Is Anybody Ready For Hillary?

[Webster]

Patriot Post: Is Anybody Ready For Hillary?

In perhaps the least surprising presidential campaign announcement of all time, Hillary Clinton declared her second bid for a second stint in the White House. It could be, however, that the only one “Ready for Hillary” is Hillary. Because it’s really her turn this time. Don’t screw it up, America.

Her quandary is simple: What do you do when you need to promote the notion that an individual is a “champion of the middle class” when that individual is the poster child of the celebrity governing elite? You build a marketing campaign around the mirage with a tightly controlled, choreographed public-relations script. And you delete a few thousand emails along the way.

Hillary’s Sunday afternoon video announcement was characteristic of a weak candidate with enough unclaimed baggage to open an outlet store. After all, Hillary’s known for three things, none of which are her personal achievements: Her marriage to Bill, her corrupt influence peddling and her personal email server.

To adequately manage expectations of a hyped Clinton candidate who possesses none of the charisma and friendly persona of her husband, Team Hillary will have to be run very much like Sunday’s rollout — heavily scripted with surrogates on attack against any who dare challenge the machine. But let’s face it: Hillary isn’t exactly facing stiff competition. Apologies to Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee, two white guys in a party running away from white guys.

In vivid contrast to the announcements of Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, which featured exuberant crowds, upbeat music and soaring vision, the Clinton campaign was a sterile marketed message, plain and simple. Through a 140-character social media platform, Twitter, and a two-minute video production, the message was, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” She followed with vignettes of “everyday Americans” who could do with a little help from Clinton.

One couple spoke of their move to access a better school. But that serves only to remind voters that Hillary is of the party opposed to school choice. If you can’t move, you’re stuck in a failing school. In another shot of “everyday Americans,” two men strolling hand-in-hand down a street were said to have upcoming wedding nuptials. There was no mention, however, whether Christian bakeries, photographers or wedding planners would be coerced into service for the wedding arrangements.

Hillary’s voiceover proclaimed that “when America’s families are strong, America is strong.” Yet her party has done so much to dismantle and undermine the family through redefining marriage and 50 years of destructive “Great Society” wealth redistribution. Her party ensures single moms receive their government check and cheaper ObamaCare insurance while married couples are left paying a tax penalty.

But, remember, when you can’t package your authentic stances in a positive manner, you market an image with the help of a supporting cast of characters known as the presstitutes to parrot your hypocritical and deceptive talking points. Hillary is both being marketed and protected by the presstitutes who ably provided cover for Barack Obama through the years. After all, this gaggle serves as the unpaid communications staff to all things DNC.

Hillary Clinton has been first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. Yet her campaign website looks more like a cross between a Lady’s Home Journal and an HGTV landing page — nice pictures with places to sign up and engage, but not a single issue stance.

Expect more of Sunday’s same for the next year and a half, as Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee for the intellectually bankrupt Democrat Party — a marketed mirage speaking to vacuous generalities.

Hillary will appear to be everywhere and accessible to all. In reality, she’ll be accessible only to her own champions and hiding from the unscripted world. But hey, if she wins, maybe she’ll return the silverware she stole when she left “dead broke” last time.

Thoughts?

 

[mrldii]

I am confident that if 51% of the U.S. population will vote for her "just because she's a woman", *like* 13.2% of the population voted for Obama "just because he's black" and he won - mathematics be damned!!! - simply "because he's black",

we'll have our first female POTUS.



The fact that there'll be back-to-back angst, despair, and butthurt for old white men to commiserate over - loudly, repeatedly, and incessantly - for another [at least] 4 years of being (b)locked out of the office, is simply the icing on an already perfectly-baked cake.

Gooooooooo, Hillary!!!

 

[Webster]

I am confident that if 51% of the U.S. population will vote for her "just because she's a woman", *like* 13.2% of the population voted for Obama "just because he's black" and he won - mathematics be damned!!! - simply "because he's black",

we'll have our first female POTUS.

Ahh, the old "demographics is destiny" canard...whatever happened to women voting as individuals and not as one amorphous bloc of voters? Or is that verboten now w/Hillary in the running?

 

[mrldii]

Ahh, the old "demographics is destiny" canard...whatever happened to women voting as individuals and not as one amorphous bloc of voters? Or is that verboten now w/Hillary in the running?

Just making sure that all the people (mostly men) who emphatically stated "the only reason Obama won is because all [13.2% of the U.S. population] of the blacks voted for him"

aren't proven wrong with their faultily applied *logic* and *reasoning* skills.




Besides, white men have been voting for someone who looks just like them for 55 presidential elections, now...

...we women can have just one, can't we...without having 'The Gender Card' pulled on us, doncha think?

 

[Dee]

I think I want her to win out of spite.

 

[Webster]

...we women can have just one, can't we...without having 'The Gender Card' pulled on us, doncha think?

Well, there's a few women that come to mind:
-NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte
-WA Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers
-NM Gov. Susana Martinez
-SC Gov. Nikki Haley

...*stops and thinks for a moment* ...oh, wait, they're Republicans, so they don't count, huh?

 

[mrldii]

Well, there's a few women that come to mind:
-NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte
-WA Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers
-NM Gov. Susana Martinez
-SC Gov. Nikki Haley

...*stops and thinks for a moment* ...oh, wait, they're Republicans, so they don't count, huh?

Depends on how far away from the party's line they're willing to take their OWN stand. For instance, if any one of them is going to preach "Abstinence Only Sex Education in Schools" while their unwed, knocked-up 17-YO daughter cheers her from behind her mom,


yeah...no, they WON'T get my vote. #1: They're a hypocrite; #2: They're an idiot.

I have no problems voting Republican; I voted Republican the majority of my 30 years being registered AS one. I stopped when my party let me know that because I wasn't willing to parrot 100% of the party's line back to them and to others, I wasn't *right* enough for them...


...so I *left*.

 

[Rooster]

What about Elizabeth Warren?

 

[mrldii]

If the citation's entries are true (I hate, hate, HATE using wikipedia as a source, but sometimes it can be the most cut-and-dried and accessible), I can get on board with many of her stances; the ones I disagree with are not nearly as important as those near-and-dear to me where I DO agree with her.

I doubt she'll run opposite Hillary...but she MAY be being groomed for after Hillary. Personally, between the two, I'd pick Ms. Warren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren

 

[Rooster]

Personally, between the two, I'd pick Ms. Warren.

Well, we certainly agree on that.

 

[mrldii]

Well, we certainly agree on that.

*CRAP*

Does that mean that you're not always *right*...or that I'm not *all wrong*?!?

 

[Sariki]

I am simply posting here for two reason:
1. Meh I'm on the fence and don't care either way. There is already a smear campaign out and she just announced kinda want her to win simply because everyone is annoying and complaining already haha.
2. VOTE RALPH NATER!!!!!!!!!

Ahh I feel better now.

 

[Rooster]

Ralph!

 

[Rooster]

*CRAP*

Does that mean that you're not always *right*...or that I'm not *all wrong*?!?

Well, I am certainly not always right, and I have proved that on many occasions!

But I think all it really means is that we agreed on something...

And it wasn't all that difficult, was it?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So this is the people America has become. People who do not care she is one of the biggest criminals in Washington for the 90s and 2000s. A woman who left real heroes die in Benghazi and covered it up with more lies. Broke more federal laws recently while at the same time announcing her campaign to run for president. The only place that old nasty hag should be driving to across the country is a federal penitentiary.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Meet the real Old Hag.

 

[mrldii]

So this is the people America has become. People who do not care she is one of the biggest criminals in Washington for the 90s and 2000s. A woman who left real heroes die in Benghazi and covered it up with more lies. Broke more federal laws recently while at the same time announcing her campaign to run for president. The only place that old nasty hag should be driving to across the country is a federal penitentiary.

As a nation, we have not cared about the criminal element in our White House for centuries; I do not see why, with a female POTUS-candidate, the standards should suddenly be higher than they have been for all her male predecessors

and her male cohorts.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

As a nation, we have not cared about the criminal element in our White House for centuries; I do not see why, with a female POTUS-candidate, the standards should suddenly be higher than they have been for all her male predecessors

and her male cohorts.

I would disagree strongly we do not care about the criminal element in the White House. Just we the people all to often are fooled to easily who the actual person is wanting to be president. It's just more recently with this new generation a standard of morals is getting tossed aside.

 

[mrldii]

Yes, this New Generation has certainly discovered/invented throwing morals aside, for the first time in U.S. history, which is leading us to hell in a handbasket...




...to hell with the Free-Love-In 60s, the Roarin' 20s, and the successful - and numerous! - brothels during the mid-19th century Gold Rush.




Just throwin' a few facts into it for shits and giggles, as I am wont to do.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Yes, this New Generation has certainly discovered/invented throwing morals aside, for the first time in U.S. history, which is leading us to hell in a handbasket...




...to hell with the Free-Love-In 60s, the Roarin' 20s, and the successful - and numerous! - brothels during the mid-19th century Gold Rush.




Just throwin' a few facts into it for shits and giggles, as I am wont to do.

Yes even during those times we had a much higher standard of a generation with a standard of morals of right and wrong, independent thinking, basic knowledge of world events. So don't know what facts you put out there.

And comparing a much smaller percentage from the 20s and 60s of what the younger generation did then compared to the sick and twisted things they do now (see spring break for examples) then you could not be more wrong. Study after study shows this generation in higher numbers then ever before is the worst to come out.