillary is neither feminine nor a feminist.
Hillary As A “Woman”. To begin with, doesn’t it strike the reader as odd, that a woman running for president almost solely on the basis of her argument that it’s time for a woman to be president (and I believe that it is, as long as she is the most qualified), has less than 50% of the support of the one constituency that she absolutely has to have behind her: white women. Why is this the case? Because they see through her and realize that she is hardly the woman to champion their cause. Why not? Because when one thinks of woman, the image that comes to mind is a person who is warm, nurturing, strong, and loveable, and Hillary is none of those things. She is cold, aloof, officious, arrogant, angry, and possibly the least loveable candidate of either sex to run for any office. In addition, she is vindictive, hostile, unapproachable by those beneath her, and a truly nasty piece of work. She has always been someone who is difficult to like, and the only time that she became the object of some positive attention was either when she was perceived as a victim -- because her husband was caught cheating (as he has done repeatedly throughout the course of their marriage -- with her knowledge and apparent approval) or when she teared up during the 2008 New Hampshire primary.
Let’s look at the husband-cheating source of sympathy. How do you become a sympathetic object as the result of such conduct when he has been cheating on a regular basis from the time of their engagement to the current moment? He has had dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of dalliances from the onset of their marriage. And she has not only been an enabler with respect to these indiscretions, she has headed up his damage control team by leading the charge against the objects of these “bimbo eruptions,” seeking to damage and destroy these women for no purpose other than to protect her wandering husband (and their political ambitions). In view of the Clinton’s conduct when it comes to his dalliances, one might understandably ask who is waging a war on women? And, by the way, Bill is not just a philanderer, he is a sexual predator, having raped Juanita Broaddrick, groped Kathleen Willey, exposed himself to Paula Jones, and carried on a 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers which he denied, writing it off as a one-night stand when faced with the choice of copping to something or face a criminal perjury charge. You may recall that on this occasion, Hillary reminded us that she was no Tammy Wynette, just standing by her man when she leaped to his defense. Indeed, she was not; Tammy would never have put up with her husband’s serial adulteries to the extent of Bill’s marital meandering -- she had too much self respect.
In passing, let me note, that I would be delighted with a female president; I would not hesitate to vote for someone like Carly Fiorina – a real woman and an accomplished one at that. And not just because I am a conservative, but because I could not vote for an unaccomplished harpy like Hillary, regardless of what party ticket she was running on.
Hillary as A Clinton. Does any one think that we would be talking about Hillary Clinton for president (or even dogcatcher) if her last name was not Clinton? On the contrary, if her last name were not Clinton, the operative question would be Hillary who? As I observed in a previous column, Hillary’s only – and I do mean only – positive accomplishment was marrying Bill Clinton and riding his coattails to positions of prominence, in which she distinguished herself for her incompetence and incredibly bad management skills (not to mention her fundamental dishonesty in dealing with the many scandals that dogged her path).
Now, this is what we have been told about what a true feminist is not supposed to need, let alone to utilize -- a husband. You may recall Gloria Steinem’s famous quip that women needs a man like fish need a bicycle (although it is worth pointing out that Steinem did acquire her own bicycle). The point here is that, according to the “feminist” credo, women are supposed to be able to make it on their own (you know, like Carly Fiorina did), and not have to rely on their husband to advance their careers. Hillary, who is always pretending to be the true feminist and a spokesperson for all women, has advanced her career solely on the basis of being married to Bill Clinton (particularly her efforts to practice damage control when Bill is caught with his pants down by savaging the women with whom Bill was caught).
In short, Hillary has no legitimate claim to any high office, either based on her gender or her marriage; as far as her gender is concerned, she is the anti-woman. As far as her marriage is concerned, it is a farce, perpetuated only because of the Clinton’s unrelenting and destructive pursuit of power.
In closing, let me provide the reader with the insights of two pundits who have spent time tracking Hillary through the years. First, the observation of one of her cohort (who chose anonymity to avoid Hillary’s wrath), which appears in Edward Klein’s outstanding book, The Truth About Hillary on p. 185 (Sentinel Publishers, 2005):
“She’s the most unbelievable actress I have ever met,’ said a woman who worked on Hillary’s Senate Campaign. ‘I remember one time at a Woman’s Leadership Forum event in New York, thirty of us sat around Hillary, talking about politics. And she said, ‘You know, I love this organization, not just because we sit around and talk about politics, but because of the bonds of friendship forming around us.’ The way she said it, people were riveted by her performance. But I had gotten to know her, and I could tell she didn’t mean it. She has this unbelievable ability to be a liar. She is soulless.” (emphasis supplied)
But to show how little things have changed over the years with regard to Hillary’s character, let me conclude with Bill Safire’s assessment of the former first lady in his well publicized column in the New York Times titled "Blizzard of Lies" (January 8, 1996):
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
The only exception I would take with respect to Safire’s assessment of the woman is “her undoubted talents”; other than lying, I am unaware of just what those talents might be. And I certainly hope that she is not a role model for women of any generation; again, there is nothing feminine about the woman.
Hillary Clinton is a complete fraud -- a shameless fraud, and to put her anywhere near the White House again would not only be a travesty, but would put America at risk on many fronts.