Bill Clinton?
Obama’s would-be choice for SecState tells us a bit about his confidence and demeanor. It tells us he no less lacks a capacity for leadership and change than he did before he decided to run for high office. So much for the “team of rivals.” So much for change for that matter.
And, to boot, it would appear all the media fuss about Hillary as SecState may be for naught.
…it’s difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny…, but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Ah, but is that enough in this soon-to-be rarified era of Liberal lunacy control of the White House and The Hill?
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing.
Read the whole article and behold a laundry list of why Hillary Clinton should not be in public office let alone representing us to the world.
Obammy, Mitch? Really?
You mean Obammy, Roosh? Really? Right?
Hillary is a great choice. The Chinese already have her account numbers for the wire transfers.
Yeah, J, we mean, Obammy Roosh? Really.
Hey Kerm, do you have any evidence of payoffs to the Clintons, or is it just scurrilous allegation again?
Proof . . PROOF We don’t need no stinking proof.
Peev, google the name ‘Norman Hsu’.
Please do your own research in the future. Finding this article about Hsu paying off Hillary took me 30 seconds.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/clinton-to-retu.html
Yeah, J, we mean, Obammy Roosh? Really.
Who’s “we?”
Did someone actually specifically say they were on your side or are you making an assumption?
Nope, I meant Mitch, since I thought he wrote it. However, having had it pointed out that Mitch didn’t write it, I’ll submit your amended version of my question.
Terry sid: “Peev, google the name ‘Norman Hsu’.”
Peevee replied: “pooF!”
———
Stool said: “Obammy, Mitch? Really? ”
Swiftee instructed: See, stool naturally assumes you meant that in the same way his colleagues mean it when they say “Into the trunk kemosabe”…or “So, what’s in it for me, LL Cool J?”..
Understandable when you know from where it flows.
On further thought….maybe you did meant it like that…it’s wrong to judge in the “New Amreica”.
I’ve got to get caught up.
“”Who’s “we?”””
I would be part of ‘We’, but I am also part of the ‘We’ that felt the over the top slams on President GW Bush was poor form as well. I mean, if your arguments are so baseless you have to start with a racial slur or disparging epithet, it doesn’t say much for the argument itself.
But you folks go ahead with the juvenile “But THEY did it to us, first!” play, it jives with your level of debate, which would also be in the gutter!
Ya know Roosh, or whoever you are, you started off pretty good here at Shot in the Onion, and provided some level headed analysis long missing from these pages. But now that you’ve been on the ScaifeNet mailing list long enough, it is hard to tell who is writing the screeds without looking at the author.
“”I’ve got to get caught up. “”
Moonbat Tom, the real world has lapped you so many times there is no catching up. When one looks at it that way, it explains soooo much
“I am also part of the ‘We’ that felt the over the top slams on President GW Bush was poor form as well.”
More than ‘bad form’. W was accused of treason. If you want me to name names, I can do so. Let’s start with the Huffingpost regular commentators, followed by the many of the NYT opinion columnists. We can work our way down to the soros-bots from there, if you like.
I am with the Swift one on this. If you give no quarter you deserve none.
Anyone know what the hell swiftee is talking about?
Nope, I meant Mitch, since I thought he wrote it. However, having had it pointed out that Mitch didn’t write it, I’ll submit your amended version of my question.
I’m enjoying the over-analysis of the use of “Obammy”. I use it because it’s just condescending and snarky enough to poke fun but not enough so to be offensive. Should I just call him by his middle name?
it is hard to tell who is writing the screeds without looking at the author
I appreciate the compliment but feel it will be some time yet before someone more, let’s just say discriminating, confuses me with Mitch. I say that because anyone that calls their blog “Centriosity” or whatever it is and then counts Franken’s loss as a loss…word’s escape me. I know Mitch could have finished that sentence being the master Wordsmith around here.
“t’s just condescending and snarky enough to poke fun but not enough so to be offensive.”
That fact you don’t think it offensive at the highest level speak much more about you that who you are attacking.
“and then counts Franken’s loss as a loss”
Not sure what you mean here, My Senator will be the candidate who receives the certificate of election from the canvassing board. I won’t be on any ‘the stole the election bandwagon’ I respect the process. Should Coleman win, as I suspect, he’ll have his hands full if he can makeit the next 6 years.
Haha! You wingnutz is funny! Search this blog for “Hillary” and you’ll see just how often the other side of JRoosh’s mouth was helpfully advising President-the-Sooner-the-Better Obama that he should have picked Sen. Clinton as his running mate. Angryclown ‘specially liked the idea that Obama’s only chance of winning required dumping Biden from the ticket. A stunningly inept forecast, JRoosh, even by the diminished standards of Shot in the Dork.
By the way, while this post may seem somewhat disrespectful, note that Angryclown accords you the favor of refraining from the use of “JDoosh,” which he would likely do if you were a mere Mitchketeer, rather than Mitch’s running (at the mouth) mate.
It’s amazing how the clown can twist things or more likely is simply confused. I was advising Barack to pick Hillary to win at the time when it was much closer and Biden was looking like a liability, without regard for the baggage and without regard for whether she’d fit in.
Up your meds.
That fact you don’t think it offensive at the highest level speak much more about you that who you are attacking.
Well then thank you, as I seek to offend only at the highest levels, and won’t stoop to the lowest.
Roosh, or whoever you are
Hence the nom de plume. You’re a teacher right? So you know what that means, right?
flash said:
“That fact you don’t think it offensive at the highest level”
Is that an indication that you think the word “Obammy” is “offensive at the highest level”? Please explain how the word offends you, or whomever it is supposed to offend, and why it is more offensive that other words.
“Hence the nom de plume. You’re a teacher right? So you know what that means, right? ”
Yeah, it means you are afraid to stand behind your words. Or at least that’s what ‘mitch’ says about Lefties who write under names other than their own. He wouldn’t apply a double standard, would he?!?
Troy: For those with a heart, morals, and scruples no explanation is necessary
flash: so your name is flash then?
I was waiting for that *laughing*
I’ve been known as Flash by family and friends since 1978, yes, over 30 years. Is it my real name, no, but that is no secret either and is easily found.
So if you walked into Rock Bottom and asked for ‘Kurt’ they would say WHO??!?, but if you asked for Flash, they would point ‘over there on his Norm Stool’
So if ‘name’ is what most people commonly use to identify you (both in and OUTside the blogosphere, then yes, Flash is my name, just not the one Mom and dad gave me when I was born.
Norm Stool? Hey, that’s better than a Cucking Stool from what I hear.
My nickname is Roosh as well. I used to have vanity plates with Roosh on them for years (I traded them in for Support Our Troops plates as I thought that more appropriate when the war broke out).
As a financial advisor, I choose not to disclose my real name (even thought it can’t be hard to track down) because I make so much money blogging on Shot in the Dark that I would otherwise have to disclose it to my broker/dealer as outside income.
“Norm Stool?” Think Cheers. One of my favorite lines is when some old codger walks in saying how much the place has changed. When Sam asked him how, he said something like “the door to the Bathroom used to be there” pointing. And when Sam looked confused the guys said “Right behind Norm” *laughing*
“I make so much money blogging on Shot in the Dark that I would otherwise have to disclose it to my broker/dealer as outside income.”
touché
Roosh, this month:
“behold a laundry list of why Hillary Clinton should not be in public office let alone representing us to the world”
CounterRoosh, last month:
“his failure to select Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate represents a deficit in leadership that foretells the same if he were ever to become President.”
Well, I guess you both agree that Obama’s decision to bring Clinton into his government says *something* about his judgment. You’re just not sure what.
I suggest you settle on a good lie and stick with it, Roosh. Nobody likes a flip-flopper, dontcha know.
How could you depend on Hillary to adhere to Obama’s agenda? First, she’s not qualified. Secondly, she was a partner with some of her liberal illuminati friends in shady dealings, such as Whitewater. If you think Biden is a liability, wait until Hillary becomes Secretary of State!!