Full Disclosure: I have met her both in her roles as FLOTUS and as SecState. I worked for her, and as a career Foreign Service professional did my best to implement her policies, such as they were. I would never in a million years vote for Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States. End of FD
It is time for Hillary Clinton to depart the political scene. She, her husband, and Princess Chelsea of Manhattan should go away, reappearing perhaps every twenty-five or thirty years in some "Where Are They Now?" piece.
Innocent until proven guilty, yes, yes, yes. That does not mean, however, that a reasonably intelligent and observant person and follower of things political and social cannot have a well-based opinion on Clinton. I, for one, am firmly convinced that Hillary Clinton is guilty of serious crimes of various types. There, furthermore, is no doubt, and no court verdict is needed, that she stands convicted of being a habitual liar. Her public record is strewn with her lies and embellishments. There, likewise, can be no doubt that she is severely ethically challenged, once again, as her public record shows. She is a woman of no achievements for America as Arkansas First Lady, as US First Lady, as Senator from New York, and, most infamously, as Secretary of State. As SecState, of course, she proved a monumental disaster, helping Obama make America and the West weaker and our enemies stronger. Throughout her adult life, she has surrounded herself with some of the most despicable toadies imaginable: people who care nothing about anything except how to use their Hillary connection to grab a slice of that money and power pie.
She is a divisive, hollow, incompetent, money-grubbing, political hack with nothing to offer this country. I am sure she can wrangle a pardon from His Most Exalted Emperor Barack to avoid prison time. She should use whatever influence she has with the Emperor to get such a deal and just go away.
Please, Mrs. Clinton, for once, do the decent thing: leave us be.
"She is a divisive, hollow, incompetent, money-grubbing, political hack with nothing to offer this country."ReplyDelete
I'm so old I remember when that would have been considered a bad thing.
"Decent thing" Hillary ?ReplyDelete
Not a *ucking chanceReplyDelete
It is not in the Clintons' nature to do the decent thing; assuming they recognise what you propose as the decent thing, which I personally doubt. They have always functioned on the basis that you just keep going until somebody stops you; and the reality is that it has almost never happened to them, and they have grown very rich and powerful in the process. Why would they change now?ReplyDelete
The saddest fact of all is that your call is to a different age, when most people were taught to, and largely did, think of and act for the good of others. No longer.
I'm glad you let us know how you really feel, Diplo. I was worried there for a while!ReplyDelete
Time to Do the Right Thing and Do Some Time!ReplyDelete
A lot of people still get the Wobbles with the thought of another Clinton (the truly evil one) occupying the White House but it will never happen. The closest Hillary will get will be looking through the railings on Pennsylvania Avenue at 'what might have been'. (Imagine her as a Bag Lady for extra enjoyment).ReplyDelete
The 'faceless men' of the Democratic Party were hoping for Clinton to surf into the Presidency on a wave of tofu-flavoured kumbaya but daily the response from the electorate has been "not in your lifetime jack" and that sentiment gets more strident by the day. There will be a very large anti-Democratic backlash at the 2016 poll, caused by the disdain for America and its' values shown daily by the current squatter in the White House. Americans can't vote HIM out but they can sure as hell punish any potential successor, and they will.
But then she would have to send all the money back. Ain't gonna happen. She can lose but she can't quit.ReplyDelete
Agree with anonymous> she will never, ever send all the money back so it has to be 'lose' and it will be. Damaged goods.ReplyDelete
I suddenly remembered the very beginning of her career (I was going to say "checkered career" but there is little good in it) when she was fired for unethical conduct:
I've read Democrat denials of this, but it looks fairly straightforward: there doesn't appear to be an honest corpuscle in this woman.
She represents the ethics of her constituents.ReplyDelete
"She is a divisive, hollow, incompetent, money-grubbing, political hack with nothing to offer this country." Well, at least you've read her autobiography.ReplyDelete
How can Hillary withdraw, when she has already peddled the influence of her presidential term in advance to who-knows-who in all the nastier corners of the globe?ReplyDelete
She will not go voluntarily. She will have to be pushed. And who is to push her? Obama? He might want to, but she is still his best chance of a Democratic successor.
The only flaw in your argument is that you need to be a decent person to recognize what the decent thing to do is.ReplyDelete
Yes, it's true; Hillary is just 'too big to jail', but one can still hope that she will, at least, not be rewarded for her perfidy, with the post of leader of the free world. That it's even a question at this point is a sad comment on the state of our republic.ReplyDelete
If HRC did step aside, there is no Democrat waiting in the wings. A couple of washed up old white socialists is about all. Her party has gone so far left, it precludes the voice of actual Democrats that believe in America. Instead they seem to resent the West winning the Cold War and want to "give it all back".ReplyDelete
Your description would apply to Sanders, not to O'Malley, Chaffee, or Webb. O'Malley and his camarilla are not the crime wave the Clintons are. He's just a standard-issue Democratic pol whose stock-in-trade is business as usual punctuated with the occasional gross failure (the Baltimore City Jail). The one thing you could say in his favor (comparing him to say, Christopher Dodd among the ghosts of presidential candidates past) is that he's not part of the Capitol Hill nexus and actually has sat a top a public bureaucracy FWIW.Delete
Chafee is the residuum of the liberal Republican dispensation once common and perhaps modal in New England. He's a legacy pol. He's also an example of a common type: someone who will never measure up to his father. John Chafee was an exemplar of patrician public service in many respects. At the outbreak of World War II, he dispensed with his schooling to enlist in the Marines. He was a decorated combat veteran, then marched through Harvard Law School after his discharge. The son, by contrast, bided his time in the latrine that is Brown University and then spent years in ordinary wage jobs before leveraging family connections to build a political career in Rhode Island. He was gifted his father's Senate seat after the man abruptly died, then spent several years making an irritant of himself to party whips (and earning the nickname 'missing Linc'). What you could say on his behalf is that he's worked at every level of government and had executive experience and did voluntarily leave Capitol Hill for a more demanding position.
As for James Webb, he's top-of-the-heather as far as Democratic pols go, though an odd and idiosyncratic figure.
Hi Art D....I should have mentioned Granny Warren- she of "Indian Country" origins. I think Chaffee is out of his mind with an identity problem and O'Malley has the millstone of Baltimore around his neck. Now Jim Webb, if he has been mentioned among Dem contenders, that is another story. I believe Webb would be about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool in a Democrat line up. Much too American.Delete
Fauxcahontas is not running and has been insistent on this point. Wesley Clark accepted a draft in 2003/04, but Clark's supporters began building that organization in April 2003. There's nothing right now. Since 1980, the nomination process in both parties has had a stable set of properties. No consequential candidate in that time has announced a candidacy later than about mid-November of the calendar year preceding the election. Those that do decide on late-stage candidacies have tended to be people with a political network in reserve and wide public recognition (along with a body of admirers in select subcultures). That would be Ronald Reagan and Jesse Jackson, characters who had much more stature (in the former case) and much more of a public profile (in the latter) than anyone running right now bar perhaps Trump and Hildebeast (and, emphatically, it is public recognition these two have, not stature). If Fauxcahontas is considering a run, she hasn't much time left under ordinary circumstances.Delete
Dear DiploMad, you are much too kind to her.ReplyDelete
Oh dear. Mr. Diplomad sir? Beware! The Red Queen of Chappaqua will be screaming "Off with his head!" if this comes to her attention. It's time for this Queen to head back into the looking glass, I think.ReplyDelete
What we've known for 17 years continues to be the case: the Clintons are pus. They are indicative of a disease infestation. So is Barack Obama. Once upon a time, the professional winnowing and peer review functions within the Democratic Party would have prevented them from achieving office and the matrix of public opinion would have rebelled against their candidacies. It still does against characters who offend feminist sensibilities (e.g. John Edwards). Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy were scoundrels, of course, but they required a courtesan press (Phillip Graham et al) to protect them. The Clintons did not need that. Public decadence sufficed. As for Obama, his career is testament to the power of branding (at least among the young).ReplyDelete
I only wonder how much Clinton Foundation "charity" money is going to be donated to the Hussein Obama "charity" drive to buy her out of trouble?ReplyDelete
Also wondering if there's any chance that the Liar-In-Chief will find that he too is enmeshed in this sordid nest of snakes, when emails surface showing (say) that Hussein Obama himself engaged in this traitorous sellout of America. It would be the most wonderful day of my life if the pair of them could enter Leavenworth on the very same historic day!
I believe that since Gitmo is being emptied of terrorists, it is only right to fill it with traitors...aka the Obama administration.Delete
I still think that Obama is maneuvering to put up Biden. The Obama's hate the Clintons and Biden is sure to provide cover for the Administration's crimes for 4 or 8 years more. Plenty of name recognition and an "every man" demeanor, even if he is an idiot.ReplyDelete
Agree. Looks like it'll be Biden-Warren. Bill has likely already bought a pardon for Hillary. The Clinton's aren't going away because it's the decent thing to do, they're being made to do it.Delete
One last prediction - one there's no political rationale, both the Clinton and Obama's will split up - there may not be formal divorces for financial reasons, but they will go their own ways.
I'm reading Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." Lots of interesting similarities with 1972 and 2016. The D-party though that Ed Muskie was the man but he fell flat when time came to actually woo the voters. McGovern was a come-from-behind closet socialist with good press and a bunch of naïve kids working the precincts. 1972 also had Ron Dellums talk about the coalition of Outs which put Obama over twice.ReplyDelete
Like 1972, 2016 will probably hear the "silent majority" speak loudly at the voting booth and put in a hard-talking Republican.
Now, who wants to speculate on just who Obama will pardon on his last days? What do you think is his market price for signing a pardon?
Best read I've had for nearly 8 years!!!!!!!ReplyDelete
very well said diplomad. i never got as close to clinton as you did but history tells us that we can never expect a clinton to do the decent thing. i still do expect the fbi and u.s. attorney general to do the professional thing. here is a list of possible offenses in numerical order. have i omitted anything?ReplyDelete
18 usc 371, conspiracy: fines, 5 years imprisonment.
18 usc 793, gathering, transmitting or losing defense information: fines, 10 years imprisonment.
18 usc 1001, false statements (whoever "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact"): fines, 5 years imprisonment.
18 usc 1924, unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material: fines, 1 year imprisonment.
18 usc 2071, concealment, removal, or mutilation of federal records (unclassified or classified): fines, 3 years imprisonment, bar from federal office.
It takes a village to raise a traitor, obama the village idiot and his team have a lot to answer for.ReplyDelete
This issue, Libya plus Iraq nuclear should make it clear to all voters, the obama admin will not uphold their sworn oaths to protect the USA.
Back when I was in AmConsul Guangzhou and the Clintons in the White House, our post reported on corvee, child labor, and use of prison labor for goods for export. We were told not to play up the last unless we could prove it in a court of law (as if the Chinese Communist government was going to allow us to go in and photograph--it was already badly embarrassed by what Harry Wu was doing). Indeed, in one of my trips away from post, I myself saw girls of about twelve working on the roads with their mothers and aunts (the men were making real omey in Hong Kong-owned factories). Under Boy Clinton, Beijing got permanent MFN status. The non-scandal of the monies his re-election campaign took from a number of Chinese businessmen and groups sometimes make me wonder if one of the US assets the Chinese now own is Shrillary Shrooooo (and her hubby).ReplyDelete
But my biggest source of unease about Shrillary Shrooo remains her statements that strongly suggest that she things First Amendment rights are too dangerous in the hands of hoi polloi. These include attacking backwoods preachers who burned the Qur'an (not something of which I really approve, but still covered by the Amendment) and trying to fix the blame for the Benghazi incident on an obscure video clip by an obscure immigrant.
Add to this her "loss" of the Whitewater records until the statute of limitations runs out. How convenient! [sarc]
I'm another one who would never support Shrillary Shrooooo for POTUS.
The Hildabeast is a symptom of the the decline of values of the electorate. How could such a grifter and Mr. Hildabeast carry on with such criminal behavior with nothing to accomplish for all these decades? We have serious homework to do to end this kind of destruction. If we do not do our homework, then our homework will do us.ReplyDelete
Admit it. Aside from the fact that she's incompetent, dishonest and corrupt, you'd be hard pressed to criticize her.ReplyDelete
It appears that EVERYTHING sent over SIPRNet or JWICS might have been compromised. No way to really know.ReplyDelete
Is there even a hint of a parallel in world history for such a stunning loss? Especially in the absence of losing a war.
Whats your take on this, Dip?ReplyDelete
Good stuff, Mr. D. I'd wondered how/why Ms. Perfect seemed so perfectly unaware that she could be disliked by so many among the great unwashed. But then I read where her inner circle of sycophantic, brown-nosing toadies, have assured her for years, that in terms of skill, love and purity, she's considered a notch or two above Mother Teresa, and nay, the virgin Mary herself. So, her fall from the heights should be spectacular, indeed!ReplyDelete
Anyone remember Vince Foster?ReplyDelete