…is George Costanza:
She had so much promise. She’s rich. She always knows when someone is uncomfortable at a fundraising gala. But it’s just not working. Every decision she’s ever made in her entire life has been wrong.
She would be an awful president. Only marginally better than Obama.
Whoever runs against her in a primary or general election should replay her comments about being poor leaving the White House and purchasing a home in Chappaqua, NY. There’s many ways in which Hillary Clinton is out of touch with the average American, but after living the majority of her adult life in mansions provided by taxpayers, that claim of being poor, just like average Americans, and trying to figure out how to buy a multi-million dollar home and put her daughter through an elite university (in terms of cost) is quintessential.
Remember that ad campaign that started during last year’s Super Bowl and ran for a few months? It featured these “mature” women in gauzy bedroom clothes (i.e. full gauze, maybe post-change-of-life full-figure bare shoulders) offering some sultry gestures and looks?
Not sure what the product was, but it is a drug, and I believe it is the female counterpart to the drug ad “She’s still the one for you . . . but your . . . dysfunction could be a matter of blood flow!” Again, I am not sure, I am afraid to bring this up with any of the women I know. I brought this up with “the guys” at Model Train Club, and none of them wanted to talk about it.
C’mon people, no one wants to talk about this, but you have all seen those TV ads I am talking about, every last one of you.
We just need to do a campaign commercial for our favorite Sec Def (no, no, not Dr. Condoleeza Rice, most of us around here really do have a crush on her).
You know what I am talking about, frumpy Secretary Clinton in her School Marm (lack of ) makeup and (bad) hair, dressed in the gauzy (full length) night gown, lounging (by herself) on a bed, while the script intones, “Running for president does not need to be painful . . . so why wait?”
She would be far worse then Obama. She just doesn’t have the political skills. Remember when Obama slipped the knife in, put her in her place? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7930047.stm
I don’t know. Making $100,000 on cattle futures over two years seems a pretty good decision on Clinton’s part as was sticking by Bill Clinton.
A sufficiently ruthless opponent (eitehr Democrat or Republican) should be able to destroy the campaing of The Lioness of Tusla just by playing the tape where she claims she was braving sniper fire in Tusla….
A proven lie and if you look at her body language, face and eyes it’s classic liar stuff.
There are several other proven lies that can be displayed.
At the end of the REpublican commercial you simply say:
“Haven’t you had enough of fakes, liars, and dissemblers?”
I wonder if she celebrates Festivus. I hope so. I have a lot of grievances I’d like to air . . .
Only marginally better than Obama.
I predict that if Clinton is elected, Republicans and Rand too will start comparing her unfavorably to her predecessor, the same way bitter opponents of Bill Clinton came to see him as comparatively more reasonable once Obama was in office. Similarly, if a Republican is elected in 2016 it’s unlikely that he or she will be as bad a president as George W. Bush, but Democrats will start talking about how even Bush was better than this awful new president. The opponent of the moment always seems worse than the one that’s safely out of office.
Bill Clinton did not change my mind that Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. That took Obama.