Blogs Against Hillary

2008 Election

In my view Hillary Clinton could only have won the way her husband did — if the GOP splintered and a third-party candidate rose to take votes away from the Republican nominee. That is how Bill won in 1992 and 1996, with less than 50% of the vote.  Bill Clinton got only 43% of the vote in 1992 with Ross Perot getting (19%), and received 49% in 1992 when Perot ran again and still got 9%. The GOP nominees those years, George H.W. Bush in 1992 received 41%, and Bob Dole in 1996 received 41%.

All that to say that if Republicans had been united and strongly conservative in 1992 and 1996, we would have never had Bill Clinton as President. The same in 2008.

A lawsuit accusing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother of failing to repay debts to a Tennessee carnival operator was settled in the Autumn of 2007.  Tony Rodham was accused of failing to repay $107,000 plus interest to the bankrupt estate of Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, both of whom received a presidential pardon in 2000.  The case was scheduled to go to trial on Thursday, but the parties reached a settlement agreement, said Rodham attorney Samuel Crocker. The terms were not disclosed. Rodham had claimed in court documents the money he received from the Gregorys was for consulting services, but the trustee for the Gregory estate said it was a loan. The Gregorys received pardons for a bank fraud conviction from President Clinton about two years after Rodham became a paid consultant to United Shows of America, a carnival business the couple owned.

Political Vision

In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation’s 42nd president, Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from the start:

 ”We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.”

“Remolding society.” This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary’s ideology is an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses.

Significantly, the term “remolding” — unlike such terms as “reform” or “renew” — reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists: family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that society needs to be “remolded” is someone who, at bottom, cannot see any good in the American way of life — and someone who, if she could, would radically change that way of life. Who doubts that this describes Hillary Clinton?

Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her campaign titled “Change We Need.” In her speech, Hillary forthrightly declared: “I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country starting on Day One.” That’s right: Change our country. As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means what she says.

Secretary Clinton: “Tomorrow Will Be Better”