Kevin: “Being obsessed with the Clintons is one thing but I simply can’t understand how anyone that values basic honesty could vote for her.”

This speaks for itself, I suppose, says the big fan of Weekly World Ne… I mean WorldNetDaily.

There me be something to this Obi Wan Kenobi-esque observation.

With Hillary (or Bill), it is like having a piano in the white house, and everyt ime you vote, or answer a poll, or buy a certain type of product, you are sort of hitting one of the keys on that piano. We are all making music.

If “we all” can play a good tune together, then I suppose it could work.

Camille Paglia January 2008

…

Hillary’s willingness to tolerate Bill’s compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause — which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

…

It’s no coincidence that Hillary’s staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary’s rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern.

…

Hillary’s disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem’s fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

…

How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military — crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary’s default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way.

…

The Clintons live to campaign. It’s what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I’m skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?

…

But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark (“Cue the tears!”).

Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary’s real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House?

Day one will just be more of the same.

More disturbing when I see your take on Fred Thompson….

Of course, Fred Thompson would wipe the floor with either of them (not that floors dare to get dirty around Fred Thompson!).

Of course I am biased and somewhat partisan but I have to admit that the current string of pathological liars that Democrats continue to throw into the national election is somewhat bemusing to me. You would think they would have learned after Al Gore claimed to have been the model for the book “Love Story” among a dozen other self-aggrandizing whoppers.

But no, then they had to go with John “I meet with world leaders all the time… in New York City restaurants” and “the memory of being in Cambodia on Christmas day in 1968 is seared… SEARED into my memory” Kerry.

Hillary seems far more honest than either of those losers to me.

(Editors note: “losers” is a historically and factually accurate description of John Kerry and Al Gore.)

I think that, for Hillary, her answer depends upon what the poll numbers say.

I understand that she was once asked if she had had any original thoughts of her own, and she answered that she’d have to check with her people and get back to the reporter on that.