Hillary! 2016: The Next Democrat Incompetent or Why Two Tits and a Twat Couldn’t Overcome Barack the Magic Negro in 2008

If there is one thing that separates liberals/”progressives” from conservatives/classic liberals it is the liberal/”progressive” devotion to symbolism.

Based on his performance to date, it seems clear that Barack Obama was elected because he was a symbol, an expression of reality instead of something that was truly real. In actuality, he was guy inexperienced in just about everything meaningful to running the country at the national level and only stumbles in the direction that the true left in America want him to go. They are more than willing to keep their mouths shut about his maintenance of Bush era terror policies and the expansion of domestic spying – because they just know that right wing terror is the real danger and if they cast a big enough net, they will catch some, right?

The same people who screamed about Bush’s use of “signing statements” are perfectly cool with Obama using administrative law (regulations) and the constitutionally dubious practice of issuing executive orders to bypass Congress on just about any pet issue and are largely quiet now. There are a few peeps from people like Dennis “The Menace” Kucinich but the endless revolving door of leftist handwringing talking heads getting airtime during Bush’s terms are missing now in the newspapers, on CNN, the Alphabet Networks and MSNBC. It says something when lefties like Kucinich can only get covered at places like the Washington Examiner, Fox News and on right leaning blogs like Real Clear Politics.

We have as the current President, a lightly regarded Illinois state Senator, who once read a teleprompter really, really well at the Democratic convention, a guy won his Senate election after sealed divorce documents of his Republican opponent were somehow mysteriously released and after getting elected, logged a grand total of 304 days in the US Senate before announcing his run for president – the number of 143 days was floated by a blogger in May of 2008 was helpfully corrected by a member of the palace guard, FactCheck.org – as if somehow 10 months was much more of a qualification for the Presidency than 4.7 months was.

If the “white establishment” is what is keeping the black man down, they sure missed the boat here…and if blacks believe this, then they would really have to question why Obama was “allowed” to become the President of the United States instead of having a bit part in The Oprah’s movie, ” Lee Daniel’s The Butler“.

The raw truth is that in American history, there have existed no greater racists than Democrats. They have a long and storied history of brutal actions resting on nothing but hatred based on race. While The Oprah invoked Emmett Till this past week as an example of racism in America, it was good Democrats who tortured, killed and dumped Till’s body in the Tallahatchie River in Mississippi.

How would one hide the racism that pervades one’s political party?

You engineer the election of a symbol to negate the criticism.

Webster defines “symbolism” as:

The art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations.

In the prologue to the second of his autobiographies, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said:

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Is there any better definition of symbolism in action than that?

Now that they have ticked off the “black” box to innoculate themselves from race based criticism from the black community, they are after the next box – a woman. Where could they find a woman with the right combination of a lust for power who is willing to allow herself to be exploited for the good of the “progressive” cause?

Hillary!

But what about the sexism? Wasn’t sexism the downfall of Hillary! in 2008? Nah – blackness trumped her mammary/vagina combination. Two tits and a twat couldn’t overcome Barack the Magic Negro (that’s the LA Times talking, not Rush Limbaugh).

It is no secret that sexism is rampant in the Democrat Party as wellBill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Carlos Danger (aka Anthony Weiner) and San Diego Mayor and former Congressman Bob Filner are perfect examples. Democrats don’t care about the issues of blacks or women – only in the advancement of the Democrat agenda of converting America into a “progressive” socialist Utopia. All must be given for the cause – so what if we know that women are getting molested? These men were all capable of advancing that agenda, so the National Organization for Women and other feminist organizations were rendered mute as each were revealed to be serial offenders – and yet they seem perfectly able to find their voices when women like Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter or Condoleezza Rice deign to speak.

Like I said – feminism is nothing but cultural Marxism with breasts.

Hillary! refers to herself as a “modern progressive” but many true red diaper doper babies like Ralph Nader would beg to differ:

“Hillary Clinton, who started out as a progressive out of Yale Law School and Wellesley, she’s become almost the poster child for the military-industrial complex. She hugs Kissinger. She hobnobs with Bob Rubin and the Wall Street crowd,” Nader said. “It’s almost a caricature.”

What has Hillary done?

Let’s have a look at the career of Hillary Clinton and why she is qualified to be our president:

She was fired from the Watergate Committee for fraud and ethics violations:

‘A lifelong Democrat, Mr. Zeifman supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.’

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.’

Just as she taught her acolyte, Huma Abedin to do, Hillary hitched her wagon to a powerful man and rising star in Democratic politics – Hillary to serial philanderer, William Jefferson Clinton. Not a very feminist thing to do, was it?

She was embroiled in scandals over her work at the Rose Law firm, extraordinary investment returns in cattle futures, Travelgate and rumors of a role in the death of Vince Foster.

She failed at HillaryCare.

She was elected to the US Senate from New York after carpet bagging her way in, serving one and a half terms, running for the Democratic nomination and then leaving to become Secretary of State.

Now even the NYT can’t even ignore what it means to be a post electoral Clinton – via Breitbart’s Big Government:

On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a blistering investigative report revealing the Clinton Foundation as a nonprofit rife with crony capitalist conflicts of interest and multi-million dollar deficits despite raking in at least $492 million from 1997 to 2007.

In 2007 and 2008, the Clinton Foundation, which is soon to be renamed the “Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” ran a $40 million deficit. Last year, it ran a deficit of over $8 million despite the Foundation and two subsidiaries generating $214 million in revenues.

Hillary Clinton plans to relocate her offices to the Foundation’s Manhattan headquarters in the weeks to come. Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Clinton planned to use the Foundation as a “launching pad into 2016,” a reference to her potential presidential run.

The nexus between Clinton Foundation donors, foreign governments, and corporate interests has long been a concern to government watchdog groups. As of 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, and other foreign governments—the very governments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually negotiated with. Wealthy foreign investors, like Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid and Indian politician Amar Singh gave at least $1 million each.

Previous news accounts have chronicled how Clinton Foundation donors have profited. In 2004, New York developer Robert Congel donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Hillary Clinton reportedly helped the developer bag millions in federal assistance for his mall project. Congel and Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson denied any crony pay-to-play connection.

The New York Times says the cronyism and conflicts have reached critical mass. “The Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest,” reports the Times. “It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.”

As Secretary of State, she was a dismal failure – it is as almost as if this position was nothing but a consolation prize for losing the Democrat presidential nomination and a resume enhancer for her. She had no real accomplishments and her failures ranged from the idiotic “red button reset” with Russia fiasco at the start to the clear failures in Benghazi at the end. Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post says:

The Obama administration has managed to alienate virtually everyone in Egypt. The ousted Islamists hate us — because we are infidels and because they think we engineered their removal. And the secular opposition hates us for standing with the Islamists.

Thanks, Hillary!

A letter to the editor of the Denver Post by L.W. Hunley of Grand Junction, Colorado pretty much summed it up:

On Monday The Denver Post printed an article from The Washington Post about Hillary Clinton. The subtitle read: “Since a successful tour as secretary of state …” However, nowhere in the article was there any mention of any major accomplishments during her tenure.

This week Clinton will also be awarded the highest honor from the American Bar Association even though she has not practiced law in more than 20 years.

He then asked:

Can the Nobel Peace Prize be far behind?

Probably not – especially since the Drone King got his “Peace Prize”, not for what he had done but for his promise. He got it for:

  • “… [setting] a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue.” – Angela Merkel
  • “…his willingness to listen and negotiate, as well as for his positions on climate change and nuclear disarmament.” – the New York Times
  • …an endorsement of Mr. Obama’s goal of achieving Middle East peace. “Of course, this puts pressure on Obama, the world expects that he will also achieve something.” – 2008 Nobel laureate, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland.
  • …the committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue.

Remember that this award came a scant 9 months after he was inaugurated.

What is Hillary!’s main qualification?

Well, damn it, you guys…she has a vagina! Can’t you see the brilliant logic?

Allahpundit at HotAir has a brilliant takedown of Kathleen Parker’s “Hillary! might just save the world because, you know…vagina!” argument:

She changed the world for women “as never before” by uttering a bromide about women’s rights at the UN, then continued the work of other secretaries of state in championing women’s rights. And she’s got a great resume. That’s the case for Hillary, world savior, such as it is. What you’re seeing in columns like this, and in the sort of messianism that greeted O in 2008, is identity not only as a substitute for major career achievements but as something actually superior to them. We don’t need someone with a track record of significant civic, business, or military accomplishments; we need someone who, by virtue of the historic nature of their candidacy and their own iconic persona, will somehow save the world purely by attaining power. It was unconvincing five years ago. It’s less convincing now.

Hillary is no different than President Barry Soetoro. She is just the next incompetent Democrat in a line of affirmative action candidates, each as blank as the next, so emamoured by power that they are willing to be used to destroy the country as long as they get it.

11 thoughts on “Hillary! 2016: The Next Democrat Incompetent or Why Two Tits and a Twat Couldn’t Overcome Barack the Magic Negro in 2008

  1. ” . . . it seems clear that Barack Obama was elected because he was a symbol, an expression of reality instead of something that was truly real. In actuality, he was guy inexperienced in just about everything meaningful to running the country at the national level and only stumbles in the direction that the true left in America want him to go.”

    I said that in the beginning. In 2008 the Dems did not have a better candidate, they had a better strategy. Their candidate was a freshman Senator who’s only experience was “community organizing”. He had (and has) not a clue about what he was to do other than be a puppet to the Dem establishment.

    “Hillary is no different than President Barry Soetoro. She is just the next incompetent Democrat in a line of affirmative action candidates, each as blank as the next, so enamored by power that they are willing to be used to destroy the country as long as they get it.”

    Agreed, except with this one, you can throw in crook/liar/cheat as well.

  2. Utah,
    Thank you for the factual, informative post. My thoughts EXACTLY about Hillary and Obama.

    Request your permission, with attribution to you and The RNL, to print and distribute your post, as written, to all my Reagan Capitalist Conservative friends.
    EdwardS

    • EdwardS – it is free for the taking…take anything you want here as long as you give proper credit and linkage back to it if you can…

    • Edward, everyone should be reading M. While I have shameslessly stolen his material (because I have a vagina) I do believe he would be more than happy to share everything he’s written. (PS~ He’s rather good at fiction if you’ve got an itch.)

  3. I must say that what disturbs me about this piece is that it diminishes the chances of a woman being able to see the light of day in a political sense. It is extremely frustrating being represented by women who don’t have balls. For intance, had I been Sec. of State and received a call that Benghazi was in trouble; let’s just say the countrymen in Benghazi would’ve been in trouble. (Yeah, fellas, yer eatin Muslim balls tonight and screwin pistols up yer ass…sweet dreams of virgins……lotsa luck.)

    It is quite the enigma, is it not? I mean…..men have a problem with a queen.

    • Condi Rice WOULD NOT have had any problem dealing with BenGhazi…..she would have been stateman like and still retained her femininity !

  4. sub-sub titled TWO NUTS AND A BLOW-HOLE DON’T MAKE A PUNDIT
    Utah, it was ignorant and mean Mississippi rednecks that tortured and killed Emmett Till. If you are going to smear by association, make it a real association, and accept the fact that you have more in common with Emmett’s killers than they do with Democrats in general.
    Or, you could admit that the tenuous association of Democrats with a grisly murder was a low blow, even for you.

  5. “Hillary! refers to herself as a “modern progressive” but many true red diaper doper babies like Ralph Nader would beg to differ:

    “Hillary Clinton, who started out as a progressive out of Yale Law School and Wellesley, she’s become almost the poster child for the military-industrial complex. She hugs Kissinger. She hobnobs with Bob Rubin and the Wall Street crowd,” Nader said. “It’s almost a caricature.”

    Nader is being a ‘good’ Progressive here: he is re-writing history. BOTH the Left and Right sides of the Progressive movement were militaristic — and they remain so, today. Which means Nader is also exhibiting another common characteristic of the American Progressive: ignoring objective reality.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.