Hillary Clinton Again Claims That She Lost Because White Women Are Controlled By Their Husbands

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziWe have previously discussed how Clinton has compiled  a long list of people responsible for her loss to Donald Trump with the notable exception of herself.  This includes her explanation (and her supporters) that it was not Clinton but self-hating, misogynistic women who could not vote for any woman for President.  Despite the criticism over her past statements and additional polls showing that she remains hugely unpopular with many voters (and would still lose to Trump), Clinton continues to blame others for her loss.  In a speech at the India Today Conclave, Clinton repeated her view that white women are under the thumb of their husbands and vote as they dictate.

Clinton told the Indian audience that white men and women were set against her:


“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

She also repeated her claim that former FBI Director James Comey cost her the election by stopping her momentum and decreasing her vote.

Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorability), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.  I believe that voters are willing to elect a woman and I do not believe that the last election was decided by self-hating women. There was ample reason to vote against Clinton who was not just the ultimate establishment figure but was dragging a long chain of controversies stretching back to her time as the First Lady of Arkansas.


297 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Again Claims That She Lost Because White Women Are Controlled By Their Husbands”

  1. We all may have missed the forest for the trees here.

    Compare the disdainful comments Hillary Clinton made in India with those shared between Strzok and Page. All three of them sound just alike with their contempt for those that live outside I-495 or in a so-called “red state”. Is it any wonder Strzok and Andy McCabe felt the need to create an insurance policy called the Mueller investigation?

  2. Off topic.

    If anyone likes foreign films I just saw 1945 a Hungarian film and one of the best films I have seen.

    1. Allan – so? you are just going to leave us hanging without a title? BTW, check out the Hungarian film Kills on Wheels. It was up for 2017 Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Out on DVD now.

      1. The film title was 1945. Go see it if you can. It’s in black and white. If you do let me know. This film won’t leave my head. I list it as one of my favorites for many reasons. I won’t go into detail, but perhaps its biggest fault is one of its most attractive aspects. The movie doesn’t go into as much personal detail as some might like, but the way it was directed made one’s mind fill in the details. Of course for some of the anti-Semites that exist on the list, it might be a waste of time.

        1. I should have added that since the individual can add in details from their own personal experience that it would be a good film to explore in class. It involves Jewish holocaust survivors, but it could have been any religion or race in any area of the world.

  3. Nope, Hill Girl. Wrong again!! You can’t seem to get this in your thick head. YOU LOST BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN’T STAND YOUR ARROGANT, LYING, CHEATING, IT’S MY TURN, AND I’M SO SMART, AND ALL YOUR OTHER CRAP ATTITUDE. WE JUST DON’T LIKE YOU!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE. GET OVER IT. Try being a grandma and shut up… learn to knit…. learn to cook…. learn to plant a garden….
    just SHUT THE HELL UP and GO AWAY!!! Give it a try. You’ll find it soothing not having a camera and microphone in your face. GO AWAY. YOU’RE DONE, GIRLFRIEND.

  4. So in 2016 when Hillary collapsed in New York within hours the media was there to tell us she had the flu. That’s all. Nothing to see folks and nothing to worry about. Yet a few years earlier she collapsed in her residence and required hospitalization. And now she falls twice in India. She’s not in good health ladies and gentlemen.

  5. Why is she always in the news? This witch has to stay in the public spot light so she somehow stays relative. There is still talk of her wanting to run in 2020. She makes disparaging statements about American women, it’s in the news. By loosing the election she can’t charge the speaking fees she used to get because she won’t be in the big position for pay for play. Say hay you want the MSM still loves her and they still give her a lot of prime time coverage.

  6. There are a number of factors that strongly correlate to moving from voting for democrats to republicans.

    Getting a job
    Getting married
    buying a home
    having kids
    Getting older,
    Putting kinds in school.
    Moving to suburburbs
    Rising standard of living.

    All these have been factors for a long time.

    It is easy to be a narcist democrat beleiving that the world is entirely about you and that you and everyone else should be entitled to a free ride.

    But as you have to become part of the real world you learn more and more that neither you nor anyone else are going to magically have your needs met, that no one else is certain to take care of you and that you must do so for yourself. That tends to disabuse your of the narcisitic pie in the sky of the left,

    Taking on responsibility, means recognizing that you have obligations that you have to meet, and that no one else is going to do them for you.

    That government freebies to others come at the expense of your ability to meet your obligations and commitments.

    Yes, married white women are less likely to vote democratic.
    Not because their husbands rule them.
    But because they are mature and grasp that they need to care for themselves,
    for their spouse, for their home, for their kids, and that democratic government makes that harder not easier.

    1. dhlii
      What a bunch of rationalizations for entitlement, destruction of the environment, profit-taking from the middle class’s education dollars to enrich men like Reed Hastings (Netflix) and Bill Gates, for denying women birth control planning, for corporate welfare, for concentration of wealth, for corporate-imposed discrimination based on sex and race, for government intrusion into bedrooms, for discrimination based on religion, for exploitation of labor, for avoidance of worker health and safety, for abdication of responsibility for the vulnerable, etc.
      Sadly, it took a village to get you where you are. Then you stab the villagers in the back every time you vote.

      It is the educated women who wrote Democratic. It is the poorly educated evangelical women stuck in a patriarchy who vote Republican so that democracy can be turned into oligarchy.

      1. If you were an educated woman Linda, you’d know the difference between “wrote” and “vote” and the importance of proper usage in a sentence.

      2. Pay attention to what Linda just said folks. She articulated in long-form what Hillary did in short. Both Hillary and Linda are not inclusive individuals. Had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016 she would not have been the President of all Americans; her disdain (just like Linda’s) for pluralism is evident.

        1. dhlii’s final sentence tells us that he is the person Lincoln warned us against. He rejects democracy. His preference for colonialism requires a defense of, “Those who eat the bread for which others toil.”
          Dhlii would likely be surprised that labor is receiving the smallest share of national income in recorded U.S. history. And, once he learned the info., he would still want his ever decreasing demographic entitlement, in other words, what the richest 0.1% will let him keep.

          1. “Those who eat the bread for which others toil.”

            This sounds like it might be a Media Matters redo of what Lincoln said.

            This is probably the original quote: “‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it” It actually derides Linda’s Stalinesque beliefs.

            1. Charles and David Koch are certainly effective at being Stalin-like i.e. the sons of a father who gained wealth during Stalin’s reign of terror.

              From Democracy Now, “How ALEC and the Kochs Publicly Back Criminal Justice Reform and Privately Expand Mass Incarceration”. The U.S. has the most imprisoned population in the world. And, ALEC has driven labor into powerlessness and poverty.

              1. Linda, the father left Stalin disgusted and wanted nothing more of the world of Stalin that you live in. Whether or not that influenced the children to become libertarians (far opposite Stalinism) one can’t say, but it is a valid question.

                You keep putting soundbites together without any knowledge of what you are talking about. That is why you think Stalinism is the same as libertarianism and that is why you think you are a lover of freedom when you are actually a Stalinist.

                I listed information on what Koch’s believe and do. That information came from several sources.

                1)The Washington Post
                2) Wikipedia
                3) A blog, though I don’t remember if it leaned in any direction
                4) CATO
                5) Other information

                Your words cannot be trusted. Your mind is tainted Stalin Red.

                  1. “CATO- now, I’m laughing.”

                    A Stalinist would laugh before they would kill. Why? Because Stalinists like yourself find individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace to be abhorrent.

                    1. The Koch’s obviously find the 4 things listed, abhorrent.The most incarcerated population in the world can’t stake claim to an “individual liberty” list. Unprecedented economic inequality threatens peace. (The lowest share of national income going to labor in recorded U.S. history.) Oligarch monopolies and oligopolies, fostered by political policy, have destroyed the free market. And, government has been limited by denying anyone but the richest 0.1% from participating or being represented. The correct definition for the Koch’s preferred governance is oligarchy.

                    2. Linda writes: “The Koch’s obviously find the 4 things listed, abhorrent.The most incarcerated population in the world can’t stake claim to an “individual liberty” list. ”

                      Linda’s statement is at odds with the commonly accepted knowledge of Wikipedia that leans left: Poi t after point Linda’s statements have been disproven, but she continues to use disproven points to argue her case. That tells us that Linda is untrustworthy and nothing she says is worthwhile to listen to.

                      We have also heard from Linda about how Koch is part of a plan to incarcerate people. From Wikipedia: “In July 2015 Charles Koch and his brother were praised by President Obama and Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system.[61][62] For roughly a decade Koch has been advocating for several reforms within the prison system, including the reduction of recidivist criminals, easing the employment process for rehabilitated persons, and the defense of private property from asset forfeiture.[62][63] Aligning with groups such as the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, Koch believes the current system has unfairly targeted low-income and minority communities all while wasting substantial government resources.[62][64]
                      In February 2016, Koch penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post, where he said he agreed with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about the unfairness of corporate welfare and mass incarceration in the United States.[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

      3. Why am I responsible for your birth control? Aren’t you preaching hear me roar independence?

        1. If b.c. is denied, based on government-sanctioned religious dogma, regardless of who pays for the b.c., then women and men voting Republican took away the individual’s independence.

          1. “If b.c. is denied,”

            Lutera is sold at below $20 for a month. A discount can be obtained so it costs $4 per month at Walmart. There is something wrong with Linda.

  7. How would any husband ever know for sure that his wife voted as he requested?

    1. Roscoe – my wife and I vote by early ballot. Usually, I end up taking both ballots down on election day. I know that at least some of our choices neutralize each other. The only place where I have some influence is on ballot proposals. I can interpret them better than she can, so she often goes along with my vote. Not always though. I would never try to sway her vote (although I have been tempted to lose her ballot). 😉

  8. I wonder how many people recognize that when Trump reads the poem about the snake, he is talking about himself.

      1. The fact that I am old and well educated in a relevant field is why I’m correct on this point. And the fact that Trump confesses over and over and over again to being the snake is always on topic.

        Did you ever figure out that he was talking about himself??

          1. Whenever someone brings up Trump, y’all always bring up Hillary cause you just can’t quit her. So goose, gander whataboutism.

            1. What is the title of this particular Turley item Julia? Pretty sure neither Turley nor Trump forced Hillary to take a tour of India complete with media coverage.

        1. “The fact that I am old and well educated in a relevant field”

          That only proves that both age and education don’t necessarily create intellect or wisdom. If you had either you would be able to make a better argument, not the argument of a 13-year-old.

      1. He is the snake and he sure fooled you. And when you read his tweets and listen to some of his comments, he’s ALWAYS confessing. It’s marvelous!

    1. That was my immediate thought and I wondered why he chose that poem to read. He showed us who he was and people voted for him anyway. Some are wondering why he turned out so bad. The poem was for them.

  9. I was in a brutally abusive marriage for 30 years which ended in 2012 when my abuser killed himself upon my leaving him. Like the abuser, I was a 2008 and 2012 Obama supporter. While transforming myself after abuse, I discovered more about who I am and my values. By 2016 I discovered that Donald Trump’s agenda fit well with my values for individual liberties and local control. There’s nothing like recovery from trauma to solidify one’s values! Hillary Clinton has all of the characteristics of an abuser covered by a thin veneer of 3rd-wave feminist rhetoric. She is the last person that I as an independent, free-thinking woman want in office. See my blog at powerfulbeautifulwise.com if you want to read more about my story.

    1. Nice website! Loved the “When The Abuser Is A Woman” story. I see a lot of that with my job. Do enough divorce work, and you have to adjust your opinions. Hope your book goes well!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. POWERFULBEAUTIFULWISE — Congratulations!! and glad you found the right side. Continued success.

    3. ” my values for individual liberties and local control.”

      Good summary of values we all should have. Unfortunately, some don’t believe in individual liberties or our unalienable rights. They lean towards dictators such as Stalin and can do the same with their marriages as the abused or the abuser.

      1. I believe that abuse is a means for power and control over unskilled targets and that it manifests in personal relationships and in political systems. I’ve decided to no longer be a target. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

        1. You have learned your lessons well and probably can teach a lot of people how to live free and enjoy a full life.

    4. New sock puppet with such a touching story. Me thinks you have have Stockholm syndrome if tRump’s values are yours.

      1. Since I don’t know Trump, I don’t know anything about his personal values, so I don’t know if they’re the same as mine. I listened to his campaign promises and took a chance on voting for his stated agenda. I’ve been pleasantly surprised at his progress in making his agenda happen, and its emphasis on individual liberties, free speech, and local control. I recognized my values in his actions, not his words. I loved Obama’s soaring rhetoric, how we were once again going to rebuild our country, “brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand”. When I saw that his actions didn’t match his beautiful words, I realized I’d been fooled, as I was by my abusive husband. Assuming you supported Obama, what values of yours did your recognize in his actions as president?

  10. So all woman are controlled by their husband. Funny that you have such a shallow mentality. I wouldn’t vote for you because 4 great American men’s life was meaningless to you. My heart bled for one who was tortured for 7 hours before he died. I wonder where is your soul! End of story.

  11. It’s odd that Professor Turley feels the need to talk about Hillary Clinton this Tuesday. The press is full of major stories today. The Tillerson firing, the McEntee firing, The House Republicans Nunes redux, Roger Stone revelations, and Russian intrigues in Great Britain are all front page headlines today. Why is Hillary relevant??

    1. The oldest comment is from 12:40 AM March 13, so the post was made late last night after midnight. I was not up at that hour, but I do not recall the Tillerson firing, for example, being in the news til this morning. Yesterday was extremely busy for me, so maybe I missed it.

    2. Not odd at all. Evil woman keeps putting herself out there making up excuse after excuse after excuse of why she lost – and the MSM keep covering it.

  12. The American Founders deliberately, fundamentally and essentially excluded women and the “poor” from the right to vote. Given the contemporary collectivism, incoherence and hysteria, we can understand why. A general vote by the masses diminishes the import of the vote and is destructive of the Constitution. A vote by women is an unintelligible contradiction and the “poor” will sell their vote to the highest political bidder. The Founders established a restricted-vote republic not a one man, one vote democrazy.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

      1. In deed, the Founders informally set the criteria as male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. I surely wonder why. I surely wonder why God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to stand in perpetuity without making eternal perpetuation the 11th Commandment. The Founders were so confident of the axiomatic understanding of their criteria, they overlooked codification.

        Who actually votes in your beloved communist haven, China? How is any vote controlled and verifiable in the mystically goofy state of India? Do liberals promise infinitely increasing “free stuff” over there, even for illegal aliens? I’ll bet Cuba and the Mad Mad Mullahs in Iran reserve the vote for Everyman!

  13. Professor Turley, how would you rank the following in terms of the poeple you dislike/hate the most (I present them in alphabetical order by last name); 1 is dislike/hate most and 4 is dislike/hate least (or not at all):

    Hillary Clinton
    Barack Obama
    Vladimir Putin
    Donald Trump

  14. Russian gloating over Putin’s snookering of the USA would hurt more, if the Russian people could afford to eat meat more than 3 times a week.

    1. The ol “Russians can’t afford meat” meme.
      One reason that Putin still has widespread support among the Russian people is the improved standard of living during Putin’s c.15 years in power.
      Anyone can research this by googling “Russians standard of living under Putin”, or using similar key words in a google search.
      Or they can just rely on Linda’s comprehensive “analysis” i.e., “Russians can’t afford meat”.
      This question doesn’t has anything to do with the (non-Russian) opinions one might have about Putin.
      It’s a matter of realistically looking at Putin’s overall support from the Russian people, and one of the key reasons for that support.

        1. That is incorrect, but keep repeating it as if it were true.
          There are stats about the Russian rate of poverty, Russian GPD, etc.
          It may take a little time and effort to do a somewhat realistic evaluation of the Russian economy, but “the Russian eat meat 3 times a week” or “Russian poverty/ Koch” will be the extent of Linda’s “analysis”.

          1. As suggested, a review of the research portrays a bleak situation for Russian and American workers. 111 people control 20% of the wealth in Russia. Six Walton heirs have wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans combined.
            Per capita measures are skewed by concentration of wealth so, standards of living are reflected in median incomes, factoring in inflation, free health care and education where applicable. In the U.S., the median family household pays a high price for healthcare, with the American oligarchs promoting privatized public education for profit-taking by the richest 0.1%. Adding in the theft of American worker pensions and Social Security- it’s an ugly future.
            I was surprised how much debt American labor has as contrasted with the minimal debt held by Russian labor.
            Did Svedlovsk actually tell Russians to eat less because they spend 50% of the household income on food? Eee gads, that sounds like an American Republican.

            1. Two Canadians have wealth equivalent to the bottom 30% of Canadians.
              Must be a Koch-Trudeau alliance at work.

              1. The parallel would be an oligarchy, colonialism or feudalism. The relatively new Trudeau may be better at selling the message against concentrated wealth than Obama was. And, he may oppose concentrated wealth, unlike Bill Clinton, CAP, DFER and Republicans.
                At least, Canadians have free healthcare. However, the American/globalist oligarchs threaten Canadian public education with profit-taking by the richest 0.1%.

                1. The Russians also have “free” healthcare.
                  Looking forward to more of your comments about the oligarchical, feudal, colonialist country of Canada.
                  And how the Koch influence made it so.

                  1. The choice about healthcare breaks down to two options- (1) the sick die untreated in the hospital parking lots or (2) the medical community works for free when they treat the working poor and others without money.

                    1. The disposal squads must work very fast and covertly to get rid of all of those bodies from their parking lots.
                      It was news to me that this was even happening.

                    2. “die untreated in the hospital parking lots ”

                      Apparently, Linda is unaware of federal law. Emergency care must be performed by a hospital when a patient presents himself whether or not the person has the ability to pay. The fines are huge and the hospital could be closed down for continuous violation of this law.


                    3. The law that currently requires the hospital to care for the poor, forces absorption of the cost onto those patients who pay, which increases the price of insurance for the middle class, to levels they can’t afford. The richest 0.1% oppose mandated insurance because they are too cheap to pay for medical care for workers. They self-insure from the excessive financial resources they have.

                      The U.S. is the only developed country that allows the rich to avoid contribution to the medical expenses of the workers and poor that they exploit.

                    4. “forces absorption of the cost onto those patients who pay, ”

                      You should have told that to Obama. When Obamacare was passed the Democrats were told that could eventually destroy it based on prior experience and economic principles. I remember the debate really well, but foolishness prevailed

                      If a gold mine worth the entire sum of money controlled by the super rich was suddenly found on your property and assuming it had no impact on the price of gold or other commodities those persons working on the factory floor wouldn’t be affected by it even if suddenly a new addition to the .1% crowd appeared.

                      The Waltons have a lot of money. It is almost all invested in industry providing jobs and wealth to others. What they spend on themselves is minuscule, but offers jobs and money to many other people.

                      If your neighbor sells his art collection that was bought for a million dollars and sells it for $10 Billion that doesn’t affect you at all even though suddenly he has become one of the .1%. He still can’t wire his home and if he hires you, with all that extra money, he might pay you more.

                      “allows the rich to avoid contribution to the medical expenses of the workers”

                      Blame Obamacare for that. I agree that any subsidies provided in healthcare should not come from insurance premiums. The Democrats including Bernie Sanders do not understand economics trumps ideology.

                      The idea involved in a good healthcare plan is to alter the dynamics of the three-footed triad, access, quality, and cost. It is easy to change two at a time affecting the third, but changing all three is a problem. The socialist solution cuts costs but in turn, reduces access and quality.

                      The best way to manage the problem is to let each person decide what they need and want. Let charity and perhaps government (preferably state) provide subsidies to those requiring them (with the least effect upon the marketplace). That is how the U.S. became an economic powerhouse and a superpower. At the present time, I believe healthcare costs could be reduced by 30-50% by just using a freer marketplace without substantial effects on quality or access.

                  1. Andrew WS
                    That’s a good question.
                    Offhand, I think that Cuba, Venezuela, and the old USSR were able to establish a uniform rate of poverty for almost all of their citizens.😉
                    But I’d have to check.

                    1. I’d like for Linda to tell us since that’s what she’s on about all the time. If Linda is trying to convince us that her agenda is the better path to follow, I’d like examples from her detailing societies current and past that most closely resemble her version of utopia.

                    2. Linda doesn’t even know the policies of the Koch brothers. She just spews out garbage as proven earlier. Venezuela is Linda’s answer. No oligarchy there and no oligarchy in Stalin’s time either if you believe Linda.

                      Re the Koch’s.

                      As I mentioned earlier the Kochs owns Georgia Pacific which is unionized. The plants are modern, have American workers and are among the highest paid level for manufacturing jobs. Most of the workers are unionized and the relationship with the unions is very positive. How do any of these facts match with what Linda would like to tell us?

                      We have also heard from Linda about how Koch is part of a plan to incarcerate people. From Wikipedia: “In July 2015 Charles Koch and his brother were praised by President Obama and Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system.[61][62] For roughly a decade Koch has been advocating for several reforms within the prison system, including the reduction of recidivist criminals, easing the employment process for rehabilitated persons, and the defense of private property from asset forfeiture.[62][63] Aligning with groups such as the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, Koch believes the current system has unfairly targeted low-income and minority communities all while wasting substantial government resources.[62][64]
                      In February 2016, Koch penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post, where he said he agreed with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders about the unfairness of corporate welfare and mass incarceration in the United States.[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

                      One cannot trust anything Linda says. Very often she and her sources are factually incorrect.

                    3. @Tom Nash

                      Linda is not able to explain things in the generally acceptable reasonable fashion. But, she has her way! Which is to take a term like “Koch” of “ALEC” and let that single word sums up her argument for her. Sooo, when all of us accuse her of being an idiot, she doesn’t get it. To her, the word alone says it all for her. We are supposed to read into that word everything that she does. “Koch” is her argument. This is typical of the Left. Stunted intellectually.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                2. “Canadians have free healthcare”

                  Canadians who need medically necessary surgeries waited longer than ever for treatment — with average wait times hitting 20 weeks, a new Fraser Institute report concludes. …

                  Right now, Canadians are waiting for nearly one million medically necessary procedures, the institute warned. Doctors polled for the report conceded that they thought their patients were waiting more than three weeks longer for treatment after seeing a specialist than what they consider to be “clinically reasonable.”


  15. CV writes: “leftist autocrat” Really? Too funny. I worry about moving to the right of the John Birch. Honest!”

    You have moved so far to the right you have become an autocrat. You don’t seem to understand the principles behind our Constitutional Republic. The (R) next to your name should symbolize Reject rather than anything else.

  16. HIllary Clinton has to be the worst loser I’ve ever heard of on the Presidential level. She lost because she was a fundamentally flawed and unpopular candidate who ran the worst campaign in the history of campaigns against the only person in America more unpopular than herself. It’s sad to see a public figure so burdened by self delusion that they must publicly make up all kinds of excuses for their failure instead of taking responsibility for it. But she doesn’t really care about the fact that anyone at all interested in a fair assessment of the election knows her excuses are invalid. All she cares about is convincing a certain segment of the public that this revised and cleansed version of the loss believes it and repeats it and never, ever learns from it.

    1. So very true Horuss. Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who never took responsibility for her actions from Benghazi to her two lost elections.

  17. The ugly photo speaks for itself. The blog keeps posting that ugly photo. I made a copy and posted it on the wall by a bunch of mice who come into the outhouse and they fled. Then I posted it near the Mosque and several arabs left town. Next is the Catholic Church down the street for Sunday Mass. Maybe we will see a Mass exit.

    1. She’s not running for office, she doesn’t have a TV show. Just how do you expect her to “go away”?

          1. Jay S – she is already running for President again. Her people are running the DNC, why do you Donna B. backed down so fast on her book tour?

            1. Paul C. Schulte,
              – Maybe she’s just warming up in the bullpen, waiting for the “Larry Lessig scenario” to play out.
              Lessig’s magical series of events puts her in the White House without even having to
              run for the presidency.😀😄

      1. Go Away… as in stop talking to the press… and stop yammering in front of a microphone. We simply don’t give a rat’s ass what she has to say…. it’s all lies anyway.. She should just GO AWAY… AS IN SHUT UP!!

Comments are closed.