Clinton thread
Out of context: Reply #59
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ********0
With not a shred of authentic evidence to bolster this assertion, Hillary's campaign continues to perpetrate the fraud that she will be ready from Day One to lead. In this regard, her campaign spiel is an object-lesson in false advertising. There does exist substantive evidence, recently acquired, about her management expertise and ability to lead an enterprise. And here, the evidence is rather damning. An unbiased examination of the gross mismanagement of her own campaign, in and of itself, puts the lie to the bogus assertion that she is capable of leading from Day One. As press reports are now beginning to make clear, Hillary's campaign will be recorded as one of the most inept and dysfunctional in recent political history. Bereft of any strategic planning, she had no Plan B in place to carry-on the fight after a loss on Super Tuesday. Her campaign manager, chosen solely for her loyalty instead of her competence, burned through the campaign cash at an alarming rate and with reckless abandon, leaving the organization broke when Hillary needed money the most and having little to show for the expenditures. To this day, the very public bickering, backstabbing and internal conflict that has plagued her campaign continues unabated. Voters viewing this spectacle may wonder in trepidation that if a Clinton II Presidency in any way mirrors the inept handling of her own campaign, it would be a national catastrophe.
When Hillary's campaign staff was asked recently during a conference call with reporters to name a single instance in her career when she was tested in a foreign policy crisis, there was a marked silence on the other end of the line. The uncomfortable pause was hardly a rousing affirmation of her genuine qualifications to be commander-in-chief. In the end, it was a question for which her advocates had no honest answer.
Her chief political "experience" consisted of heading up a damage control department to deal with the numerous bimbo eruptions and other scandals that defined the Clinton Presidency. Her job was to ruthlessly crush the Clintons adversaries. Does this type of experience qualify her for the presidency? Since Hillary has no substantial relevant experience, her campaign has resorted to the fraudulent pretense of rewriting her role as first lady. There was the high-risk and daring descent by plane into Bosnia; there was her integral role in the Irish Peace Process; there was her lasting work on behalf of "children" during her brief one year stint at the Children's Defense Fund. The make-believe list goes on and on...
Scrutiny reveals however, that each one of her major accomplishments touted to the public are wholly fictional. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Clintons have not been forthcoming about releasing her White House records so inquiring minds can compare the perception purveyed with the dismal and baneful reality. The dirty little secret of the Democratic race is that neither Obama nor Hillary have any substantive experience that would qualify them for the highest office in the land.