I simply do not understand the fascination that people have with a person the caliber of Hitlery Clinton. Next to Obama, and with her husband now at least semi-sequestered in private life, she is probably the most blatantly dishonest person in American politics today. And she has no more love for this country than does Barry, with her idiotic "It Takes a Village" leftist mentality. And unlike Barry, Hillary has actually met Saul Alinsky and being a devoted discyple, she is very well-versed in his tactics. As well as, or maybe even better, than Barry himself. And yet, apparently, people just can't help but wonder what might happen if Hillary Clinton ran again for president. And how do I know this? Well, because we now have a new Time Magazine poll, probably not one of the more reliable polls one can look at, that shows that Clinton would easily defeat the major Republican candidates, were she somehow to become the 2012 Democratic nominee for president. But why?
According to this poll, Clinton leads Mitt Romney, 55% to 38%; Rick Perry, 58% to 32%; and Herman Cain, 56% to 34%, among likely voters in a general election. Time magazine notes, "The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters." Clinton's leads are bigger. Clinton, who we all well remember, lost the 2008 nomination fight to Barry "Almighty," says she has no interest in another White House run. But if there is one thing you can take to the bank when dealing with this congenital liar, and in this area she's right up there with Barry, it's that you can never believe a single word she that comes out of her mouth. And I doubt that, had it been she that was elected in 2008 and not he, we'd be in any different place than where it is that we currently find ourselves. Because socialism has been proven not to work no matter who administers it.
It's things like this recent poll that has people, primarily on the left, now saying that Hillary Clinton is emerging as the most formidable non-candidate candidate heading into the 2012 presidential election. But how can this be? In the past Clinton has made her feelings very clear regarding her rather socialist beliefs. For instance, then Senator, Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Or how about this little tidbit, "We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Then there's the clincher, "I certainly think the free-market has failed." Is someone who has such opinions really someone that we want as president? Isn't that what we presently have?
And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told BBC Persia as recently as this week, that the State Department has plans to set up a "virtual embassy" in Tehran by the end of the year to answer questions about how Iranians can study or travel in the United States. "I'm trying to increase the number of visas for students so that we have more Iranian students coming to study here. We’re trying to reach out to the Iranian people, and we’ve tried to reach out to the government, just not very successfully," she said in an interview with BBC Persia's Bahman Kalbasi. So it I understand this correctly, she is actually attempting to make it easier for individuals to come here from a country who views America as being the "Great Satan." Does that not sound like something that should be considered as being the height of irresponsibility? And people think she would make a good president? How nutty is that? Every time I hear this nonsense I find myself wondering just how much longer we're going to be able to hold this whole thing together.
No comments:
Post a Comment