Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    If Hillary had been President …

    If Hillary had been President …

    Inspired by today’s bumper sticker post, let’s all wonder how things might have been different had Hillary won the election (some say she did win the election, but that’s another matter).

    For better and for worse.

    I’ll start.

    We woud not be the weak horse in the Middle East, and Israel would not be under siege.



    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    If Hillary were president, the economy would be ripping as women around the world frenzily upgraded their wardrobes with pantsuits.

    I voted for Hillary in 2008, and then went and voted & campaigned for Mccain/Palin.

    Then I converted from a lifelong democrat to a lifelong Independent. The undemocratic party can go down the toilet for all I care, they are a bunch of marxist and aliksites as far as I can see. I became a democrat when I was old enough to vote because I wanted to have a society that did help people, give a hand up, not a hand out and a permanent welfare state. I believe in the US Consitition, American exceptionalism and the foundations of this country. The undemocratic party is no longer the party of Truman and JFK, its now a party of disciples of Karl Marx and Saul Alinksky.

    At this point, I would not even vote for Hillary if she ran again. The entire party is bunch of far left lunatics. I don’t care for the far right either, but at least they are called out by the LSM, the LSM praises the vitriol and violence of the far left, which the LSM is a part of.

      alex in reply to alex. | September 17, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      in my humble opinion, many of us (moderate/conservative dems) realised just how destructive many liberal policies are, and many of us were Reagan dems, and will be again in 2012. However, the word “liberal” itself has been changed.

      I always considered myself liberal, in the classical sense of liberalism, of freedom of thought, smaller govt, free markets, competiveness etc (how europeans defined liberals). This new animal of “progressive” is essentially marxism, and leninism all wrapped up in the name of “progress”.

      I don’t think the dems ever realised just how Mr. Obama will essentially be imploding the undemocratic party. Many of us sane dems knew this and voted for Hillary, and then switched to Mccain/Palin. But considering they told us our votes weren’t needed, why would any pumas come back? Our loyalty is to the country not the party.

      David R. Graham in reply to alex. | September 17, 2011 at 2:41 pm

      Wow! That is eloquent. Ditto from me!

    David R. Graham | September 17, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Hillary is a trans-nationalist wanting US sovereignty subjected to UN and other distillations of “the international community,” which is a socialist concept fundamentally opposing the concept of a “community of nations.”

    Hillary wants US civilian firearm ownership/use banned or restricted to the same end.

    Hillary conceives of terrorism as a legal, not a military problem because, like her husband, she doesn’t want the bother of facing the fact that it is state-sponsored, all of it. She is terrified of the imams and mullahs, who lead the ummah, the impending State of Islam (Caliphate). She’s already lost the war. She recently lost Pakistan.

    Hillary is a world champion nanny stater and political corrector. In other words, she is a tyrant.

    Hillary’s brow-beating of General Petraeus in Senate hearings revealed a person who never could be fair. It was inexcusable of her but revealed her character, which debars her from stewardship of the USA.

    Hillary differs from President Millstone in two ways: she doesn’t hate “white” people and she doesn’t hate the United States, its nature, history and destiny.

    Her name is up and reports of popularity likewise because prominent Democrat operators are desperately looking for someone to primary President Millstone. The talk of her now is trial ballooning. Democrats, having put all their eggs in one basket, which had holes they chose not to see, have few or no eggs to throw at Millstone. Hillary is perhaps their only one, so they’re running up her flag to see who salutes. No one who matters to the testers will.

    The great gift of President Millstone has been to show the world and the nation the inner nature and inevitable consequences of the socialist/”blue” model feverishly espoused by the Democratic Party. The Sirens of government munificence and beneficence truly do lure men to their doom.

    Hillary is a conventional liberal Democrat while Obama is a left ideologue (notwithstanding his pretensions otherwise).

    Hillary was as of 2008 a smart, experienced political leader with a depth of experience in dealing with both executive agencies and Congress, while Obama was totally lacking this kind of exoerience and seasoning.

    Hillary has proved herself competent, while Obama moves from one manifestation of ineptness to another.

    Like her husband, Hillary is a thorough-going pragmatist who learns from experience and mistakes — liberal and partisan, yes, but never blindly so.

    Of course, it goes without saying that conservatives would simply hate a Hillary Presidency — but the country would have been better served by her than by Obama on the whole range of key issues.

    DINORightMarie | September 17, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    If Hillary were elected instead of Obama, we’d be looking at a savvy triangulator who would be elected for another 4 years in 2012.

    We wouldn’t have the TEA Party.

    Sarah Palin would not be the first woman president. 😉

    (I just had to throw that last one in!! 😀 )

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend