I Pit the Irrational Hatred of Hillary.
I am not Pitting the ordinary hatred — “Hillary’s laugh sounds like a witch’s cackle” — “She had to murder Vince Foster because he knew too much” — et cetera. To paraphrase somebody, God must have loved stupid Americans becuase he made so many of them. In a country where 49% think that Trump would make a great President, it should be no surprise that 35% think Hillary fornicated with Satan; that Chelsea is the Devil’s Lesbian vampire spawn; and that Hillary spends $200,000 per month on skin-lightening creams to hide her own Kenyan birth.
No, I’m Pitting the Dopers who are smart enough to know Trump really is an abomination, and yet have so much irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton that they’re happy to work, directly or indirectly, for Trump victory.
Both Clintons are extremely intelligent. There’s not a single Doper denouncing them who has an IQ approaching either of theirs. Do you know how much money a smart lawyer can make in private practice? And yet both Clintons chose public service. Bill Clinton rose to become President of the United States; yet has always maintained that his own wife was more qualified than him. The Clintons collect royalties on the books they’ve written. Do their detractors think they should give all that money to charity and move to a trailer park? Is that what Dearest Trump does? They’re paid money for giving speeches? Should they negotiate those fees downward? (“$300,000 is too much! Can you just take me out for brunch afterward? I promise not to order the expensive lobster.”)
One can quibble about “qualifications” for President. Eisenhower was “only” the 5-star General who commanded the 5 million soldiers who liberated Western Europe, but I think he was supremely qualified. John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama were among the least qualified ever, but are each judged to have done quite well. Unlike JFK, or GWB, or Obama, we’ve seen Hillary in action. She’s been a tireless advocate for children’s and women’s rights throughout her life, made good impressions in Arkansas and the White House, successfully fashioned bipartisan alliances in the Senate, and was a very successful Secretary of State admired around the world. Those who call her inexperienced have only contemptible ignorance.
Especially frightening is that I have no idea where all the hatred comes from, and neither do the Haters. I suspect it’s partly a “contact high” from all the right-wing Kool-Aid. “Well, maybe she didn’t need to kill the Libyan Ambassador because he had the inside scoop on the Vince Foster murder, but she could have personally ordered in the Seals if she weren’t busy at a lesbian soirée with campaign donors.”
The usual charge by the idiot Dopers — the only charge, really — is that she stood up and said Yea" when the vote was taken on S.J. Res. 45 “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” It’s a safe bet that none of these morons ever actually read the speech she gave in the Senate discussing her vote:
[QUOTE=Senator H.R. Clinton (D-NY) on 10 October 2002]
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
…
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack … on the present facts is not a good option.
…
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later…
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
…
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make – any vote that may lead to war should be hard – but I cast it with conviction.
[/QUOTE]
Is Hillary particularly charismatic? Many who know her find her intensely likeable one-on-one but she’s not good on the big TV stage. So let’s throw her under the bus and put Donald Trump in the White House. :smack:
All the Dopers condemning Hillary make me want to puke. Keep prattling your pathetic ignorance — I’m sure you were far too smug to read the speech extracts I just gave. In the unlikely event any of you imbeciles has anything intelligent to say, please say it soon as I’m tempted to set all y’all to “Ignore.”