Vapid bimbos for Hillary

She went to law school. She married a talented man. She became an average attorney who needed her husband’s influence to secure retainers to keep her career afloat.

0
1921
Image: Angela Radulescu / Creative Commons (http://bit.ly/1KqvRSa)
Image: Angela Radulescu / Creative Commons (http://bit.ly/1KqvRSa)

LOS ANGELES, June 8, 2015 — Each day brings a new Hillary Clinton scandal. While it is possible that some of the scandals are overblown, it is not possible that they all are. As the Clinton campaign implodes, its supporters desperately try to attack the wife of a political opponent for receiving speeding tickets.

Another GOP candidate was criticized for wearing gloves while eating ribs (the gloves were a health requirement because the candidate was serving ribs to others).

More and more people are coming to the sad conclusion about Hillary Clinton that they never admitted to about Barack Obama. She is a candidate that only vapid bimbos could support.


The rebranding of presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton



Those insulted at being labeled a bimbo could shoot the messenger. A better alternative is to develop substance and not be one.

Being a bimbo is a gender-neutral quality applying to anybody lacking substance who tries to coast on through life. Paris Hilton has been accused of being a bimbo. Former North Carolina Sen. and two-time liberal presidential candidate John Edwards certainly was one.

Sen. Barack Obama breezed through life and won the 2008 presidential election without ever having to take a stand on an issue. “Hope,” “change,” and “Yes, we can” were as meaningful as the Spice Girls’ cliche “girl power.”

Interviews with Hillary Clinton supporters have been effective in showing how vacuous they are. When asked to name a single accomplishment of hers, the crickets chirp loudly.

Her political hatchet crew use phrases that, like many Spinal Tap songs, sound deep but really mean nothing. With Spinal Tap, it is deliberate satire. Hillary should be so lucky.

“She has dedicated her entire life to…”

“She has always fought for…”

“She has always cared about…”

“She has spent decades fighting for…”

All of these sentences focus on her intentions. Hillary Clinton has tried to do things. None of the sentences focus on results. She has never one time succeeded in getting a significant policy achievement enacted into law. That is called complete and total failure.


Hillary Clinton: champion of ‘the little guy’


Democrats were not always this way. President John F. Kennedy is famous for saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Now Democrats act like Scotty on Stak Trek saying, “I can’t do it” while looking for somebody else to blame.

JFK was about raising standards, which is the American Way. Now liberals go out of their way to lower standards so that past failures can be deemed successes. Every president from 1776 through 2009 was judged on whether they created jobs. Obama sycophants praise him for “jobs saved or created.” This lowered metric cannot possibly be proven.

The first 43 presidents were judged on the job they did. Obama has praised himself because he “did or tried to do” everything he said he would. Who else on earth gets rewarded for attempting to do things? For substantive people, just showing up is not even close to being good enough.

Because this strategy was successful, Democrats act as if they have solved the life riddle to winning elections. The more likely truth is that Obama was a unique talent. He publicly claimed to believe his own b.s., and just enough others did as well. Time will tell if Hillary is talented enough to serve an empty souffle and convince people it is a hearty pot pie.

Her supporters can claim sexism and ageism. She has started playing the race card on the campaign trail. What she cannot offer is the substance card. It is difficult to run on a record when that record is one of failure.

She went to law school. She married a talented man. She became an average attorney who needed her husband’s influence to secure retainers to keep her career afloat.

She was put in charge of education in Arkansas. She was abrasive, dismissing ideas different from her own and operating in secret. Her husband was fired. The Clintons hired a Republican consultant who told Bill Clinton to put a muzzle on his wife so he could get his job back.


Deconstructing Hillary Clinton’s email excuses


She rode his coattails to the White House. She was put in charge of developing a healthcare plan. She learned nothing and made the same mistakes, costing Democrats control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Her husband again sought out the same GOP consultant. Hillary’s mouth was duct-taped so he could win re-election.

She won a Senate seat in ultra-liberal New York. Her tenure was unremarkable. She was seen as hard-working, although finding out what she actually did has become a challenge. She spent most of the time building a donor base to run for president.

She ran for president and lost, settling for secretary of state. She did not have one single notable successful accomplishment. Not one world relationship is better than it was when she took the job. She got an American diplomat and a pair of Navy SEALs murdered and then spent her next few hours covering up why they were killed. They were exterminated because she was unprepared for the attacks that killed them. She did her job badly.

She ran the Clinton Global Initiative, a slush fund disguised as a charity. Only 10 percent of the money collected went to charitable endeavors. The other 90 percent supported the lavish lifestyle of the Clintons and their friends. This means that Hillary Clinton is either a terribly ineffective manager or a brazenly corrupt one.

Throughout this time, this supposed champion of women was brutalizing the women who accused her husband of brutalizing them.

Now she wants to be president.

Some of her supporters actually do care about issues, but that should not aid Hillary. Liberal voters care about abortion, gay rights and environmental activism. There are plenty of politically liberal women in America who care about these issues. Many of these women are competent, capable, honest, nice people. Substantive women obsessed with putting a woman in the White House can adhere to their values by choosing a different woman. Shallow women will insist that it be this empty woman.


Hillary Clinton: Angry, defiant and unapologetic


Anybody who votes for somebody without naming a single thing she did is a shallow individual.

Anybody who votes for somebody without knowing who and what she is is a clueless individual.

Anybody who votes for somebody knowing her awful qualities but rationalizing them away is a blind individual.

Anybody who votes for somebody just because of her mere being rather than anything she does or did is responsible for spreading bimbo culture.

In 2008 Republicans offered an American hero. Democrats offered an American idol. In 2016 Democrats have a chance to pick a candidate with an ounce of substance. If they fail to do so, it will prove that it is the Democrat voters lacking the substance.

Between failed schools and Hollywood celebrities, Hillary Clinton may still capture enough vapid bimbos to win the Democratic nomination.

This may be bad for America, but it will be good for her. In the end, that is all that matters to her. Bimbos are not known for benefitting others. Why care about others when one can be shallow and get away with it? What difference at this point does it make?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.