The Egotistical Conciet Of Hillary Clinton

There are many in the US, including some Sparrow Chat readers, who support Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination, but her campaign has not proved the runaway success it was once anticipated to be. Much of her persuasion lies in the experience she holds over her major competitor. Or, at least, that’s what she’d have us believe.

In fact, there is little difference between Obama and Clinton when one considers working political experience. Clinton expands her resume by quoting the time she previously spent in the White House. Being First Lady, however, is hardly a suitable curriculum vitae for president, and cannot remotely be considered serious ‘political experience’.

For sure, she gained a certain involvement during her time as First Lady – by access to the Washington elite. The US Establishment welcomes First Ladies with open arms. Hillary Clinton wooed the Washington Establishment for eight years while her husband was president. She became a part of it, and still is.

That fact was displayed recently in the arrogant and conceited suggestion, by both her and Bill Clinton, that Barack Obama agree to become her running mate for Vice President; that he step aside and allow her to be nominated.

The Washington Establishment is awash with arrogance and conceit. Little wonder, then, she misjudged the character of an outsider.

Barack Obama is not part of that elite – at least, not yet. Neither is he prepared to give up his lead in the campaign in order to secure Clinton’s nomination.

It was yet another bad miscalculation by Hillary Clinton; one of a long list that have left her struggling to stay in the running against Obama. Experience may, in her eyes, be an important criteria for choosing the next US president, but a plethora of mistakes, miscalculations, and bad judgments belie her claims to be the right choice.

Frankly, I have no doubt who I’d rather have answering the White House telephone at 3.00am in the morning.

Filed under:

Please follow and like us:

7 Replies to “The Egotistical Conciet Of Hillary Clinton”

  1. Here I go again, RJ – putting out fires – or trying to 😉

    “Arrogant, conceited” you say. As I read and remember the reports, the thrust of what Bill Clinton has said is that a combined ticket would be unstoppable. He would obviously suggest it the Clinton/Obama way around – he’d be daft not to, would he not? This is a contest, a fight, a competition.

    I watched part of one of Bill’s recent speeches. He said that the USA should and probably will in future have an African American president, an Asian president, a Latino president, and a Native American president, and, of course a woman president. That’s not relevant to your points, but I thought it was a good thing for him to have said.

    Talking of arrogance, I think Obama shows plenty of evidence of this too, in his body language and in his tone. Anybody who applies for the job of President of the USA is by default arrogant and conceited (not to mention a little demented!)

  2. Your biggest fans disagree with you, RJA :>)

    I would strongly refute her lack of experience in the White House. I’m sure that Bill discussed most of his strategies and decisions with her. At the time I remember reporters saying that she had more brain power which subsequently (and long before her presidential run) Bill agreed with.
    I still have enormous trouble with the free pass Obama has been given.
    I quote from The Cagle Post:

    “Hillary Clinton: Undead

    Raging Moderate,

    Brazenly defying logic, momentum, expectations, poll numbers, gravity, and the old wives advice not to venture into the water within an hour of eating, Hillary Clinton unaccountably still lives. She’s like one of those zombies you shoot and stab and knock upside the head with a nail-studded two-by-four dipped in some rare, poisonous South American giant-toad secretion. And she just keeps coming at you. Slowly she turns. Inch by inch. Step by step. I don’t know if she sold her soul to the devil or Bill had unnatural congress with a Voodoo Queen or the voters in Texas and Ohio were subjected to subliminal messages in their cereal ads or what. Perhaps she’s just plucky.

    I do know this must be frustrating as hell for Barack Obama, who has to be imploring the gods (none Muslim, as far as I know) for a hint of exactly what it’s going to take to put this soulless banshee permanently down. Decapitation, a silver bullet in the ear or wooden stake through the heart; but even then he’d best be advised not to turn his back on the remains. Because every time he straightens up, brushes off and looks directly into the camera reaching out to take the Democratic damsel triumphantly in his arms, Hillary’s
    face pops up behind him with an evil gleam in her eye and some superdelgate entrails hanging out of her mouth, stretching out both hands for his neck. She walks the earth as one of the undead.

    To add insult to injury, in her morning-show victory tour the day after convincing the electorate in both must-win states that she was most ready to straddle the fence on Day One, the junior senator from New York strongly hinted she’d be willing to share the ticket with the junior senator from Illinois. Of course who would be on top is still up for debate. But isn’t that pretty much true in every relationship? And to say that each side believes their candidate deserves to head the ticket is surprising in the same way as discovering vampires think daytime is overrated.

    Her musing stirred elements of the Democratic base into a frothing mob brandishing torches and pitchforks, screaming for the realization of what they breathlessly refer to as the Dream Ticket. And it’s called that because if you even for a minute think that America would elect both a black man and a woman at the same time, you are too deep in the throes of REM slumber to think straight, and are just begging for 30,000 volts applied to the bolts on the side of your neck.”

    Can you imagine these horrific statements about Obama? And this is just one small sampling of what is written about her out there.


  3. Having folowed this election campaign quite closely i still think out of the two just maybe that old hilary may be the one to take the nomination. Whether that will ultimately be a good thing we can only wait and see. I read today in the french papers that Obama tok another state and the french aren’t so sure that it is a good thing if he won.( i can only say “local” french as we don’t get national papers here!)

  4. I’ve got your back RJ :). If they can’t see it, well, US has already been imploding so I suppose it will just happen faster and don’t expect any tears from me.

  5. Peasant – welcome back, old friend. Give my regards to la belle France. I agree with you about Hillary taking the nomination. Personally, I believe it will be a bad thing for America and the world, but American politics are sufficiently corrupt to ensure a)an ‘Establishment’ candidate takes the victory, and b)the Democrat who wins the nomination is the one the Republican contender can most easily beat. That way, Washington hedges its bets nicely. Of course, I could be wrong, and this time I sincerely hope I am.

    NYM – I knew I could count on your support, Mama, against these bullying British and Canadian wenches 😉

    I look at this way: President Obama = a fine claret; President Clinton II = a rather cheap and wayward Riesling from the east slope of the vineyard, acidic, with just too much tannin; President McCain = recycled urine.

    Viewed that way, Clinton doesn’t seem quite so bad by comparison.

    Flimsy – I thought it was Jon Stewart, but you may well be right. Whoever it was, they were.

Comments are closed.