Home » Civil Rights » The Moron’s Case For Hillary Clinton…because some of you really are that stupid.

The Moron’s Case For Hillary Clinton…because some of you really are that stupid.

An old colleague and I were having breakfast this morning when he looked up at the news (I can’t remember which network …MSNBC, I think) and noticed a split screen of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. He lamented long about how terrible both candidates are in this election and I guess we just have to choose the lesser of the two evils or, as he put it, “…put on a blindfold and just pick. It doesn’t really make any difference.”

And that’s when I went off.

I am really sick and tired of people saying both candidates are equally horrible choices, how much America thoroughly hates both of them to the core, that there’s not a single positive trait in either one of them and wow, if only we had voted for that guy behind the deli counter or the neighbor’s cat, America would be WAY better off.

Fuck you. Fuck the deli guy and fuck your neighbor’s cat.

There are only 2 candidates who stand any mathematical chance of prevailing in this year’s election and one of them is, in fact, eminently qualified to become the 45th President of the United States, perhaps more so than any of the other 44 previous office holders. She (that’s right…SHE) has been dedicated to public service in one capacity or another since 1971.  Her accomplishments are tremendous. To name a few (edited from the list once provided by Daily Kos for space):

  • First ever student commencement speaker at Wellesley College.
  • Distinguished graduate of Yale Law School.
  • Editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.
  • Co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
  • Former civil litigation attorney.
  • Staff attorney for Children’s Defense Fund.
  • Faculty member in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
  • Former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic.
  • First female chair of the Legal Services Corporation.
  • First female partner at Rose Law Firm, the oldest and one of the largest law firms in Arkansas.
  • Twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.
  • Former First Lady of Arkansas.
  • Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983.
  • Chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession.
  • Created Arkansas’s Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth.
  • Instrumental in passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
  • First Lady of the United States.
  • Promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses.
  • Successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
  • Worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War (now recognized as Gulf War Syndrome).
  • Helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
  • Initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  • First FLOTUS in US History to hold a postgraduate degree.
  • Helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
  • Two-term New York Senator and the first ex-FLOTUS in US History to be elected to the United States Senate.
  • Served on five Senate committees: Budget (2001–2002), Armed Services (2003–2009), Environment and Public Works (2001–2009), Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009) and the Special Committee on Aging.
  • Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  • Leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
  • Worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York on securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
  • Former United States Secretary of State.
  • Brokered a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in 2012.

Go ahead and try to show what the other candidate has done in the public interest during his whole worthless life.

Go on.


You can’t and why?

The other candidate who is supposedly “equally bad” is a real estate developer and television personality who was born into a family whose wealth has been estimated to exceed $300 million and makes racism, sexism, misogyny, nihilism and ultra-nationalism the pillars of his candidacy.  So far he has called for:

  • Building a wall across the southern border that Mexico is supposedly going to pay for.
  • The deportation, by force if necessary, of 11 million undocumented immigrants (and stop saying “illegal”, you jackass).
  • Banning and deporting all members of a religious faith that total over 1 billion adherents worldwide, even if they are American citizens, because “everybody knows” they’re just a bunch of murdering terrorists.
  • Lists among his associates known white supremacists and eugenicists.
  • Speaks admiringly of ruthless foreign despots and encourages espionage against the United States by hostile governments.
  • Ruminates about not defending our NATO allies against Russian invasion.
  • States openly and freely that using nuclear weapons should always be an option simply to make him more “unpredictable”. That’s not a strategy. That’s insanity.

Did I mention his blithe refusal to offer concrete policy proposals on how any of this neo-Nazi wish list could possibly be achieved? And all the while still finding the time to be rude, nasty, loud, mean, cruel, hateful and boorish.

And it’s still August.

But they’re supposedly “equally awful” and “everybody hates them both”. Yes, you can’t vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump because, you know…emails. And Benghazi. And Foundations. And Wall Street. And secret assassinations. And pantsuits. And, and, and.

OK, listen up. Nobody cares about emails that show Bono wanted State Department assistance to stream his music from the International Space Station. You should thank Almighty God and Jedi Jebus he failed. So far all we have seen is a public official in extraordinary circumstances who should have known better demonstrate “extreme carelessness” to which I believe she has owned up to sufficiently and which, by the way, no wrongdoing was ever uncovered even after a year-long investigation by the FBI for the love of God. We all know that trustworthiness is important in a President. But if absolutely no slack is given at all, and I mean none, if this is how we treat people who make public service their life and profession, then you will always get “crooks” as politicians because who in their right mind would want the job? It’s like being a firefighter. When there’s a fire everybody runs out. You run in. It’s a maniac’s job but it has to be done so let’s have the best do it and not get wrapped up in what amounts to paperwork. That’s all this really is. Paperwork. You would rather stay at home or vote for someone George Orwell or Edgar Allan Poe couldn’t have dreamed up over emails? Then you’re even dumber than you look.

Furthermore, I want to know why everyone has their knickers in a twist over the tragic deaths of 4 State Department personnel in Benghazi in 2012 when nobody raised a peep about, count ‘em, 241 armed and ready US servicemen who were blown to bits by a suicide bomber in Beirut in 1983? Well? WHY NOT? We all know why but I won’t denigrate the deaths of brave people serving their country in the diplomatic corps and the military while performing what is often a filthy and difficult job. But other people love to bring it up as often as possible as a political weapon. They want you to believe she is some kind of cold and diabolical monster without any concern for the lives of people who often must work in really dangerous places in the name of peace and diplomacy. That is also a load of steaming horseshit and if you spread it around then you ought to be ashamed to show your face in public. So please stop. Now.

I know, I know. Damn it all! Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just forget all of that pesky accomplishment stuff of hers and remember that what really matters is the thrill of waiting for indictments which makes for great television? That way we could finally “lock her up” and enough with these stupid women who think they can run a country. Well, enough out of YOU, you moron. This isn’t the lesser of two evils. This is a choice between one great and qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office who you really should be excited about and a dolt with a bad toupee who if you were honest with yourself you wouldn’t trust to manage a Dairy Queen much less the Oval Office.

And by the way, don’t give me any of your crap about Bernie, Martin, Ted, John, Marco, Jeb, Chris, Rand, Carly, Ben, Lindsey or any of the others because they aren’t running anymore. And I certainly don’t want to hear some fantastic load of tripe about Gary or Jill because they can’t win either and that’s simply the way it is. Deal with it. Those two are just like all of the other hundreds of people legitimately on the ballot to become President in November who are never going to get within spitting distance of the White House. Ever heard of Rod Silva? Me neither, but he’s running for President on the Nutrition Party ticket. Don’t believe me? Look him up. Here’s the bottom line: only two people can win and it’s not going to be anyone on this Rogue’s Gallery of wannabes…or the guy behind the deli counter or your neighbor’s cat so wake up.

We have a great opportunity here, people. We also have the potential for real catastrophe and that’s not being hyperbolic. You know damn good and well which is which.

Don’t be stupid.

Thank you.




  1. Tom says:

    I agree with the content of the article though not the tone. It clearly is time for Hillary supporters to speak in full throated support for her presidency. I have my Hillary sign in the front yard and encourage each of you to do the same if you can. She is by far the most qualified candidate. At the same time, we need to find ways to bridge to those Trump supporters who genuinely want a good future for our country and feel they do not have a voice. While that cohort is declining in size, I hope it will remain a strong voice going forward.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Lars says:

    I’m generally with you and thanks for writing this, but I have to object to the “extreme carelessness” bit. It just doesn’t jive with the available evidence. The worst claim is that 0.17% of her e-mails contained trace amount of confidential information. There was no allegation that any of this information was security relevant, so we are talking about meeting schedules, travel plans and stuff along those lines.That’s the kind of stuff every public employee talks about on their personal e-mail accounts.

    So not only did she implement a system that allowed to filter pretty much all seriously confidential information (and all information marked as such), she also stored that non-confidential information in a place where it apparently was not accessed from the outside – unlike many gov systems.

    So if HRC was careless, she was also unreasonably lucky that her careless actions ended up producing the same results as if somebody uncannily competent had implemented her e-mail solution. I don’t believe in luck.


  3. Nathan says:

    Good read! I don’t agree on everything though. The general consensus is not that they are both equally unqualified, but that she is just as corrupt as he is inept. And you can’t say Wall Street like it’s just a footnote. Hillary was a congressional advocate for the Panama free trade agreement that led to the worldwide tax evasion scandal and that was a foreseeable outcome. Also, the email scandal is important, not because she violated protocol, but because those emails showed that donations to the Clinton Foundation could secure favors from her on the State level. Kinda problematic. I think that Hillary can be one of the best presidents this country has ever seen, if her decision making is a product of her experiences that were listed in the article, but not if she will be doing the bidding of the wealthy. With all that being said, she is still a much better choice than Trump, but that doesn’t negate the reasons to be underwhelmed by her as a presidential candidate. Moldy bread smells better than spoiled milk but I don’t want to ingest either product. Lastly, to those voters who are not in swing states, voting for Stein and Johnson may not lead to them president but it is an investment in the possibility of moving our government away from the two party system. If either candidate can get more than 19% of the pop vote, the next election might see them to be formidable opponents. I enjoyed the article.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. tuffnstuff says:

    You look at Hillary’s face, and see a woman. You can’t conceive of a woman in the highest office in the land. That is your weakness, not the country’s. This untrustworthiness was deliberately generated by those who want her diminished. Mean, nasty and vindictive? That is more Trump than anyone I can currently think of. I, too, don’t want to argue, but I am sick of those who say she is the lesser of two evils. There is one completely qualified candidate, and one who is a showman. Not even close.

    Liked by 12 people

  5. Charli Denae says:

    I agree with you, Diana. Mrs. Clinton is judged on her appearance quite frequently and it frosts my cake. I don’t often read anyone commenting on how a man’s face looks or on what he’s wearing. It’s one of the last few accepted prejudices, woman-shaming, and, if that’s all they’ve got, then, bring it on! I think Halliard can take it. As for Bill’s ‘sex scandal’, and all of the ‘sex scandals’ we hear/read about, I really don’t care what a person does sexually. That’s not my business. Sure Bill dallied in the Oval Office but, as long as he was getting the job done, and he was, I don’t care. That was between him and his wife. Besides, I’m pretty sure that Monica Lewinsky wasn’t after any top secret information… 😉

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Bob in NH says:

    It’s downright sad that some of the things on your list of “accomplishments” are “first woman to do X” or “gave a speech” or ” worked as a lawyer on X” – NONE of those things show that Hillary would be an effective head of the Executive Branch of our government. Yes, she has been in government forever, but what are her REAL accomplishments? What has she done where you can point to an outcome and say “if it weren’t for Hillary, this wouldn’t have gotten done?” Not much at all – in fact her actual job performance has been pretty lackluster.

    Compare that to someone like Gary Johnson who has a long record of accomplishments as the chief executive of a state, which is basically the closest you can get to bring president of the country. Gary Johnson has already proven he can do the job effectively while Hillary has no meaningful executive experience at all. (Legislative experience is NOT a substitute for Executive experience!) And besides being a two-term governor of New Mexico, elected by a wider margin for his second term in a Blue state with a Dem legislature, Johnson has started a business literally from scratch and sold it for millions, eclipsing Trump who was given his money and yet still had to declare bankruptcy several times.

    And in terms of accomplishments outside of work, Governor Johnson has climbed the highest peak on every continent (including Mount Everest) and completed in multiple Iron Man competitions.

    As for a third party candidate having no chance, Johnson is already polling as high as 13% and that’s with only 35% name recognition. If he makes it into the debates, which looks likely, not only will he stand to triple his name recognition, but once the public sees how much more qualified he is than Trump or Hillary, he’ll likely pull votes away from both of them.

    It’s as simple as this – If everyone were to vote third party in November then the third party candidate would win. There is NOTHING standing in the way of that other then an increasingly dubious meme that you have to vote for one of the two old parties or you are “wasting your vote”, and more and more people are realizing how silly that meme sounds every day. The only wasted vote is a vote for someone because people told you that you had to or “the other guy will win!” when there is a more qualified candidate running.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. David says:

    Well researched, well stated – one of the better articles I’ve read. I’m a staunch Hillary supporter, but the one thing that irked me a bit was putting down Trump supporters so hard. Sure, he’d be a crappy President, but his supporters are like kids watching their favorite show – they don’t know any better. And like with children, a little compassion works better than criticism (even when they’re doing something painfully wrong). Thanks for the post!

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Acknowledging the validity of certain criticisms (Mrs. Clinton’s aggression-oriented foreign policy, her inclusion within dynastic politics in Washington that increasingly seem to recede from the public experience, her refusal to acknowledge her truthfully checkered past when it comes to fighting for LGBT rights, etc) would go a long way.

    Many of the left are well aware that the choice is hardly equal, and those people are going to go vote for Clinton because obviously status-quo Washington is better than fascist lunatic Washington. But it is aggravating to be constantly hear knee-jerk defenses of perfectly legitimate criticism of Clinton & to insist that, no really, we all ought to be lumped-in with the Benghazi people because we dislike the drone assassination program, the outcome of the Libyan civil war or Mrs. Clinton’s fight against equal marriage rights when it counted in the 90s.

    Liked by 10 people

  9. Anwar Yousef says:

    I agree with all of the substance of this post. I’ve been thinking for a while about how false moral/political equivalence is making substantive debate nearly impossible and that we need to have a reckoning with that. So thanks for making this case, but bear with me if my caveat seems a bit prudish.

    We are right to lament the “rude, nasty, loud, mean, cruel, hateful and boorish” nature of Trumpism, but what can we expect from the other side when we ourselves use excessive profanity and insults directed towards his supporters and the apathetics like in this post? As I said above, there is no moral equivalence between the things this post says, profanity wise, and the bigotry and vitriol from the other side, but if we want them to treat their opponents as humans and cease their vulgarity, then we should not give them a green light with our own profanity and insults.

    Some people are in favor of outcasting these people forever, but those who work to counter extremism in other arenas know that this only creates social cesspools that become fertile recruiting grounds for extremists. A major goal for those who work to counter extremism is to rescue the fence sitters from going over the edge. Some people are lost forever, but many are only flirting with extremism because they feel hated, outcasted and spiteful. Not only for this election but in general, we need to be trying to heal our fracturing society.

    We have to choose to be the ones looking in the mirror–not the ones in the mirror–and understand that our behavior is always going to be reflected back to us. Again, I’m with you on all of the substance in this post but I make my above criticism realizing that we have to be very mindful of how we go forward from here because the political discourse in America is in a dangerous state.

    Take care, and happy writing!

    Liked by 8 people

  10. An excellent and thoughtful analysis Mr. Reed. I’ve been looking for a springboard to discuss the role of third parties in our system of government and you may just have provided the starting point that I was looking for. Thank you for reading and for your insight.


    Liked by 4 people

  11. Lee Reed says:

    It may help to know exactly why if you are leaning left that a vote for a third-party candidate instead of Hillary Clinton amounts to a vote for Donald Trump: In a parliamentary system, the elected legislators determine who is the prime minister, in effect the chief executive officer of the government. If no one party gets a majority of the legislators, the small parties can play an important role in joining with a larger party to produce the prime minister, and thus the government. In that case the small party can exact important concessions from the larger party, even to the extent of having ministers in the government. However, in our presidential system, the voters elect the president on a state-by-state basis through the Electoral College. What this means in our present general election is that if someone is leaning to the left but chooses to vote for a third-party candidate, it takes a vote away from Hillary Clinton and thus increases Donald Trump’s election chances since only two parties have any chance of getting a majority of the state-by-state vote. if neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump nor a third-party candidate were to get a majority of the state-by-state votes in the Electoral College, the election would go to the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote according to the majority of representatives in each state’s congressional delegation. As Republicans hold a large majority of the state delegation majorities, Donald Trump would wind up as president. That’s why a vote for a third-party candidate from the left amounts to a vote for Donald Trump.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. Diana Stevan says:

    Steve, I was taken by the fact that you look at Hillary’s face and see a woman who looks “mean and nasty and vindictive.” I was surprised at that. I see a woman who’s smart, loving, and strong. She’s a grandmother, who raised a lovely daughter. She’s a woman who’s been incredibly brave putting up with all the slurs on her husband and her self. Wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I still cringe when comics continue to bring up Bill’s wrongdoing. Let it go already. It’s interesting coming from a nation that says God Bless America all the time. And yet, forgiveness is not applauded. I wonder how much you’ve been influenced by the media, by the distorted facts. Like I just read on one Facebook post, a person can do ten good things but if they do one wrong thing, that’s what people will remember. Thank you for your thoughts.

    Liked by 22 people

  13. jdobbins says:

    Thanks for telling it…like it Really is! Those idiots wishing to see someone getting locked up will hopefully get their wish, and the candidate wearing the orange skin and matching varmint on his head will look terrific in a matching orange colored jail jumpsuit! (It’ll look better on him than those baggy, horrible fitting Trump Suits!) He certainly has commited enough well documented crimes to be jailed! He has no legal, legislative, or world political experience. Has borrowed enormous amounts of money from Russia and China, yet refuses to show his crooked tax returns….believing they wont matter to the idiots voting for him, and will soon be forgotten. He’s presently facing lawsuits for the Scam Trump University and Institute also child rape charges. His horrible influence on the other members of his family are also worth noting….His Wife plagiarizes a speech from the FLOTUS (and lies about it!) She also lies about her non-existant college degree. His Daughter is facing lawsuits for stealing shoe and fashion designs. His eldest Sons hunt and slaughter endangered animals. His Mother came to America as an immigrant, and lived here undocumented (illegal) for a number of years before marriage. His Father Fred, (and him) were sued (and settled TWICE) for discrimination against minority renters of their real estate properties in New York. His Grandfather was a known con man, pimp, drug dealer, real estate thief, who was eventually thrown out of both Canada and the US. AND THERE REALLY ARE IDIOTS THAT WANNA VOTE FOR THIS GUY???…They’re a special kind of stupid. (Too dumb to know they’re ignorant!)

    Liked by 6 people

  14. pokeofreason says:

    Good fact-based arguments. But there’s a side to the presidential debate that is called politics. Politics means people won’t choose a candidate solely or predominantly due to their “experience” or because they’re a “good person”. They’re going to choose their candidate based on (1) the policies they propose and because politicians are often liars, (2) the policies they are likely to implement. This translates into Hillary seeming to be the establishment candidate, who’s going to work for the dark figures behind the screen and continue doing what many presidents before her have done. It also translates into Donald being the radical candidate who will likely not work for the rich campaign donors but who is prone to being unpredictable. So now we have the variables:
    Hillary: is a good person + no change for America
    Donald: is a bad person + some change for America

    So if we look at how good of a person each of the candidates is, obviously Hillary is miles better than Donald. But politics isn’t only that, and if we take into view the whole picture, it’s easier to say they’re both as bad as each other.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Margaret Burnham says:

    Wonderfully written. Wish I could have said it word for word to a few people’s faces but you did it better than anyone so far. Thank you and I fervently hope your advice is taken in November.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. P says:


    Liked by 6 people

  17. mary says:

    you speak the truth ,we can only hope is works out right ,because if he gets in ”’ god help us ””

    Liked by 5 people

  18. GaiaGenesis says:

    Excellently put. I’m equally disgusted when anyone cannot see that Trump is not only incompetent but a blight upon the American conscience, an international embarrassment.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. You articulate what I’ve been trying to tell friends and acquaintances who would care to listen but you do so in a more precise and understandably blunt English.

    Liked by 6 people

  20. Paula Barrett says:

    Thank you! You’ve put down, in black and white, things I have not been calm enough to verbalize.

    Liked by 6 people

  21. Steve says:

    Thanks for all the effort in presenting your case.

    Hillary Clinton was always my choice for years. I didn’t respect Bill after the mess (that’ls another story), but I was proud of her sticking thru it. On what other hand, with so much bullshit in the news, who knows what the truth is — they’re saying a lot of nasty stuff about her, but some of it really is believable. I cannot reconcile all of that in my own mind, to be honest.

    I must also be honest, she seems very untrustworthy, and I don’t like the way she is attacking Trump instead of addressing the issues. I look at her face sometimes and she looks mean and nasty and vindictive. Sorry, but I see poor character and attributes that make me feel uneasy. So I too am one who feels here are no candidates. And to be respectful to you, I will not argue… I just wanted to give you my feelings. Thanks again.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. Mark Ehlers says:

    I share your frustration and agree with all of your points. Although I personally try to refrain from name-calling, sometimes it is the only way to get your point across. Regarding the bogus Benghazi allegations, which have been thoroughly and repeatedly investigated and refuted, I took a stab at a comprehensive summation of the right-wing Benghazi obsession on my blog in July, which you may find of some interest: http://ehlersoneverything.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-right-wing-benghazi-obsession.html

    Liked by 8 people

  23. jackdetate says:

    The Contrarian Blog is carefully done, not over done. I appreciate that. There is too much excellent commentary being drowned out by the noise of excess. Imma subscribe, if I can figure out how.
    Well written, thoughtful work.

    Liked by 9 people

  24. Awesome!! Thank you so much.

    Liked by 7 people

  25. Jacquelyn West says:

    This is the BEST analysis/article/rant on this election match-up and ensuing general mayhem that I have read!! Kudos, red roses, wine…you just wrote an awesome opinion piece, saying what I and so many others struggle to articulate as completely and succinctly, with energy and humor. Thank you.

    Liked by 14 people

  26. Steph says:

    I am trying to figure out how to convince Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary. I have a gut feeling that questioning their intelligence won’t help. However I enjoyed this post.

    Liked by 10 people

  27. Margie Domingo says:

    Why don’t people see this? Hillary Clinton has all the right attributes to be President. Is it because she’s a woman? If you put a man’s name above that entire list of accomplishments, there would never be a question about his credentials.

    Liked by 17 people

  28. Chris L says:

    Really funny opinion. Love that we’re all entitled to our own. You have convinced more than anyone else before that they are equally tragic choices for America.

    Liked by 5 people

  29. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! I’m going to share this widely!

    Liked by 12 people

  30. Margaret says:

    Thank you for your thoughts- I Was beginning to think that I was the only one who saw Hillary’s many achievements! She has devoted herself to those in need for years. Yes, the email thing is a bother, but I don’t believe it is a serious issue- it is just the Republican tribe just can’t let it go!
    And just one more reason to believe in Hillary- she’s a mother and now a grandmother. She would our country to be a healthy, safe and beautiful place for her family to live in.

    Liked by 21 people

  31. Ruth Vickroy says:

    Nothing to say….
    You said it ALL!!! 🙂

    Liked by 14 people

  32. Evan says:

    Don’t you understand? Education and experience doesn’t matter when it comes to being qualified for president. Entertainment value is all that matters. Think about what the most popular thing to do in America is: watching TV. And, what does America watch most? Duck Dynasty and The Kardashians. That right there should tell you where we’re headed. This country’s going down so get ready. This is why drugs should be legal. People need something to ease the fear of reality.

    Liked by 19 people

  33. seingraham says:

    As the wise person sitting with me as I read this said, the only problem with this terrific article (correct on every point, incidentally) is that it won’t reach, or be read by the people who most need it. Sigh. Thank you anyhow. If you persuade even some naysayers to think differently, it will be work well done.

    Liked by 31 people

  34. J R in WV says:

    A great essay calling out the morons for what they are.

    Hillary may be the most qualified person ever to run for President, or she may be just among the 5 or 6 most qualified. Still, compared to Ferret-wearing jerk, no contest!!

    Thanks, I’ll save this in case I need it.

    Liked by 17 people

  35. David Richardson says:

    Excellent analysis of the reality of the 2016 Presidential election. I was reminded of the 1968 where one of the candidates had a stellar pedigree (as does Hillary) and the other was Richard Nixon. Many of those on the anti-war left kept repeating “Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum” when referring to Hubert Humphry (the quintessential liberal voice of the era) vs Richard (“I am not a crook”) Nixon.

    Thankd again for this posting!

    Liked by 22 people

  36. Mark Hollis says:

    I have read lots of blogs and I continue to. This one article got me to subscribe. Well done!

    Liked by 18 people

  37. scottzwartz says:

    There you go again, thinking that people care about facts.

    Liked by 39 people

  38. Thank you for telling it like it really is. Hillary is the only choice. She has cared about people and will continue to work for them. “He” has never cared about anyone but himself and never will.

    Liked by 43 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: