No,  it has nothing to do with her shrill, mean-looking demeanor, polarizing nature or the numerous scandals and crazy-making events she has been involved in.

It is a simple question, apparently first asked by columnist John Hawkins, the professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.


Kevin, as you are constantly reminded, is a man of modest talents, but is famous primarily for marrying media-magnet and supremely talented Britney Spears. Federline was given every opportunity to rise to the occasion, but apparently failed at achieving his own "break-away" fame and fortune.

Hawkins asks, "If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company? What about a Super Bowl winning football team? What do you think the reaction of their fans would be if their coach's wife was being seriously discussed as his replacement?"

Considering the number of times Hillary has leaned on Bill Clinton for advice, support and to defend her against the so-called "rightwing meanies," is there any reason that we should elect a co-dependent candidate who would bring Bill and his corrupt entourage back onto the world stage?

An old politician's trick...

Well know in political circles is the old politician's trick of re-framing the situation. This is where a politician, such as Hillary, will re-frame her White House occupancy to indicate experience. Unfortunately there are not enough rational thinkers or honest reporters to point out that mere occupancy does not convey experience in handling either the government's domestic or foreign affairs any more than an executive's secretary, who closely observes the executive's behavior up close and personal, is qualified to replace the boss when he move onward and upward.

Just as no rational person would purchase stock in a company where the executive's secretary assumed power, no rational person should vote for Hillary based on her "non-existent" experience.

Hawkins continues with a few other sage observations...   

"But isn't Hillary Clinton is a brilliant politician in her own right? Oh, please. She has been involved in more scandals than the whole rest of the Democratic and Republican fields combined, she's a participant in an off-putting sham marriage, she has minimal charisma, she is one of the most polarizing figures in politics, she has a reputation as a shameless liar, and so far, in her entire tenure in the Senate, she has never once accomplished anything of great significance or displayed notable leadership on any issue."

"However, if you listen to the talking heads on TV, she's talked about as if she's a political genius."

"Does it make you a political genius to poll test every publicly stated position you have and then script out a response that allows you to change your position and go the other way if public opinion changes or, more importantly, if you think you can get away with it? Maybe it does -- if you can come across as being genuine while you do it."

"But, Hillary comes across as exactly what she is: An amoral shrew who's willing to lie about anything and everything, destroy the lives of people who get in her way, and help cover up and enable the frequent affairs of her husband, all because she has an all-consuming urge to achieve power for power's sake -- and that's just what liberal Democrats like John Edwards and Maureen Dowd think of her."

What can YOU do?

Never vote for someone who will apparently say or do anything to get elected and then, once safely in office, pursue a stated agenda that is overwhelmingly Marxists or socialist in nature.

Examine the actual record of the politician who is attempting to misdirect you by claiming accomplishments or associations to accomplishments were were clearly garnered by being in the vicinity -- an observant bystander who may have had an opinion, but was merely an observer to history, not a full-fledged participant.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Does Marrying Bill Clinton Qualify Someone To Be President?

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS