User:Bill Thompson

Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Be The Democratic Nominee for President

When Bill Clinton came to Microsoft to give a speech, he was received warmly by a crowd who were impressed by his wisdom and his view of a better, more helpful and compassionate world. People naturally are drawn to and appreciate an intelligent, well-spoken person who can think on their feet. He touched on a lot of issues and he had a lot of great one-liners in dealing with world events such as "Osama bin Laden likes technology just like the west likes technology.  But bin Laden likes it exclusively and the west likes it inclusively". While the crowd was left pondering this gem, Clinton would either throw out either another line of insight, or a line of wisdom or a line of encouragement. This left the group constantly intrigued and mentally stimulated.

There was a question-and-answer period at the end of this speech and Clinton answered each with detail and precision. One woman asked if he could hold a Cabinet position in a Hillary presidency. Specifically, I believe she asked if he could be secretary of state.

The former president said, "That is a good question.  The answer is no." And then he explained that a law was passed – I believe during the Lyndon Johnson administration – that said an immediate family member of the president can not be in the cabinet. This had something do to with Bobby Kennedy being in John Kennedy's Cabinet and a president can not or should not have to fire a family member. President Clinton went on to say that he thought that this was actually a very good idea.

This makes me wonder because Hillary was in charge of revamping the Health Care system during Bill Clinton's presidency. But on the other hand, this really was not a position of power.

(#1) A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not Mirror the Years of the Bill Clinton Presidency This leads me to the first reason why Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for president.

I always suspected that the only reason why many people liked Hillary Clinton was because of the run-off charisma from her husband. When I first noticed her surfacing as a candidate for president, I was at a loss as to why so many people liked her and they seemed to like her very much. I went to several liberal and progressive web forums. They seemed to be upset by my just asking the question as if I was questioning some divine prophecy. Trying to get into the heads and understanding how liberals think is often difficult. Ann Coulter might be wrong about a lot of things, but one thing I think she gets right is that Liberalism is like a church. You can not question the divine doctrine or those who are appointed the Pope of the Church of Liberalism – doing so will get you banished from the Progressive web forums.

Regardless, without any other reason for supposing why people liked Hillary, I was left with only the name recognition and the face recognition and their subconscious appreciation of happier times. When all possible reasons are discounted, the only reason left, no matter how improbable, is the only possible explanation.

My suspicions were confirmed by several people who would openly admit "I miss Bill" when I am talking about having a president Hillary.

Well, it is time for me to officially burst this bubble. As Bill Clinton said himself, he can not be placed into any real position of power in a Hillary presidency.

So now ask yourself this. If you could erase Bill Clinton from the picture – if you could remove the association between Bill and Hillary, would you still be excited about Hillary Clinton being president?

You might tell yourself that since Hillary seemed to be a powerful player when Bill was president, it might work the other way. It would not. The two have very different personalities and ideologies and interpersonal skills and management styles. Bill is a charismatic intellectual while Hillary is a driven, ambitious and power-hungry leftist ideologue. Switch the seats of power and you have a very different administration and, as a result, a more troubling future for our country.

Being the wife of Bill Clinton should not be a reason why you would want to support Hillary. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not be any way like the Bill Clinton Presidency.

(#2) How Hillary Handled the Paula Jones Issue Is Hillary a good decision maker? If you think she is, I have to say you have been duped by the well-rehearsed and well-funded Clinton media machine. People who have been close to her – such as her Whitewater associates and people close to the Stan Lee campaign scandal -- will tell you that they are left in awe by how she is willing to back-stab her supporters; and how she is unwilling to negotiate, or compromise on policy; and how she seems to be devoid of any ethical or moral standard in dealing with people. This has lead to the downfall of the careers of those closest to her. A perfect example of this last personality trait is seen in how she handled the Paula Jones case. And this is a reason why she does not deserve to be considered for the nation's highest office.

In case you do not know or do not remember, this is the case in a nutshell. In May 1991 Paula Jones was a state employee in Arkansas and was asked to have a face-to-face meeting in a hotel with then-governor Bill Clinton. Shall I continue or do you want to skip to the next paragraph? Basically it seemed that Bill Clinton and Paula Jones had different ideas of what was supposed to take place in this face-to-face meeting. That became clear when Governor Clinton showed his erect penis and Paula Jones made a dash for the door.

Eventually Clinton and Jones found themselves in a sexual harassment suit. By the time Bill Clinton had become president, Jones' lawyers were looking for more evidence since the original event did not have many witnesses and it was becoming a case of he-said-she-said.

But that changed when rumors began to surface that Clinton was involved in some inappropriate behavior with some White House interns.

Jones’ lawyers convinced the judge in the case that specifics of this behavior would go far to show Bill Clinton's pattern of behavior and provide credibility to the Paula Jones' side of the story. The Judge in the Paula Jones case agreed that Jones' lawyers could interview White House interns.

When Hillary heard of this, she decided to fight this. That is right. Hillary, not Bill, swung into action. Details of what happened are described in the book "The Truth About Hillary". Hillary summoned her talented and her high-cost lawyers to the White House for advice.

The advice she got, I admit, was very sound. Her advice is simply this: "It is important that we make this go away as quickly and as ethically as possible.  We need to see if Jones will drop the case in exchange for a cash settlement and some sort of watered-down admission from the President."

Hillary should have taken that advice.

To Hillary Clinton, telling the truth has never been the course of action to take. So she decided to fight but she decided to fight the investigation in a way that I do not think anyone can say makes any sense. She went on national morning television and said that the Paula Jones case, the investigation into inappropriate behavior of The President with White House interns were all a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Clearly, as outlined in "The Truth About Hillary" and supported by many witnesses, Hillary must have known about Monica Lewinsky and affairs with other White House interns. But somehow, in Hillary's mind, she had delivered a severe blow to some dark, imaginary evil force. After giving this infamous "vast right-wing conspiracy" rambling rant on NBC's "Today's Show" the program cut to commercial and she has been reported to have said "that will teach them to f**k with us".

European postage stamp ridiculing an affair brought to light thanks to the mismanagement of Hillary Clinton.

All this leads to a noteworthy outcome. The result of Hillary ignoring the intelligent and good advice of her lawyers and the result of choosing to be combative was the Impeachment proceedings of the president. The Monica Lewinsky affair became public knowledge and a public and international humiliation for the United States. All this would have been avoided if Hillary made the right decision. All this would not have happened if not for Hillary.

Is Hillary a good decision maker? If you think she is, I have to say you have been duped by the well-rehearsed and well-funded Clinton media machine that avoids these facts.

(#3) The Barbara Olsen Issue History turns on a dime. We do not know sometimes until years later how the death of a public figure radically altered the course of history.

Let me give you one example. We now know that the assassination of JFK altered history in a way that we previously would not have imagined. When President John F.  Kennedy was alive, he continually proposed a joint US/USSR mission to the moon to Soviet President, Nikita Khrushchev. This fact came to light only a few years ago when the BBC interviewed Khrushchev's son for the science program, "The Planets".

By the time Kennedy had gone to Dallas, The Soviet President had softened his hard, competitive stance. Khrushchev was willing to give in and propose a joint, dual mission to the moon. But Kennedy was assassinated and history changed. Lyndon Johnson was nervous and suspicious of the Soviets and he never considered a joint space mission to the moon.

The Apollo Missions and the space race were major events during The Cold War. These missions served as a source of international propaganda in showing the world which system of government was better and which country was ahead technologically. Clearly, if there had been a joint US/USSR mission to the moon, history would have taken a different course. But Lee Harvey Oswald changed all that (conspiracy theories not withstanding).

It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if history had taken a different path. I have also often wondered what the world would be like if Martin Luther King had not been assassinated. He was more intelligent and capable than people today realize. He was a published author and a gifted orator; he inspired people of all races and backgrounds; he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have suggested to friends that MLK might have become president of the United States. People often can not imagine this because, to put it simply, we are living in a different time-line. Our universe has been altered by an assassin. The peace and harmony that could have existed in the United States has been taken from us.

History turns on a dime. Such is also the case with the murder of Barbara Olsen. Barbara Olsen was the heart of the movement to expose Hillary Clinton for who she really is. When Hillary spoke about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" there is no doubt that she had Barbara Olsen in mind.

Barbara Olsen had written the book "Hell To Pay" about the real Hillary Clinton -- the Hillary Clinton that all Americans should know about.

Barbara Olsen had served as the chief investigative counsel for the House Government Reform and Oversight committee. She and her staff had investigated the FBI and Travel Office scandals. Olsen knew the details of Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in several of the Clinton administration's unseemly political maneuvers. It is important to note that the findings of Barbara Olsen and her co-workers were like that of the investigators working for independent Counsel Kenneth Star. These findings showed in one the White House scandal after another, all roads led to Hillary. This must be why the FBI scandal, the Travelgate scandal and White Water were left out of Stars impeachment report. You can impeach the president but you can not impeach The First Lady (but luckily, if we are wise, we can keep her from becoming president).

Olsen describes how cold and well-rehearsed Hillary was when she was asked questions. Olsen and her staff never before had seen someone so unflappable when presented with damning evidence and adept at presenting a new interpretation no matter how improbable Hillary's story was.

I am not going to quote extensively from Olsen's book. I suggest everyone go out and get this book and read it. It is brimming and oozing with condemnation and insight into the real Hillary Clinton in a very logical and fair manner.

People today do not have the time or energy to get up and go read a book. And if it is from a writer who is no longer living, her celebrity status has faded since we can not see her on Oprah or any other talk show.

But Olsen was already hitting the talk show circuit and gaining respect and converts. She had started being a commentator on several news programs and was on her way to do more when she was flying on flight 77 that hit the pentagon on 9-11-2001. Olsen was opening people's eyes. Even among people who disliked and distrusted George W. Bush were adding Hillary Clinton to their list of politicians to distrust and avoid.

Barbara Olsen was scheduled to be a panel member on Bill Maher’s "Politically Incorrect" that aired after 9-11-2001. Out of respect for her, they broadcasted the program with her seat empty.

The Barbara Olsen issue is this. If she had lived, it would be definitely less likely that Hillary Clinton would have as much of a chance at acquiring the nomination for the Democratic Party to become president. We have in our power to honor Olsen through the power of the internet and keep history from taking a wrong turn as it has in the past. The Internet and Internet blogs have already shown their power in changing history for the better. If we choose to do so, we can do it again.

One of the goals of Osama bin Laden has been to change The United States politically. When Bush was running against Kerry, Osama bin Laden released a video tape threatening terror against the states that supported George W.  Bush instead of John F.   Kerry. Bin Laden's view was that it would be better for Al Qaeda to have Kerry as president instead of Bush probably because less funding for the military is a cornerstone of liberals. Of course, the American people were not impressed with this threat from Osama bin Laden.

Maybe bin Laden does not know that 9-11 killed off an important critic of his preferred political party in the United States, or maybe he does and he has learned his lesson and has decided to keep quiet this time around. But if we ignore Olsen's words and put her out of our minds because she is out of our sight, then this can easily be interpreted by Al Qaeda as a victory and a validation of the mission that their "Magnificent 19" had given their lives for.

You may argue that it might be in our best interest and the interest of peace to give them that sense of accomplishment. Being a pacifist is supposed to be the best course of action. But this has been tried in the past and has had the effect of encouraging and emboldening them. When Bill Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu, for example, Osama bin Laden interpreted this as a sign of weakness and that the United States was "a paper tiger" that could easily be knocked down.

9-11 did not have the exact outcome that Osama bin Laden had had in mind. He had imagined that this would show the Muslim world that his small group of outcasts could successfully strike at the heart of the west. The idea was that the poor, the disillusioned, and the desperate in the Muslim world would flock to join Al Qaeda. 9-11 was supposed to have been their greatest triumph and increase membership much more than previous bombings had.

Instead it turned out to be a nightmare for them. It was far too much carnage of innocent people -- including Muslims -- for anyone in the Muslim world to condone. Osama bin Laden, himself, admitted that he did not expect the twin towers to fall. It was supposed to be a bold gesture, but, instead, it was a disaster and the top leaders of Al Qaeda were left making statements trying to justify their actions.

Today, Osama bin Laden, would like nothing else more than to finally have something to show that his and his followers actions had an impact that changed the United States in a way that would not have happened if 9-11 did not happen. By silencing Hillary's best, most effective, most convincing and most outspoken critic, they will have achieved this goal if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee and becomes president. This is the Barbara Olsen issue. Osama bin Laden failed to sway the American public with his threatening video warning people that they should vote for John Kerry. But this time, no video would need to be made for him to claim a victory. If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, he could logically make the case that it was due to 9-11 and the resulting death of Barbara Olsen.

And this may be more dangerous than we want to admit. We are at war. And the improvement of morale, through the justification of the deaths of comrades is more powerful in war than any bomb.

(#4) Hillary Lies to Us Hillary Clinton plays us all for fools. She takes advantage of victims for political gain by trying to imply that her political opponents are somehow associated with the victims’ misfortune. This can be seen in many examples.

Hillary's Abuse of the Jamie Leigh Jones case is one of many examples. How someone can be so soulless as to abuse a raped woman for political purpose is beyond my understanding. Hillary Clinton's political ambitions have no moral or ethical boundaries. She bets on the fact that The American people will not see through her false concern and pretend compassion. Often it seems she wins this bet.

Hillary Clinton ignored all the rape and abuse charges brought against people close to her but when a rape case surfaces that has the appearance of being connected to Halliburton and has the appearance of being connected to Iraq, she does not hesitate in coming forward and demanding that an immediate investigation be conducted.

Jamie Leigh Jones was a young girl at the time of the incident and a college grad on her first job. She was drugged and raped by a gang of criminals in a war zone in Iraq. Her body was so badly beaten and abused that she required reconstructive surgery.

Hillary's attention blew right past the horror of this case and she only picked up on "Halliburton" and "Iraq". For this reason and for this reason alone, she demanded an "immediate investigation" even though this "demand" had no influence or impact in the case since it was already reopened and underway.

The implication, of course, is that the evil warmonger neocons are the root cause of such war crimes. And such war crimes will not happen if the loving, compassionate, pacifist liberal Democrats --such as Hillary -- were in power.

This is a lie.

Often world events happen beyond the control of the Executive Branch of the US government. But, ironically, Hillary's husband is guilty of more bungled military actions and abuse of power than the current president, Bush. My relatives in Greece have insisted that Bill Clinton should be tried for war crimes for firebombing an occupied elementary school in Kosovo. I have heard that this military action is full of questionable actions by the Democratic American leadership. The point is that there is no magic that happens in the world just because a Democrat is in the White House.

I find it amazing that Hillary is focusing on the rape of one Halliburton woman overseas today, and implying that the Bush administration is not doing enough to protect people from war crimes. I have to wonder what she thought of the genocide of 500,000 people in Rwanda during her husband's administration. It is doubtful that Bush could have done anything to protect Jamie Leigh Jones. But Hillary's Democratic husband has admitted that he could have done something to have stopped or slowed the Rwandan genocide.

Hillary Clinton plays us for fools. Other victims she has abused for political gain include young homeowners who cannot make mortgage payments. During her campaign she has brought such impoverished people onstage with her. The implication is clear. If and when she is in power, these persons will not loose their homes because the Democratic liberals are by nature more compassionate.

This is a lie.

During the Dot Com explosion, political and business leaders in Europe took steps to ensure that the expansion was not drastic. Their caution was wise and paid off for them. This was not the case in the United States. As a result, I was one of hundreds of thousands of people who lost their home during the Dot Com crash under the Democratic leadership that Hillary is touting as being better than the Republican leadership.

Additional irony is seen in the fact that Hillary does not provide any solution for these victims that she brings to the stage. Also, if and when she gains power, their homes will already be lost. And although today she has the resources to help these people, she does not. When the Hillary Clinton circus moves on, these people are still left impoverished.

She does this sort of thing time after time. She was the only Democrat that I can remember to take advantage of the flood in New Orleans by flying over the disaster in a helicopter and complaining that it was the fault of the Bush administration. To this day, this still does not make sense to me. What was she trying to say? Was the Hurricane itself the fault of the president? Was the weak levy the fault of the president? Was the lack of warning the fault of the president? This is not true because Bush urged an evacuation days before the disaster (a point overlooked by the liberal media). Or was the federal government responsible for the running of state and local leadership, corrordination, resources and government?

Both natural and man-made disasters occurred during her husband's presidential administration. Some, arguably, could have been prevented or avoided. I have never heard Hillary mention these.

Maybe on Planet Hillary, life is fair and the government controls everything so that disasters do not occur. But on planet Earth natural disasters are a fact of life. Hillary wants us to join her on her planet. The problem is that this place does not exist. It is not real. It is a lie. She is lying to us.

Hillary Clinton plays us for fools. As P. T.Barnum once said "there is a sucker born every minute". This seems to be the mantra that Hillary bases her success on. But P.T.Barnum ran a circus, not a nation.

(#5) Hillary Clinton's Stan Lee / Peter Paul Campaign Fraud We are all shaped by how we are raised and the lessons learned as we mature. This is true for even the most diabolical human beings. Fortunately, in the modern world, children are raised in fairly structured environments that are routine, compassionate and typical. But this has not always been the case.

Consider this poignant example. The outlaws of the old west are the stuff of American folklore. But as unbelievably villainous as they may seem to most modern people, they are not myths. It is important to note that Billy The Kid and Jessie James and Butch Cassidy and the many others became who they were because of the environment they grew up in. When these people were children, they witnessed the bloody battles for the acquisition of free verses slave states in the lawless West prior to the American Civil War.

When Hillary was a young lawyer during the Vietnam Era, she worked for the prosecution during the preliminary motions for the Watergate Impeachment proceedings for president Richard Nixon. This experience shaped the person she is today. Her job had been to find out if Democratic presidents had committed similar scandals, and, if so, did these scandals go unchecked and unpunished. The motivation for this work by her Democratic bosses was clear. They wanted to see if Nixon could successfully argue that the impeachment proceedings were politically motivated since he was not guilty of anything worse than what other presidents in his opposition party had done.

The result of Hillary's study was, an emphatic yes. Democratic presidents had, in fact committed and gotten away with more than just a break-in and bugging of a hotel room.

This is not what Hillary's Democratic bosses had wanted to hear.

The next job, surprising as it may seem, was this. They asked her to come up with a strategy to keep the impact of this information becoming public as minimal as possible.

This is how Hillary was schooled as a young attorney and goes far to explain her behavior as an adult. In her mind, powerful politicians are corrupt and the successful ones are not the ones who are not corrupt. The successful ones are the ones who hide their corruption successfully.

In fact, a reporter once asked Hillary about her political life and how she seemed to have her hands in some ventures of questionable ethics. Her response was that she could have stayed home like a typical housewife and bake cookies instead. As twisted as this may sound, it explains her mindset perfectly. Being corrupt and finding ways to avoid prosecution was just part of the game of being a politician. The alternative, to Hillary, was not to be an honest and sincere politician. The alternative was to not be a politician at all.

I have found that Hillary's progressive and liberal supporters acknowledge this and they have worded and described Hillary's behavior and professional career in a positive light. They use words like "cunning" and "intelligent". What is more, they seem to have resigned themselves into thinking that Hillary had to do what she did in order to advance her career. So they actually think as she does. This is troubling.

This is troubling and, if history is to be believed, this is not factual. I find it difficult to believe that the 4 faces carved in Mt. Rushmore are there regardless of the fact that these people were corrupt.

Let me ask you something. What has happened to the notion of honesty in our leaders? What about the legend of George Washington as a child admitting to his father that he cut down the cherry tree and saying, "I cannot tell a lie"? I thought that this had set the tone and the standard of what we are to expect from our leaders. Does anyone remember “Honest Abe”?

If these ideals are dead, then let’s play the devils advocate for a moment. Let's go along with the premise that all politicians are corrupt crooks, and the reason we should respect, support and admire Hillary is that she has not been caught.

Well, if this is the case, I have to tell you something. Time is up for Hillary. The gig is up. The game is officially over her. She has just been caught and there is no possible way she can tunnel her way out of this one.

There is one important fact in law enforcement. The longer an habitual offender practices her crime, the more likely she will get caught. It does not matter how careful she is, time is not on her side.

This time around, the persons involved are too famous and there are too many witnesses.

Here is a brief description of Hillary Clinton's Stan Lee / Peter Paul Campaign Fraud. When Hillary was running for the Senate, Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hide it from the Feds. They did this by getting the people involved to lie about the purpose and amount of the funds in exchange for promised work from Bill Clinton. Stan Lee (who, in case you do not know, is the creator of Spiderman) wanted to have Bill Clinton's genius when he left office to create a new entertainment company. In order to do this Stan Lee and Peter Paul contributed and helped with fund raisers for the Clintons and the DNC. The details of this and how the money was hidden are all over the Internet and so I will not repeat it here. The Clintons also managed to sell the newly created company against Stan Lee's wishes to a Japanese company.

The Clintons are not going to get away with this. The wheels of justice move slowly and this is why Hillary Clinton is still able to campaign for the presidency. But already the arm of the law is reaching out to her. While she is campaigning, a judge in Los Angeles has been preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

(#6) Hillary's Hand in Presidential Pardons Many presidents pardon people upon leaving office. The practice is supposed to be a reflection of good will by the Executive Branch of the Government among other noble reasons. When Bill Clinton left office, many people found it suspicious that he seemed to pardon more than other presidents and people wondered why he choose who he did. Like other shady dealings in The White House during the Clinton Administration, Hillary's hand can be seen here as well. It has been reported often on the Internet that key players and persons who could aid in Hillary's campaign for senator were pardoned.

(#7) The FBI Files Found on Hillary's Desk How did FBI files about Republican Party officials end up on Hillary Clinton's desk? How can you believe her side of the story that she has nothing to do with it? This is an example of what Barbara Olsen called "highly improbable" explanations that she would give. The Left is willing to believe that Hillary is not guilty of dirty tricks. I think they should ask themselves if they are truly thinking logically or if they are like drug addicts who believe their poison does not really hurt them because they desperately want to believe.

(#8) Whitewater Although Hillary has been cleared of all charges regarding Whitewater, there is still suspicion. Many Americans will think that where there is smoke, there is fire. And if Hillary is innocent, why were so many of her associates arrested for wrong-doing?

Could the case be reopened? Probably not. But what if something new comes to light? On the surface, it might seem unconceivable that Hillary Clinton could and will be impeached. It might seem even more unbelievable that impeachment proceedings might begin the moment she sets foot in The White House. But why is it so hard to believe? All the research and investigation that took millions of dollars and years have already been done. But it was done at a time when Bill Clinton was president, not Hillary. Kenneth Star and his staff have already reported to Barbara Olsen that all the corruption of Whitewater lead to Hillary and not Bill. We already know that The Independent Counsel Report omitted any mention of Whitewater. It would be inappropriate to mention Whitewater when it is still uncertain if Hillary will become elected. But I am not a government official. I am only saying the obvious. We have forgotten that we were expecting the highly anticipated Independent Console Report to contain details of Whitewater as well as other scandals. But many of the scandals were omitted. They were not omitted because of lack of evidence. They were omitted because they implicated Hillary Clinton. Since we can not impeach a first lady, the details of the investigation were not included in the report. They will not be omitted if Hillary becomes president.

The reason why no one is speculating that impeachment proceedings will begin if Hillary becomes president is simply because the Neocons and the Republicans and most Middle America find a Hillary Clinton presidency to be, frankly, to distasteful to think about or consider. This will change if she becomes president. Once the shock wears off, the very reasons why there was a special counsel investigating Bill Clinton will but turned against Hillary.

There are really two reasons why Hillary Clinton could be impeached. (#1) It will simply be unethical NOT to proceed with the impeachment process. If the special counsel investigation started for Bill Clinton which concluded that the first lady, Hillary Clinton, was the central guilty party, then NOT conducting fair treatment against Hillary will be unethical. (#2) The Republican Party will urge Impeachment proceedings against Hillary for simple and old-fashioned pay-pack for Watergate. There are some people in America and in The Republican party who, to this day, think that, apart from Watergate, Nixon was a noteworthy and respectable president. Many people also think that what Nixon did, other presidents also have done or have done worse. Hillary Clinton was near the heart of the Democratic effort to investigate and start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Old wounds will be reopened once Hillary steps into the Oval Office.

And this is another reason why Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic Party's Nomination for President.

(#9) The Iraq War Hillary Clinton wants to be president. She wants to be president so badly that she will say anything she thinks will help make her become president. There really isn't anything behind what she says except the drive to become president. No rational and committed opinion is there apart from her hard left ideology. She bets on the fact that the American Public will have a short term memory and are unable to piece together that her shifts in opinion match the shifts in public opinion on many issues, including the Iraq war. Unfortunately and to our loss, it seems her bet pays off.

For months, Hillary was giving speeches regarding the Iraq war which answered the desires of her Democratic Party. This was until the President asked Senator Clinton into the oval office for a face to face conversation. President Bush basically told her that if one day she became President, she might regret her "immediate pull-out rhetoric and that the situation in Iraq had no quick and easy fixes".

Since then, Hillary had noticeably softened her rhetoric to the dismay of her supporters and to the criticism of her Democratic Party opponents.

But still, at that time, if you went to Hillary's official web site you would still see that my some sort of magic, Hillary Clinton was the candidate to choose if you wanted to end the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton's web site listed "To end the war in Iraq" as the number one reason why she should be president.

Then the unexpected happened. The Bush troop surge proved that the hawks and the Neocons were actually right. They were right all along that the best way to get out of Iraq was not a gradual troop reduction followed by a pull out, but the ol' right wing "peace through superior fire power" would end the war sooner and bring peace and stability to the region sooner.

November, 2007 was the quietest and safest month for Americans in Iraq in the last 4 years.

What's more is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, US Military Deaths had reached near peacetime levels (link: tinyurl.com/e4a6b) (pdf file: tinyurl.com/yv53q8 ).

Additionally, the hype that the Democratic Party and The United States liberal biased press had given that the war was expensive and a burden to the nation turned out to be just that – hype. Compared to other wars as a percentage of the GNP, the war in Iraq has been the second cheapest in US history. Jerry Bowyer of NRO compares the cost of the Iraq war to date with this handy chart of the costs of America's previous wars as a percent of GDP.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton put ending the Iraq War at number one on her list solely because she thinks this is what is most important in the minds of the American people, not because she could logically argue that it should be number one on the list. This is not like Vietnam.

But even if we choose to ignore the statistics I have put here, and if we suppose that for some reason it should be number one on our list, does Hillary Clinton have a clear and logical and comprehensive plan for us getting out of Iraq? Surely, if this is number one on her list of issues, one would think that she would have had this well thought and well planned.

Well, it turns out she does not. Here is a video of her saying in a sense that she has a plan to ask for a plan. Her plan is to plan a plan?

An indecisive and unsure and (what appears to our enemy as) a weak president during wartime will be a bad idea.

This is another reason why Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic Party's Nomination for President.

(#10) Healthcare Reform and Bad Leadership Will Hillary Clinton make a good leader? Does Hillary have the sort of personality that will bring people together and make people bend to her wishes? Does Hillary have the interpersonal skills outlined in several time-tested novels such as "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? According to the fiasco of Health Care Reform she participated in during her husband's time in the White House, the answer is definitely "no".

Her coldness and unwillingness to bend or compromise or win people to her side are the stuff of legend.

To top it off, when Bill Clinton suggested publicly that the plan might require some negotiation and compromise in order to see it come to reality, his wife called him on the phone and the next day Bill Clinton made a public retraction.

We do not need someone like this running the Executive Branch of our government. We should not have someone like this in the Oval Office.

This is another reason why Hillary will not become the Democratic Nominee for President.

(#11) She Does not Know the National Anthem This seems unbelievable but I have proof.

In case you don't know, it is not "Oh say does our star spangled banner yet wave" it is "Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave". It might be a minor point to some. But is it not to me. There may be some characteristics people are looking for in a president and there may be some characteristics that are not important to people who are running for president. Not knowing our national anthem just might be a minor point, but it is something I think should disqualify anyone from running for president. If there was a test of qualifications or even a series of test, knowing the National Anthem should be the first question on the first test in the first elimination round.

This can not be anything but a clear indication that Hillary Clinton does not want to be president out of love for her country. It can only be an indication that she wants to be president to satisfy her lust for power.

(#12) She is from the Old School of Politics that will not Survive in our Internet Age. When Hillary was a young lawyer, she was asked to assist in efforts to impeach President Nixon. One of her assignments was to see of other presidents – particularly any Democratic presidents – had been guilty of similar acts that Nixon was going to be impeached for. The conclusion she provided was, yes, other presidents in the past had been guilty of similar activity. The next task she was assigned was to come up with a way of either hiding or minimizing this information. But her research never was used since Nixon resigned.

This was how Hillary learned how politics worked. The focus of the job of the politician is to do dirty tricks as long as they are not so unethical that you get caught or called on the mat for them, and make sure that the press is on your side. This explains a lot. This explains why she was so cool and rehearsed as Barbara Olsen described her and had an answer for every damning piece of evidence brought against her for the scandals Olsen was investigating. But it also explains the way Hillary Clinton did the one job we can look at that she performed the last time she was in The White House and take this as in indication as how she might perform when she is in a seat of real power.

Judicial Watch is a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. According to this group, the behavior of Hillary Clinton reflects that she is applying her old school politics that she was conditioned in from her Watergate investigation training. Judicial Watch has released records they have obtained which shows that Hillary Clinton and her staff were aware that the reforms she wanted for the health care industry might not even work. Her staff had reported to her that "none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all...". What is more is that memos that Judicial Watch has reported about recently also show that the persons working for the health care reform project were willing to give special access to the press provided that they reported favorably about the project. But it does not stop there; Judicial Watch also shows that the staffers were building a database of personal information that they would take advantage of against any critics. "These documents paint a disturbing picture of how Hillary Clinton and the Clinton administration approached health care reform – secrecy, smears, and the misuse of government computers to track private and political information on citizens," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

This, as I have said, is the old school way of control. This sort of unethical behavior and control of the press does not survive in the Internet laced world of today. The Dot com explosion occurred the last time the Clinton's were in the White House. Hillary Clinton is not accustomed to the kind of in site that blogs and free-thinking common people such as me can bring to the public's attention.

The irony is that Hillary says she is for change. She wants change to what exactly? She cries that she "does not want to go back" (more about this crying later). She is betting that you do not figure things out for yourself. Is she going to win this bet?

(#13) "Communism" Is Hillary Clinton a communist? As strange as this question is, it is still a question many people actually have. If she is or isn't, it is still a question people have and this is a reason why she won't have enough support to get the Democratic Nominee for President. Her ideas seem hard left enough to make people wonder, and enough of what she has said in the past seems Marxist enough to make people wonder.

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser on June 28th, 2004, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ...  the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson made it clear that Americans should take careful note of Clinton's remarks.

"This is John Kerry's Democratic party," she said. "Small-business owners and taxpayers all across America should be very, very concerned."

Kerry and Clinton, Iverson said, are people who "believe the government knows how to spend your own money better than you do."

Iverson acknowledged Clinton's use of the term "common good" was telling, evoking the language of Karl Marx, who envisioned a society that distributes wealth "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

I have friends who live in countries that call themselves "communist". But in reality, communism is on the decline and has shown itself to be a failure. Even these "communist" countries are no longer embracing hard-line communism. China has had to modernize and move away from a centralized and controlled economy, Even Vietnam has loosened its communist ideology and now, ironically, is supported by the free market cultures in the south.

Communism basically is the philosophy that everyone should work for the common good. This, I have learned is a falsehood simply by talking to friends who have fled communist countries. To put it simply, there is no such thing as the common good.

A centralized economy which illuminates a free market is destined to failure. A market driven economy allows for the evolution and betterment of goods and services by simple natural selection. A centralized economy could not possibly compete or do a nearly equal task.

Communism denies the existence of, and tries to suppress, simple forces of Nature and Economics.

Hillary Clinton is an ideological dinosaur.

Towards the end of the Soviet Union, economists in both Poland and in the USSR gathered (albeit in secret) and discussed and conclude that a communist economy would not be able to compete with a free market economy.

The kind of world Hillary Clinton has in mind would be a horrific failure. She believes in an ideology that has been proven wrong, time after time.

She has been raised and nurtured into a political system that no longer has any validity in the modern world. What is more is that she has been taught, like a true Marxist, that her gaining power to promote her ideology is to be acquired by any means possible. This is what accounts to her criminal and devious and underhanded political maneuvers.

It is fortunate that the hard left can not exist in the kind of modern world that Lennon, Stalin and Marx could not imagine. They could not have for seen a world networked together by computers and free thought. Because of today's world, Hillary Clinton is exposed. Hillary Clinton does not have a chance.

Hillary Clinton's Communist/Marxist values in a nutshell:

This is pretty much an admission in her own words. Not everyone who wants to take care of the less fortunate is Marxist. But everyone who is Marxist is interested in taking care of the less fortunate. These are the sorts of buzz words he used. Taking from the fortunate according to their talents to give to the less fortunate according to their needs is a big part of Marxism. You should read my earlier post.

Perception is important. People already suspicious of Hillary being too hard left will view this ad of hers as an admission of having socialist values akin to Marxism or Communism. Many people regard Hillary is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. She may not be a member of the American Communist party, but this is only because she lacks the honesty and integrity to do so. Just because you have some reservations about attaching a cold-war term to her does not make it less true. Saying that Hillary is not Communist is like saying Senator Larry Craig is not gay. If Larry Craig is not gay, then we have to come up with a different terminology for a man who wants to have sex with other men.

People do not read. People do not put 2 and 2 together. People do not read the books that politicians write. Friends of mine who had once escaped from Cuba tell me that no one knew that Castro was a communist when they elected him to power. That is strange because all one had to do was to read the books he wrote when in jail. Few people have read what Hillary has written. "It Takes A Village"!? Give me a break! I can not think of a more glaring radiant example of Socialist and Communist propaganda.

Here are a few quotes from other books regarding Hillary's political views:

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D.  Kuiper, p 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D.  Kuiper, p 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices….  Government has to make those choices for people" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D.   Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep.   Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D.  Kuiper, p.   76 - Hillary in 1996)

Let's just look at the facts. A big controlling government is a communist and socialist idea. Hillary wants this. Free Universal Health Care is a socialist idea. Hillary wants this. Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is a communist idea. Hillary wants this.

I should note that people have mentioned to me that this is technically Socialism and not really Communism. Well, to most Americans this is a minor point. Are we going to argue minutia in an attempt to deflect spirit and heart the real issue? Call it whatever you want to call it. Someone can argue that technically The Soviet Union was not communist and was socialist instead. They had called themselves socialists. The second "S" in USSR stands for "Socialist". The simple fact is that her ideology is not in tune with The United States of America.

(#14) A Lack of Substance or Authenticity On more than one occasion, Mrs. Clinton has said something that leaves us guessing what she meant or thought was behind her words. When questioned about it, we find out that, according to what she or her aides tell us, absolutely nothing was behind what she said.

We only question her when we are concerned. We are concerned only when the conclusions we can draw point to something nefarious. So either she or her aides are lying trying to cover up some horrible truth, or – perhaps even worse – there really isn't any substance or authenticity behind what she is saying.

Then she comes back with something really troublesome. Mrs. Clinton is upset because, as she says, she is being "psychoanalyzed". Well, she should understand that it is only because she is applying for a job that is somewhat important. That job is only being the Commander And Chief of the planet's largest military force. Some psychoanalysis is required.

It seemed to have all started with Mrs. Clinton's first venture onto the campaign trail in Iowa when she was asked during a breakfast town-hall meeting in Davenport by an audience member to explain – with all the bad and evil men in the world – what equips her, as a woman, to deal with them. Hillary answered the question and added when referring to "evil men" that "people like Osama bin Laden comes to mind and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men...." Clinton decided to answer the question in a form of a joke by stressing the words "background" and "evil and bad men" and then making a gesture and comic pause at the end to see if the crowd got the joke.

So who is she talking about who are just as evil as Osama bin Laden? Kenn Starr? Her husband?

Immediately after making this remark, she was asked four separate times by the press coups who she was referring to. Her answer changed. First she implied that was serious when she made the comment (she is serious that her adversaries or other people she has had to work with are as evil as Osama bin Laden). But after other questions she said that she was trying to "lighten up" and that she was under pressure to do so.

So she admittedly is trying to change to be something she someone she is not in order to gain popularity.

According to Hillary Clinton, someone somewhere at some point in time convinced her that she needed to "lighten up" -- to be more casual and to show a sense of humor in order to be more likable. Well, as the case is whenever someone puts on an act, it has come across as being unauthentic and lacking in substance. Since it is not genuine – since the humor and levity is not coming from the heart – it comes across as contrived and on more than one occasion, people are left wondering what Hillary meant and what is behind her strange behavior.

It seems to have all begun with the "Evil Men" comment Hillary made. It was supposed to be funny. OK, so it was a joke. Fine. But what was she talking about? There had to be some context to it. There had to be an evil man or evil men that she was referring to. When I heard it, I thought, like most people I am sure, that Hillary was talking about her husband. But according to Hillary aides, she was talking about Republicans. That seems a little harsh. Republicans are evil men – as evil as Osama bin Laden?

When asked to explain it, Hillary became flustered and said that everyone had been telling her that she needed to lighten up and that she did not expect to be psychoanalyzed.

We are not trying to psychoanalyze you, Hillary. We are only trying to understand what you mean. Every possible answer is a bad one. (#1) If you are talking about your husband, that is not a good answer. (#2) If you are talking about Republicans and people who disagree with you, that, in fact, is even worse. It shows that you a bad leader and can not bring people together. (#3) if you were just talking without really thinking and there is no substance to what you say, that is very bad too.

To me, this event is disturbing for other reasons. 9-11, the war on terror, the survival of modern western society and all this involves, are not to be the subject matter of jokes or humor for someone who is running for president of The United States. Her choosing to laugh this off is an indication to me that she is unqualified to deal with these things. She has resulted to corny humor as a distraction and cover.

What is Hillary Clinton's mind set regarding the 9-11 attacks and the possibility of another attack? Is it just a big joke to her? This might be possible. Her odd, comic expressions during Bush’s State of The Union Addresses are hard to fathom:

But it is not just one instance I am talking about here. Hillary has adopted – as part of her "lighten up" campaign -- to simply laugh when confronted with an awkward situation or a question that she does not have an answer too.

It also provides an excellent cover and distraction when something horrible has come up that she does not want people to notice. This was done pretty well during the Iowa Democratic Presidential Debate when a reporter brought up an interesting fact. The question was directed to Obama – so it wasn't very respectable that Hillary rudely butted in – about how he could promise a new direction when a lot of the people who are working for and supporting Obama were once Clinton aides.

But the interesting issue is not the reporter's question. An important point is the simple fact that a lot of important persons who once supported Hillary now support Obama. How did Hillary handle this interesting point? She decided to laugh. Suddenly the attention was on how and why this was a humorous moment. I think it more or less worked. People were distracted and wondered why Hillary found this to be funny.

This has not gone unnoticed by the media. People have begun posting montages of Hillary laughing when confronted by a question she does not have a good answer to or when she is put into an awkward situation.

It has gotten out of hand. Hillary is so coached and rehearsed and prepared to give staged, canned answers that any and all questions that are out of her game plan is dealt with by her looking at the reporters and doing this phony laugh. I guess she is supposed to be projecting confidence or something? Or she is trying to convince us that she is so intelligent that our silly petty questions are below her and are not deserving of her supreme wisdom and time.

I do not see how we can seriously expect to support such a person as a leader.

She comes off as someone who is not applying for this job because she is in it for the people. By exhibiting this behavior she portrays herself as someone who is only in this game for herself and no one else. Exactly what is so funny about terrorism, 9-11, or the fact that former Clinton supporters and aides are not supporting and aiding Obama?

Here is another example. Hillary was asked by TMZ what advice she would give Britney Spears. Sure, it is not a good question to ask someone running for president. But, still, how can you explain her laughing so hysterically at the question. It wasn't funny. It was not funny at all. What exactly is funny about some woman loosing custody of her kids?

Compare Senator Clinton's reaction to Governor Huckabee's reaction when TMZ asked him the same question:

(click here for Huckabee's response to the same question)

Speaking of Britney Spears, the cable news networks were reporting with psychiatrists and other social professionals that prior to her melt-down, she was exhibiting unusual behavior. Specifically, the focused on he suddenly speaking with a faux British accent and this was for some reason highly troubling and a reason for concern. (by the way, this reminded me of John Kerry on Dick Cavet's show in the 60's when he was making his post-Vietnam national tour and he was trying to talk with a Boston accent but it came off as a fake British accent as well).

Well if talking with a fake accent in inappropriate circumstances a diagnosis for psychosis, then what are we supposed to make of Hillary suddenly and unexpectedly talking with a phoney southern accent when addressing a group of southerners?

I think Kerry was trying to come off like a Kennedy or a close association or assimilation of JFK.

I think Britney was just goofing off with the paparazzi.

I think Hillary was just assuming that everyone is just plain too stupid to know that she is not from Arkansas originally.

That is not even remotely a good job. I lived in Tennessee for about as long as Hillary lived in Arkansas and people tell me that I can do a fake southern accent perfectly.

(#15) Hillary is a Unifier Hillary Clinton is a unifier. She is a unifier of people of people close to her who oppose her. This is not a good quality because she is in a 3 way race for the Democratic nomination and no one has more than 50%. This simply means that she is destined to lose because the two other parts of the 3 way race will join forces and bring her down. We can already see this coming together. We already see that Obama is not a fan of hers, but also Edwards too has been expressing disagreement with her and her statements. In a speech I saw, Edwards was critical of Hillary's comment that it took LBJ to bring about civil rights justice instead of Martin Luther King. Simple Mathematics is Hillary's enemy. Eventually, in a 3 way political race that is virtually a tie, where there can only be one winner, the candidate that fails to win the favor of the one who drops out, will lose. Sooner or later either Edwards or Obama will drop out. Sooner or later either Edwards or Obama will voice their support for whichever of the two remain in the race. This will cause damage to Hillary's campaign. But even if John Edwards will not endorse Obama, Hillary is a Unifier of people against her. The Republican Party would love nothing more than for Hillary to win the nomination since they know that this will unify swing voters and moderates against her more than if Obama won.

(#16) She Plays The Fem Card I have been in situations where I have had to report to a female at work. I have seen their gender to be of no consequence. I have also been interviewed by people and I have conducted interviews for employment. I am sure many people who are reading this blog have been in similar situations.

Now, imagine for a moment if the person you interviewed listed their gender as an asset to consider when considering them for the job. Imagine how impressed our dissatisfied or even disgusted you would be if they said they should get the job simply because it would make history in your hiring them. What if they said that, for some reason, their gender uniquely qualified them to do the job better than any other candidates?

Suppose you were one of several persons who interviewed this candidate and during your interview with this person, this man said "you should considering hiring me because a man has not occupied this job and you will help make history if you hire me" or if the candidate was a woman, how would you feel if she said, "I will be the first woman in this occupation.  Imagine.   You will make history if you hire me". I am not talking about them saying this on the side or as you walked them out the door. I am saying that they are intending this to be a major selling point for you to consider hiring them.

Now, suppose they said this and you were to later gather for a group meeting to discuss this person’s qualification. Would you bring up their comment? If they could do the job, why would they have mentioned their gender as an asset? If they were confident about doing the job, why would they have to resort to making their gender an issue?

Suppose you are a woman and this person was also a woman, wouldn't it give you pause? I mean, wouldn't it actually be a set-back to feminism to consider this person if a better qualified woman, sometime down the road, applied for the job and did not have to use her gender as an issue?

Playing the gender card is just as underhanded and shows a lack of character as playing the race card. Would you hire someone just because they were white? Would you hire someone just because they were black? A man? A woman? Should it be a factor at all? Isn't it insulting that they would think that you would consider it an important issue?

There have been female Admirals. They did not get their job just because they were female. If the military was considering who to promote to the rank of general and one candidate told the deciding body "if you pick me, you will make history because I am a woman", this would be a strike against her character. We should hold the rank of Commander In Chief in at least this high a standard.

(#17) Human Instinct People may think it is for her own good. If people are fans of Hillary Clinton, they will naturally care about her well-being. And if it is in her best interest NOT to become president of the United States, they will not vote for her out of compassion for her.

Of course, what I am talking about is the possible public reaction to her near-sobbing episode after the Iowa caucuses when Hillary arrived for a breakfast meeting with supporters in New Hampshire. You may recall it happened something like this. Some older woman in the audience seemed impressed by Hillary’s stamina. She mentioned how difficult she found it was to get up early in the morning and stay up late – or something to this effect – and she asked Hillary how she was able to do it. Hillary replied with her voice nearly cracking saying that "it is hard… but this is personal".

By the way, I would like to mention that my take on this event was not the same as most people. This act struck me as a blatant rip-off of a line that John Edwards had used on one of the debates. He had said that this was personal for him, and I noticed that when he said this, Hillary was looking on with shock and seemed very impressed with this line. I think that this line had. So I think she stole that line and I do not think she was sincere when she used it.

But that is beside the point. The point is, I think that for the same supportive reasons that people naturally backed her in her run for the white house, people will, out of compassion for her, not support her and consider her to be too weak and think it is in her best interest to vote against her and keep her from a job that – since campaigning was hard on her – will be hard on her.

(#18) The Realization of Human Instinct The flip side of the "Human Instinct" argument is that other people will come to the realization that they had supported her in the first place because of some deep-rooted instinct to support and show respect to someone just for being a woman. When these people have the time to reflect on what caused them to support Hillary in the first place, their enthusiasm for her will fade.

Once upon a time I lived near Austin, Texas where a very unusual and noteworthy occurrence took place. About one month before I moved from this suburb to another location for a contract software engineering job in another suburb there was a tragedy that seemed to shake city to its core. A young policewoman was killed in the line of duty. As I recall, she was laid to rest with full honors and the public was moved to line the streets.

This in itself is not so unusual. What made this case unique was how she died. A criminal did not kill her and she was certainly not killed intentionally. What caused her death ignited a heated debate and shined a spot light into a realization that human instinct is sometimes not a good thing.

In a sudden rush of poor judgment brought on by simple chivalry and some deep rooted instinct men have to protect and guard woman, the policewoman’s partner threw the squad car into reverse to try to place the vehicle between her and a criminal who seemed to be running towards the back of the car. In reality the criminal was running away in the direction of the back of the car on the driver’s side. In reality the policewoman was taking chase and running from the passenger’s side and across the back of the car. In a moment of human instinct taking over her partner’s actions, the policeman ran over the policewoman.

What ensued was a heated debate on talk radio about women serving in the police force in dangerous situations alongside men. This has nothing to do with equal treatment or equal rights. Human beings are simply animals. We are not as evolved as we would like to think. We support and protect women as a natural instinct.

If the policeman had the opportunity to evaluate the situation logically, he would not have attempted to use the squad car as a barrier device to protect a woman.

Likewise, people may come to realize that some of us have supported Hillary Clinton out of some sort of natural instinct. Over time, this instinct will wear out once we have the time to reevaluate our actions.

(#19) Content of Character I am a firm believer in the timeless philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King who believed that people are to be judged by the content of their character. If we are to be a respectable society, we will not judge Hillary Clinton because of or in spite of her gender. We should judge her by the content of her character.

I remember how shocked people were following the release of the Oval Office audio recordings after the Watergate scandal. One thing that was surprising was how much swearing and profanity went on in the nation’s higher office. Using colorful language is not really a big deal if someone is simply playing a character or reciting a story or quoting someone else. But the words we choose to use are a reflection of our thoughts and how we view our world. When the tape recordings were being transcribed, it is common knowledge that Nixon was panic-stricken and did all he could to black out profanity.

The Hillary Clinton people know in public is not the same person that her aides, her friends, and her family know in private. She swears like a prison inmate. She is rude and crude. The fact that she displays this false persona in public is even more troubling and shows the content of her character.

One may argue that this means only that she is passionate about certain things. But she directs her tirades towards people close to her and to people she is supposed to negotiate with. Aides who attended to the couple’s residential section of The White House, when her husband was president, would leak stories that the two would have Jerry Springer style fights on a regular basis. She throws the F-bomb around on a regular basis. She addresses people in the most degrading and obscene terms frequently. She is not qualified to be the president of the United States.

Here are some examples:

"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.  244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!" (From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p.  213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you ****-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.  90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**king idiot." (From the book "Crossfire" p.  84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p.  89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?" (From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p.  139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"(From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p.  382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p.  5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.  I need those sunglasses.   We need to go back!" (From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p.  71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!" (From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p.  99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the White House)

"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.  243 - Hillary to Gov.   Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in.  I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p.   55)

(#20) Her Impeached Spouse There is an old adage that behind every successful man stands a supportive woman. Historically, this is often applied to presidents and other political figures. In Hillary’s case, it would of course apply to Bill as the supportive spouse. Although my first reason mentioned that Bill Clinton would not serve in any official capacity in a Hillary Clinton Cabinet, the American people have traditionally looked upon The First Couple as a single unit. Just as John Kerry’s spouse was fair game in deciding how good a president he would be, the electability Hillary depends on how the American people judge Bill.

I do not know why the neocons have yet made a point about this. I suspect that they are waiting with baited breath in hopes that Hillary will win the nomination. But the simple fact is that Bill Clinton was impeached and it seems few Americans know this only because he was not voted out of office.

My liberal friends usually act like raging lunatics when I bring this up. It is they who assume that I have been somehow sequestered from reality because Bill Clinton was not forced out of office. Bill Clinton was impeached. The impeachment proceedings are a multi-step process and once it is over, a vote is made to determine if Bill Clinton should be removed from office. This final vote is not part of the process. It is as if someone is convicted and then the punishment phase is a separate proceeding.

In fact, I distinctly remember that after Bill Clinton was impeached and before the decision was made to take him out of office or not, George Stephanapolous was on a talk show saying "… it is not an impeachable offence" and the talk show moderator had to correct him in saying "… he has already been impeached".

As I suspected, this item has brought "discussion" from people looking, I guess, to minimize the fact that Clinton was impeached. People have told me that Bill Clinton was "impeached but found not guilty". OK, so "not guilty" is the legal equivalent of "acquitted" and the Senate did acquitted him, but you have to remember that The Senate did this not because they decided that Bill Clinton was innocent. Instead, they decided that it was not in the country's best interest to remove a popular president. The acquittal was to save the country, not to save Bill Clinton. The fact remains that Bill Clinton was Impeached in the House.

Clinton's acquittal does not make him magically innocent any more than O.J. Simpson's acquittal. There is an interesting parallel here between O.  J. Simpson and Bill Clinton. Each was convicted in one legal body while acquitted in another. Clinton was impeached in one legal body -- The House of Representatives; Simpson was convicted in Civil Court. Someone getting lucky and getting an acquittal does not translate to innocence.

The news has a liberal bias. Bill Clinton was not impeached for his personal sexual affairs, as implied in the media. He was impeached for obstruction of justice, abuse of power and lying to The Grand Jury. Hillary carrying this baggage back into the White House is unpalatable.

(#21) The Electability of Obama My final reason why Hillary will not win the nomination of the Democratic Party is the simple electability of Barack Obama. Statistically, it has been shown that more voters will support Obama in a race against any of the front running Republican Candidates than Hillary.

I have heard it said that "race" is some sort of issue in this election as if to imply that white Americans will not vote for a black man. To me, this is absurd.

Let me explain by giving the following example. I once lived in Saint Louis. I have never seen a more racially divided city in my life. There was clearly one part of town where most of the people were black and there was another part of town where there were very few black people. The whole city and county had a sort of high-strung tension to it. Whenever I went into a restaurant where all the people working there were black, they seemed to have distain and anger in their eyes when I first walked in. It wasn’t until I spoke to them with kindness and dignity and respect that I could see them feel more at ease. The flip side of this was certain high priced shopping malls where all of the patrons were white and the customers were always escorted to their cars after they made their purchases. My point is this. Here was a society where half of the population lived in anger while the other half lived in fear. Racism disserves everyone. White folks live in a disadvantage because of racism just as much as black folks.

The idea of putting racism behind us is appealing to most people regardless of "race".

Of course, Obama is more appealing for many reasons. Obama is an intelligent and charismatic, of course. He seems more respectable as well. The reasons why Obama will make a better president are a subject for another discussion.

Hillary supporters will have to choose between supporting her and increasing the chances of winning the presidential race. If they see that either choice will mean Hillary will lose, they should logically pick the choice that will put a Democrat in the White House. This is another reason why Hillary will not become the Democratic Nominee.