“Hillary papers” show ruthless, ambitious First Lady

posted at 8:01 am on February 10, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

And … so? The Free Beacon gets a genuine scoop with its blockbuster report from Alana Goodman, one which paints Hillary Clinton in a not-terribly-favorable light. Even her friends and political allies found her ambition a bit off-putting, it seems. Then again, those qualities haven’t exactly been a state secret since, oh, HillaryCare:

The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.

The archive includes correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos, and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium.

Diane Blair’s husband, Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death.

The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

For those looking for nuggets of embarrassment gold from the Clinton Era, this is pay dirt. But it’s really limited to that era, which ended more than thirteen years ago, an era for many that seems oddly positive in comparison to reality today. Other than an insistence on single-payer as the ultimate solution for health-care reform — which was also hardly a secret at the time — very little of this will have much relation to the current political atmosphere. One has to wonder whether Clinton nostalgia might overwhelm any meager demerits this trove earns Hillary, given the contrast in economics between the two periods.

Or perhaps Paul Begala is right, and no one will much care what kind of an operative Hillary was fourteen years ago:

That’s not entirely true, but it’s at least true in relation to the long-ago behavior of Hillary Clinton. Besides, why spend a lot of time focusing on her time as First Lady, when we have the still-relevant example of her incompetence as Secretary of State? She started off her four-year run as America’s top diplomat by sucking up to Russia with a reset button that blamed all of the problems between the two countries on George W. Bush, only to continuously get upstaged and outplayed by Vladimir Putin. Hillary ended it with the disaster in Libya, culminating in the sacking of our diplomatic facility in Benghazi and the loss of a US Ambassador and three other Americans, all without any effective response whatsoever.

The problem with Hillary isn’t her cut-throated approach to politics. It’s that she’s incompetent. We’re better off focusing on that more recent and vivid history than in revisiting the nostalgic past of the Democratic Party.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Besides, why spend a lot of time focusing on her time as First Lady, when we have the still-relevant example of her incompetence as Secretary of State?

Ed, you’re just too nice. Should we surrender all this territory – covering her time as FLOTUS – to the Democrats already? That’s what the Democrats and the media will try to tell us – that this stuff is irrelevant and off-limits, and “let’s not drag the American people through the Clinton scandals again.” But I think it’s completely relevant because it gives us a glimpse of how Hillary Clinton conducts herself when she has access to power. If she’s this controlling and ruthless as FLOTUS, how would she behave as president?

And let’s not forget the 2012 campaign that we just went through. Was there anything “off limits” in regard to Mitt Romney? I don’t think so. At one point we were treated to a multi-page article in the WaPo about how Mitt Romney, at age 15, grabbed a kid and cut locks of his hair with a pair of scissors. The kid was later rumored to be gay. The take away for this nearly 50-year-old story: that Mitt Romney was mean, cruel, and bullied a gay kid.

So let’s not let the left dictate to us – and the rest of the country – what should and should not be considered in regard to Hillary Clinton’s fitness to lead this country.

TarheelBen on February 10, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Forecasters are calling for heavy audits with a high chance of talking heads on Sunday morning.

Socratease on February 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM

TarheelBen on February 10, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I agree, let’s re-pick Hillary’s nits. With. A. Fine-Tooth. Comb.

Flora Duh on February 10, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Let’s not forget her comment to the family of one of those killed in Libya: she would try her best to see a video maker went to jail. What’s makes anyone think she’d wouldn’t take the same approach to anyone causing her significant political damage?

jvermeer on February 10, 2014 at 10:50 AM

To reiterate what I posted in the headline thread (pasted because I hate typing it out twice);

I’ve always felt that Bill’s main problem is that he’s dangerously stupid. Hillary’s main problem is that she’s stupidly dangerous.

There are two movies that are vitally necessary to watch to understand this pair.

To understand Bill, you have to watch the 1949 Robert Rosson version of All The King’s Men, starring Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark, Robert Penn Warren’s fictionalized version of Huey “The Kingfish” Long. Warren, a Long partisan, was a bit put out that Rosson’s version was substantially more honest about the Kingfish’s behavior and motivations than his sanitized novelization originally was.

To understand Hillary, you have to see the 1962 John Frankenheimer version of The Manchurian Candidate, based on the novel by Richard Condon. And pay particular attention to the character of Mrs. Iselin played by Angela Lansbury. Unlike Warren, Condon entirely approved of Frankenheimer and Lansbury’s portrayal of the b!tch.

(You may safely ignore the remakes of both, BTW.)

If these two movies had been widely seen before the 1992 election, this pair would never have gotten to first base.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Libertyship46 on February 10, 2014 at 9:12 AM

And don’t forget the American tax dollars that created the post-Benghazi-debacle propaganda video created by State that apologized to “our Muslim brothers.”

onlineanalyst on February 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Besides, why spend a lot of time focusing on her time as First Lady, when we have the still-relevant example of her incompetence as Secretary of State?

The appeal of Clinton has nothing to do with being SoS or Senator, but with being (a) female, and (b) the “co-president” of Bill Clinton, who, in spite of his flaws, presided over a time that was much sunnier than the last 13 years have been. While one can argue over the strategy of focusing on that time, it is precisely that time that forms the basis for her appeal. That and the lack of a Y chromosome.

calbear on February 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Past behavior, uncorrected or not recognized as improper, will simply be repeated.

A dog that bites will continue to bite if it gets rewarded for doing so. Hilliary being a bitch and cold blooded has gotten her everything EXCEPT the presidency. Why do we think she’ll change.

We live in a weird alternate universe now where logic and common sense and truth are forbidden.

The good news is we can now answer the question all people of good hearts asked about Germany and the German population during WWII and the camps. Didn’t we ask how could they not have known or do anything?

Here we are being lied to, through a compliant media, our only counter to it is the Internet. Had the Germans had that maybe they would have kicked their leaders out.

We have it, and we don’t. So what does that say about us as citizens?

archer52 on February 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM

What difference at this point does it make?

Always a good question where Hillary is concerned. But in the context of this story, the question that comes to mind is this, “Is anyone surprised?”

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM

…where’s the troll?

KOOLAID2 on February 10, 2014 at 10:19 AM

You took the words right out of my mouth…

Apparently they can wh*re up for just about every stupid progressive idea, but defending her is even too much for them.

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Apparently they can wh*re up for just about every stupid progressive idea, but defending her is even too much for them.

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Hillary isn’t enough of a lying nutball for them. They’re rooting for Warren.

fadetogray on February 10, 2014 at 11:32 AM

…where’s the troll?

KOOLAID2 on February 10, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Setting up the local office for the Hillary 2016 campaign.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 10, 2014 at 11:33 AM

The Clintons are just creepy.

gophergirl on February 10, 2014 at 9:39 AM

You clearly have some anger issues to work through.

HillAREwe on February 9, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Bill Clinton, who, in spite of his flaws, presided over a time that was much sunnier than the last 13 years have been.

calbear on February 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Actually, Clinton gave us the last 13 years, because he gave us the original 9/11 attacks, which bin Laden himself said were supposed to happen before he left office. The only reason they didn’t happen is because his terrorists told him they needed more time to train.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

We’re better off focusing on that more recent and vivid history than in revisiting the nostalgic past of the Democratic Party.

Why not do both? I get the point but character should always be an issue in an election. This new info is not a smoking gun and not particularly surprising. But it is further evidence of a shocking lack of character. An all-the-above approach to exposing Hillary for the unprincipled and incompetent charlatan she is will work just fine.

cicerone on February 10, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Bill Clinton, who, in spite of his flaws, presided over a time that was much sunnier than the last 13 years have been.

calbear on February 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Flaws?

Yeah, an accused rapist has flaws, true….

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Aha, a peek inside the pantsuit….Begala–keep whistling this is gonna be a l-o-n-g graveyard.

In the ‘mean’ time, maybe some REPORTER will audit those zillions of miles on Air Force jets for RESULTS.

OCULUS on February 10, 2014 at 12:01 PM

I read the pice Ed links to.
Can someone please share what they see as anything shocking or damaging here?

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I read the pice Ed links to.
Can someone please share what they see as anything shocking or damaging here?

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Who said shocking or damaging?

I just find a petty and vindictive individual here…

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM

I read the pice Ed links to.
Can someone please share what they see as anything shocking or damaging here?

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

You’re right. That Hillary lied through her pearly whites about the Balkans intervention isn’t the least bit shocking.

However, those tortured and murdered because she didn’t want to “compromise health-care reform” might find that a wee bit damaging – if they were around to speak for themselves.

Flora Duh on February 10, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I just find a petty and vindictive individual here…

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM

How so?
Because she reportedly called Lewinsky a ‘looney toon’?
I bet she thought of/called her worse than that.

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 1:03 PM

I read the pice Ed links to.

Can someone please share what they see as anything shocking or damaging here?

verbaloon on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Can you share with us what qualified Hillary to be the Junior Senator from New York?

No, I didn’t think so.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I just find a petty and vindictive individual here…

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM

How so?

Because she reportedly called Lewinsky a ‘looney toon’?
I bet she thought of/called her worse than that.

verbaloon on February 10, 2014 at 1:03 PM

In 1999, NOW politely asked the Clintons to refrain from their longtime “Sluts and Nuts” defense, which they used to explain away Bill’s serial adultery.

The Clintons ignored NOW’s request.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Can you share with us what qualified Hillary to be the Junior Senator from New York?

No, I didn’t think so.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I can actually.
55% of the vote.
That really shouldn’t be such a stickler for you.

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM

55% of the vote

That’s not a qualification, it’s a quantitative means to an end.

What accomplishments did she have for an informed electorate to have chosen her as their representative in the Senate?

What accomplishments does she have now for an informed electorate to choose her as President?

There are none–it is as obvious as the fact that we do not have an informed electorate.

Art Vandelay on February 10, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Hillary will rue the day she made that ignorant statement about “all those whiney women”. Liberals will forget or not even acknowledge her incompetence or her ruthlessness, but liberals and conservative women alike won’t like that statement, not one bit. I am anxious to hear what Hillary has to say about …will she deny it? Say it was a long time ago? Or ask what difference it makes now? Those are the choices, I’d bet my job it’s going to be one of those three, if she even thinks she needs to respond.

scalleywag on February 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Can you share with us what qualified Hillary to be the Junior Senator from New York?

No, I didn’t think so.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I can’t actually.

verbaloon on February 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Thanks for admitting it. You’re not the first, and certainly won’t be the last!

PS, you cited an election result. You didn’t cite what her qualifications were to get that election result, because you cannot.

Care to try again?

No, I didn’t think so.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Hillary Clinton has the identical experience for the job of President of the United States as one Barack Obama had…Absolutely NONE. Can anyone please cite just one ‘accomplishment’ this woman has had? What laws did she champion and author while a U.S. Senator? What did she accomplish as Secretary of State besides swilling a record amount of publicly purchased booze and fail to protect the lives of 4 brave Americans who were slaughtered in Benghazi Libya? To even consider this vicious, incompetent shrew for the office is outright insanity.

bimmcorp on February 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM

I just find a petty and vindictive individual here…

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM

How so?

Because she reportedly called Lewinsky a ‘looney toon’?
I bet she thought of/called her worse than that.

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 1:03 PM

No.

I find it in her treatment of Juanita Broderick.

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 1:41 PM

I read the pice Ed links to.
Can someone please share what they see as anything shocking or damaging here?

verbaluce on February 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Gee, now you’ve gone and hurt my feelings. You ignored my 12:58 PM response to your question, choosing instead to respond to Del at 1:04 PM.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn’t see my response, I’ll repeat it for you.

You’re right. That Hillary lied through her pearly whites about the Balkans intervention isn’t the least bit shocking.

However, those tortured and murdered because she didn’t want to “compromise health-care reform” might find that a wee bit damaging – if they were around to speak for themselves.

Your serve.

Flora Duh on February 10, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Your serve.

Flora Duh on February 10, 2014 at 1:48 PM

lol, don’t hold your breath! verbaloon “suddenly” had a “conference” to go to…

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Vince Foster could not be reached for comment.

Missilengr on February 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM

I think Hillary’s strengths and pull with female voters outrank her weaknesses. I think she’ll win 317 electoral votes and the Presidency if she runs.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Ruthless and ambitious I can live with. I work in Hollywood, after all.

Hell, I even admire those traits in people who at least have the common decency to be honest in their dealings (ie: ruthless honesty).

But when the ruthless and ambitious lack the courage of their convictions, you get what we have here…

A nakedly corrupt individual who will quite literally do or say anything to get what he or she wants, and will attempt to destroy you with increasing ferocity as her House of Bullsh*t comes under ever-increasing scrutiny.

You cannot hope to have discussions with such people, as they are operating from a position of inherent fallacy, and as such, never intended to listen to you in the first place.

I deal with people all the time who believe I’m wrong. The difference between them and the Democrat Party, however, is that only a Democrat is capable of truly destroying me, then convincing the world that I had it coming.

Even movie producers don’t do that.

Make of that what you will.

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM

I think Hillary’s strengths and pull with female voters outrank her weaknesses. I think she’ll win 317 electoral votes and the Presidency if she runs.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM

My wife respectfully requests that you stop thinking.

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Unfortunately younger voters will dismiss this as “before their time” and we constantly see how little the past matters to them. And the feminists will see her brass ones as positive qualities.

katiejane on February 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM

It depends. Young voters are hard to predict. You are probably right.

But after T.Kennedy died the MSM went into OVERDRIVE trying to make us celebrate TKs life like he was Ghandi, Lincoln and John Lennon all rolled into one.

But chappaquiddick was the trending word that month because young informed voters were interested and the internet made the history easy to find. TK ended up looking like Polanski, Allen and Condit all rolled into one. You notice the Dems never bring up the old lion of liberalism now.

The celebration of TKs life, after his death, was interrupted by the internet and youngsters who didn’t reflexively worship creepy old “lions” of liberalism.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM

But aAfter T.Kennedy died

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2014 at 2:22 PM

But chappaquiddick was the trending word that month because young informed voters were interested and the internet made the history easy to find. TK ended up looking like Polanski, Allen and Condit all rolled into one. You notice the Dems never bring up the old lion of liberalism now.

The celebration of TKs life, after his death, was interrupted by the internet and youngsters who didn’t reflexively worship creepy old “lions” of liberalism.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Define “irony:”

A self-involved bullsh*t artist takes credit for inventing the very tool by which self-involved bullsh*t artists will forever be exposed as such.

Information kills leftist utopian fantasies, and I think that’s just dandy.

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM

So what Hillary may have done 14 years ago is old news and doesn’t matter, but the hair cutting incident about Romney that happened more than 40 years ago was very relevant.

cat_owner on February 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM

So what Hillary may have done 14 years ago is old news and doesn’t matter, but the hair cutting incident about Romney that happened more than 40 years ago was very relevant.

cat_owner on February 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM

“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 2:31 PM

The problem with Hillary isn’t her cut-throated approach to politics. It’s that she’s incompetent. We’re better off focusing on that more recent and vivid history than in revisiting the nostalgic past of the Democratic Party.

What nonsense. Her incompetence is but one of many, many problems. Others include viciousness, corruption, demagoguery, thuggery, the tendency to lie constantly, and lest we forget, far-left politics.

Missy on February 10, 2014 at 2:34 PM

We’re better off focusing on that more recent and vivid history than in revisiting the nostalgic past of the Democratic Party.

BTW “old news” was spin invented by the Clintons as a way to get around constant scandal. Way to fall for it, Ed.

Missy on February 10, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I think

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Could have fooled me…

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 2:37 PM

What is her bodycount? You really want to give her the keys to the FEMA camps?

Murphy9 on February 10, 2014 at 3:05 PM

What is her bodycount? You really want to give her the keys to the FEMA camps?

Murphy9 on February 10, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Just imagine what the Clintons could do with all of those wonderful new NSA tools. No more smuggling Republicans’ FBI files into the White House, all she has to do is push a button and download them.

slickwillie2001 on February 10, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

With you as the judge?

Oh, please…….

itsspideyman on February 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Only my two cents–but I think the libertarian streak in Rand Paul is to his advantage. Age and a new way of thinking is in his favor and not in her favor. Actually, it is too early. I hope the other side does not fall into this “inevitable” candidate that may dog the dems.

jazzuscounty on February 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Well, I’m pretty sure her husband has already beaten her.

Numerous times, I might add.

But then again, I suppose that depends upon one’s definition of the term, “beat.”

Myself, I’m relying upon the more urban definition of the term, as in, “to get over on.”

I trust that answer doesn’t fit with your more nuanced perspective, but frankly, I’m not accustomed to spending my time defending my arguments against those whose arguments are already predicated on the idea that triangulation is, in and of itself, a valid strategy, and not the incessantly annoying tactic of moving the goal posts around until their opponent simply resigns.

You remind me of myself when, at the tender age of 12, I realized I could drive my little brother insane during games of Battleship by simply moving my ships around, thereby avoiding the need for honesty when he invariably scored a hit.

Yeah, Democrats. They’re like children, without the accountability of adults to tell them when they’re full of sh*t.

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Hillary Clinton has the identical experience for the job of President of the United States as one Barack Obama had…Absolutely NONE. Can anyone please cite just one ‘accomplishment’ this woman has had?

bimmcorp on February 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Well, I hear she can bring home the cookie dough, Fry it up in a pan…

Plus, haven’t you ever heard her belt a rendition of Tammy Wynette’s classic “Stand By Your Man (just for the power)”?

No? Well neither has anyone else, but that doesn’t matter!

What we have here is that we have to get us the first (sort-of) woman president. Just like when we HAD to get the first (sort-of) Black president.

I just don’t understand why all us sexist-racist citizens can’t understand that voting the first “anything” as president is more important than voting in a real leader.

ZeusGoose on February 10, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

You’re as reasonable as my butt smells like roses, the morning after eating a dinner of red herring.

Respectfully Yours,

Nobody

ZeusGoose on February 10, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I find that lately, I could care less what a cankled raisin thinks, thought, or will think in the future. What difference, at this point, does it make.

BelleStarre on February 10, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Pick fast and you cannot say neither!
Go!

Pickle on February 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 P

Someone beat her in 2008.

Speaking of reasonable and respectful, can you tell us what “qualified” Hillary to become the Junior US Senator from New York? Give it a shot.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Lots of red-herring and ad hominem attacks, but no
one has shown, electorally, who can beat Clinton. I’m looking for
reasonable and respectful responses, if anyone’s interested.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

My prediction is that the Democrat Party will beat the old bat. They will have second thoughts about bringing the Clintons back to the White House and will nominate someone else. Hillary’s already off to a bad start by taking all of this Wall Street money – Goldman Sachs, etc.

TarheelBen on February 10, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Diane Blair’s husband, Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death.

Just like old times! I know I can’t wait to get the full Clinton freak show back.

The problem with Hillary isn’t her cut-throated approach to politics. It’s that she’s incompetent. We’re better off focusing on that more recent and vivid history than in revisiting the nostalgic past of the Democratic Party.

She’s incompetent AND a nasty piece of work. I see absolutely no reason why we should only talk about one of her negatives.

She’s also a completely amoral liar, thin-skinned, and filled with rage.

But hey, let’s talk about her good points. She …

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I’m waiting for the ones that explain how she was able to get a $100,000 return on a $1,600 investment in pork futures . . . in one afternoon.

In this sh*tty Obama economy, we could all use some investing “skill” like Hillary’s. C’mon Hill, share the wealth with us less fortunate folks. Isn’t that what you “progressives” are all about?

AZCoyote on February 10, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Just for you.

Step 1: Be the Smartest Woman in the World

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Profit

Oh, and if you’re not really all that bright, and not the Smartest Woman in the World, have a crony do it all for you.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM

TheReasonableLiberal on February 10, 2014 at 3:55 PM

… can you tell us what “qualified” Hillary to become the Junior US Senator from New York? Give it a shot.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Looks like we’re both still waiting Del.

Flora Duh on February 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Ruthless and ambitious I can live with. I work in Hollywood, after all.

Hell, I even admire those traits in people who at least have the common decency to be honest in their dealings (ie: ruthless honesty).

But when the ruthless and ambitious lack the courage of their convictions, you get what we have here…

A nakedly corrupt individual who will quite literally do or say anything to get what he or she wants, and will attempt to destroy you with increasing ferocity as her House of Bullsh*t comes under ever-increasing scrutiny.

You cannot hope to have discussions with such people, as they are operating from a position of inherent fallacy, and as such, never intended to listen to you in the first place.

I deal with people all the time who believe I’m wrong. The difference between them and the Democrat Party, however, is that only a Democrat is capable of truly destroying me, then convincing the world that I had it coming.

Even movie producers don’t do that.

Make of that what you will.

Eric in Hollywood on February 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT POST.

ToddPA on February 10, 2014 at 8:24 PM

What difference does it make Hillary? The Clinton body count which is getting bigger as time goes on.

mixplix on February 10, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Yes, Barack Obama beat her. I voted for Obama as well.
in the 2016 primaries I plan on voting Clinton. I don’t see Paul, Cruz, Walker, or Ryan winning. Jeb Bush concerns me because Florida. But we can lose Florida and still win the election.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 11, 2014 at 12:25 AM

@Tarheel Ben. I don’t think Warren–the only one with a chance–will go against her.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 11, 2014 at 12:26 AM

Stop being the nice, squishy RINO, Ed. A leopard doesn’t change its spots and she is still the same mean, vindictive person that she used to be. Do not give her any benefit of the doubt since there is no doubt.

It is this same unwillingness to attack people on how evil they are which has helped to cost us the last two elections.

Theophile on February 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM

TarHeel Ben..could not agree more..raw naked(bleech..sorry!!!)power would make this cretin ever more ruthless..and then ,of course, we would have the old, you get, 2 for 1, with Billy Jeff hanging around..probably trying to run things..which could cause friction between POTUS and the First Husband..an interesting dynamic…if we survived it!!!!

Xango Annie on February 11, 2014 at 1:00 AM

Hillary HATES women.

John the Libertarian on February 11, 2014 at 1:55 AM

“Hillary papers” shows ruthless, ambitious First Lady….surprising exactly no one.

Nagan1 on February 11, 2014 at 2:35 AM

Yes, Barack Obama beat her. I voted for Obama as well.
in the 2016 primaries I plan on voting Clinton. I don’t see Paul, Cruz, Walker, or Ryan winning. Jeb Bush concerns me because Florida. But we can lose Florida and still win the election.

TheReasonableLiberal on February 11, 2014 at 12:25 AM

The only good thing I see in that is if Mrs. Clinton does get elected, she will be your president, too.

TimBuk3 on February 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Bill Clinton presided over a time that was set up by the prior Presidents. It isn’t like life resets when they take office. What you judge them by is what they leave behind.

His inability to chase down and kill Bin Laden set up 9/11, as surely as letting a serial rapist go will result in more victims.

He was a place holder taking advantage of the inertia left him by others. He was bright enough to keep Hillary in check and surround himself with smart operatives who realized “its the economy stupid”.

Obama is Clinton without the governor of caring whether or not he’s liked by other or by history. Clinton a narcissist with a small “n”. Obama a narcissist with a Huge N.

archer52 on February 11, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Funny, the only thing I clearly remember about this time is Hillary on TV talking about a vast right wing conspiracy. NOW said nothing. This is when the War on Women began. Some were to be believed, others scorned; all in the name of politics. Hillary and the feminists at the time decided what difference, at this point, does it make; power is more important.

BelleStarre on February 11, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2