Hillary Clinton: Ambitious Monster With Daggers For Hands? (Yes)
This week, Bernie Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, warned that Hillary Clinton was in danger of destroying the Democratic Party through her ambition to become president.
Hillary Clinton washes up for supper.
Hillary Clinton, because she has been warned by her media coaches (which she has because she is a phony) not to actually drink the blood of rival campaign managers while anyone is watching, replied by laughing in an unhinged and possibly drunken manner.
Hillary Clinton: too ambitious to be president in 2006, too ambitious to be president today.
"Don't destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary's ambitions to become president of the United States," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN.
"We want to have a party at the end of this that we can unify," he added.
[...]
Weaver said Sanders and Clinton should generally engage in a "tough debate" on issues, but he added, "Let's not denigrate other's supporters and tear the party apart."
Funny story! Your Wonkette is officially neutral in the Democratic primary because THEY'RE BOTH FINE! THEY'RE BOTH GOOD! Shy and Dok Zoom (to my knowledge) are personally voting for Bernie. Evan and I are personally voting for Hillary. We try to be very fair! We don't like when the candidates attack each other! When Sanders wins, we give him a golf clap and a hearty hale fellow well met! When Hillary wins OH MY GOD SHE IS A CORRUPT THIEF OF CORRUPTION AND THAT IS THE ONLY WAY SHE IS WINNING IS BECAUSE SHE STEALS ALL OF THE THINGS AND OH MY GOD SHE RAISED MONEY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES HER CORRUPTION KNOW NO BOUNDS?
HILLARY CLINTON WILL NOT BE IGNORED
Yes, I was dismayed to learn this week that raising money for the DNC and state parties is proof positive that Hillary Clinton is trying to steal the election ... by trying to strengthen the party so she (OR BERNIE SANDERS!) can have a Congress she (OR HE!) can work with, and state legislatures that might possibly unfuck the districts Republicans have gerrymandered so grossly this decade.
I called my aunt, a grand dame superdelegate active in Democratic politics since the 1950s. Is it AT ALL possible the Hillary Victory Fund could be an attempt to influence superdelegates' votes? My aunt screeched like a common Hillary Clinton. The short answer was no. Was it AT ALL possible I was maybe being naive? More short answer no. Was I correct in reading this as a positively Rovian smear like the Swift Boating of John Kerry, where you attack a candidate not for her weakness, but for her strength, thereby neutralizing it? Short answer: I am an insightful woman with an excellent grasp of history, or at least that was how I heard it. She may have just said "yes."
In the meantime, calls to "harass" superdelegates who are voting for Clinton have not had excellent results so far, if your aim is to persuade people to actually vote for Bernie Sanders. If your aim is actually to be an asshole, then they've got that covered.
As for denigrating candidates' supporters, I spent several hours this week fielding texts from a very close friend explaining that as a "bought and paid for" "Hillary shill" "one-percenter" "piece of shit" "centrist" "NOT A LIBERAL," I am disowned. We can be friends though if I throw the weight of Wonkette behind Bernie instead of the corrupt crook who didn't even come out for gay marriage until yesterday, and if I stop profiting off Bernie Sanders by selling these shirts, made by my loser husband, who supports Bernie but works for Wonkette, so he does not get a pass from either being a shill or being married to me:
Wouldn't you like one? Short answer yes!
Come on, Hillary goes to a Caribbean Island and delivered US aid of hundreds of millions, the next week her brother in law gets the contract (the ONLY license ever issued for mining in that country) to mine all the gold in their mountains for about 1/3 the concession rate globally.She delivers US funds to other countries and those countries return millions to the Clintons through their organizations.She allows the TORTURE FOR HOURS AND THEN MURDER of a US Ambassador and LIES to the public over the cause, and in doing so creates harm to a fail-maker and life threats against him.I don't even want to get into her illegal file server and the number of people that have actually READ the TOP Secret files therein, including her attorneys who are NOT cleared for that information. Did she know it was illegal and a security threat? We now know that she was NOTICED IN WRITING of that. She was also NOTICED in SEPARATE EMAILS after most of the TOP SECRET emails were received that keeping them on a server was ILLGAL and that they must be digitally shredded immediately. She failed to do that. The liberals under Obama/Clinton prosecuted Petreus for MUCH LESS, they took away his right to hold ANY elect office in the process. But guess what, the law only applies to Conservatives and Republicans, not Liberals or Democrats.This woman is a liar, a thief, and a true sociopath, She belongs IN PRISON, not in PUBLIC OFFICE OF ANY LEVEL.
Pointing out the lack of specifics for her "I believes" and "I'm againsts" on her web site is hardly vague. Nothing I said was "ad hominem", it's clear you don't know what that means. Look it up. Nor was anything I said even remotely a "straw man" argument. If you don't know how to use rhetoric, avoid it. You just end up looking like an idiot.