Hillary for President? Really?


There’s a lot of blather going the rounds of the liberal echo chamber that goes something like “It’s about time we had a woman president.”  Is it really?

Five years ago the mantra went “It’s about time we had a black president.”  Look how well that’s worked out for us, as individuals and as a nation.

Do women really believe that having a female president will help them get a job where they personally will get both respect as well as a respectable income level?  Really?

Women should realize that blacks, men and women both, thought the same thing when Barack Obama was elected.  Yet after five years of an Obama presidency, black unemployment is significantly higher than white unemployment.  You can follow most of the relevant (and stupefying) statistics at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm.

And whining “But we’ve never had a female president!” is so pathetically weak as to insult the intelligence of anyone who listens to such drivel.  We’ve never had a left-handed, transvestite periodontist from Cleveland as a president either.  Does that trait alone make such an individual qualified in any way to lead the nation?

Saying that it’s Hillary’s “turn” is insulting to her (which bothers me not a bit), as well as to all women and the vast majority of men.

How can that be, you ask?

Well, it implies that Hillary could never be elected based simply on her own merits, experience and accomplishments, so she must be elected by ignoring all that and focusing on what bathroom she uses.

All other women should feel insulted to be told that the only reason to elect one of their own is that there is not another lone woman in America who would qualify for the position, because they are either utterly incapable of independent decision making, or have a history of making terrible decisions (with such decisions exemplified by a decision NOT to abort a child, as we saw done to Sarah Palin).  Yeah, I think that should really make American women feel really, really good about themselves and energize them to run right out and vote for Hillary.

Finally, such a claim implies that every American male (regardless of their skills, education, experience, demonstrations of leadership and competence) should be disqualified from even being considered for the presidency because they are guilty of the crime of hiding trace amounts of testosterone within their bodies.

If former Senator and former Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton wants to run for the Presidency, I’m certainly not going to stand in her way.  OK, I’ll admit that’s a lie, but I was trying to sound polite. But if her only claim to the Oval Office is that she has a vagina, only a fool would be unable to see another Barack Obama-style presidency coming toward us like a freight train.

Of course, her campaign slogan might ignore her gender altogether and simply declare “At this point, what difference does it make?”  If she is nominated, and then elected, the nation will surely find out to its regret just how much a difference it makes.

Advertisements

About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in 2014 election, Abortion, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Jobs, Observing Our Culture, Political Doubletalk, Politics, Racism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hillary for President? Really?

  1. J-M says:

    I thought this was a free country…how can it be anybody’s “turn”. She had her “turn” last time out and she lost to the token. Are the democrats going to be so stupid as to run the LOSER of the last primary again, a la Romney? Surely you jest.

    PS When do I get my “turn” to be president? I want my turn! waah, waah, waah, etc.

    • Jim Yardley says:

      Both parties are guilty of this “my turn” business. So you really think John McCain was absolutely the best candidate that the Republicans could find? Really? Or Bob Dole? Or even Mitt Romney, for that matter.
      Would they have been better presidents? More than likely, yes. But were they good enough as candidates? Obviously not.
      Hillary has a lot of IOUs among Democrat core constituencies, particularly activist feminists, and she’s an old school political horse trader. She understands how the game is played, and that’s exactly what she’s doing.
      Ever since the Progressives took over the Democrat Party, competence, love of country and ability to govern (not rule) have been viewed as irrelevant by the Democrats. All they care about is winning, and once they’ve won, they have no idea what exactly they should do, other than of course, ramming their Progressive (also called Marxist in some circles) agenda down the collective throats of America.

  2. Pete Morin says:

    I recommend the following for President of the United States( mostly because we’ve never had one before).

    A Transvestite( although J. Edgar would have qualified)

    An openly gay individual( although James Buchanan might have qualified)

    A vertically challenged individual( LaGuardia may have qualified)

    A transgender individual( no one comes to mind, but one of the contestants on Project Runway may be possible)

    A morbidly obese individual( Howard Taft where have you gone)

    A homeless individual( Abe could’ve qualified. After all, he was born in a CABIN!)

    An honest man( haven’t had one of these since G.W.) Oops– forgot Abe!

    So electing a woman is a must. Followed by each one of the above. The numbskulls who brought us Barry should have no problem with this approach.

  3. Kathy says:

    Brilliant column. And how anyone could vote for Hillary after her Benghazi lies is unthinkable. Haven’t we suffered enough?

  4. Emil Brewer says:

    Today the president’s poll numbers are down. Thirty years from now the word “Obamacare” will be right up there with the other things we take for granted as the bedrock of our civil society.

    • Jim Yardley says:

      You of course have the right to think what you want. The fact that others think that you’re wrong most likely won’t just make you change you mind, it won’t even cause you to think about the fact that you just might be wrong. You ought to consider that there’s a significant difference between helping people who cannot help themselves, and controlling people who make choices that differ from what you, yourself might choose. That is the crux of the problem with ALL government programs, the difference between aid and control.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s