Trending Topics:

Letters to Hillary

FeaturesUS Politics
on 32 Comments

Dear Hillary Rodham Clinton,

I am voting for you to be our first woman president because Sisterhood is Powerful, and who doesn’t love power? For a woman to be accepted as “one of the boys,” she has to be twice as good at the things boys like. War, for instance. That’s you, Sister!

As Senator, you masterfully voted for the war in Iraq, and have for years expertly supported just about every U.S. military intervention – without losing an ounce of your femininity. As Secretary of State, you deftly orchestrated the bombing of Libya. And when Muammar Gaddafi died, sodomized with a bayonet blade, you wittily quipped on TV news: “We came, we saw, he died.” You even got the State Department to approve $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation.

Take THAT, sexism! So I wrote a little jingle that maybe your campaign can use:

VOTE FOR CLINTON, DON’T BE A CHUMP

SHE’LL START WORLD WAR III BUT SHE’S SANER THAN TRUMP!

– Airtight political logic, Ms. C

 

Dear Ms. Rodham Clinton,

I forgot to thank you for advocating gun control. And for showing sympathy for those who’ve lost loved ones to mass shootings in U.S. cities. It’s about time Americans realized that guns are BAD, because civilians shot dead on U.S. soil are innocent human beings. Unlike those loser anonymous foreigners shot dead in other places.

Looking ahead to Iran: let’s bomb ’em back to the Matriarchal Age!

– Follow your dream

 

Dear Hillary Clinton,

Everybody’s talking about how Bernie Sanders has “pushed Hillary to the left.” Like, how you were once FOR the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Keystone XL Pipeline, and then Bernie pushed you to turn AGAINST them? That makes me mad. “Pushing” a woman is never OK.

So today, I called Bernie’s campaign headquarters and screamed into the phone: “Bernie! Stop your straight, white, socialist male violence against Hillary Clinton! Get counseling already! And for god’s sake: CONCEDE.”

There is so much sexism in the world, Ms. Clinton. That’s why it was good that you staged the 2009 coup in Honduras, ousting that other pushy socialist, Manuel Zelaya. It’s not your fault that Zelaya was democratically elected, or that Honduras was plunged into violence, with at least 174 LGBT people and 100 environmental activists being murdered since 2010.

I am sorry, however, that Berta Cáceres, who was the best hope of environmentalists and indigenous rights activists, was assassinated last March.

But Berta was probably asking for it. She actually told news reporters that Hillary Clinton legitimized the Honduran coup. Right over the airwaves, Berta said, “The same Hillary Clinton, in her book Hard Choices, practically said what was going to happen in Honduras…. We warned this would be very dangerous. The elections took place under intense militarism, and enormous fraud.” That was just catty. Ten to one, Berta was jealous of your book contract.

I know you don’t need me, Ms. Clinton. You already have lots of sexy, brilliant, right-on feminist supporters helping you. But I wonder if Gloria Steinem, Lena Dunham, Oprah, and Eileen Myles know about things like this.

– Sisterly group hug,

P.S. I’m glad you took out that coup stuff in your book’s paperback edition. Don’t worry about the media linking you to Berta’s assassination. If anybody asks me, I’ll tell them Bernie did it.

 

Madam Presumptive President,

I woke up this morning and thought, “Is Hillary happy today? I wonder who she’s having for breakfast.”

I worry about you, Hillary. All alone, you’ve been soldiering on through years of abusive charges that you used your private email server for official, classified communication. It must have been hard to reassure the American people time and again that you complied with all government rules – only to confront vicious “findings” by the State Department Inspector General (a man) that you never asked the government’s permission in the first place.

Please send me your pantsuit size. I’d like to make you a stylish ensemble you can wear to your next congressional hearing.

– Hillary SHALL be vindicated!

 

Dearest Hillary,

Today, thanks to the magic of the Internet, I came across a campaign video you made about being a feminist! About how feminism is humanism – sporting an unattributed quotation by Rosa Parks to prove it! Let’s play it now, so we can be equals:

I should have seen how the lot of U.S. women quietly improved, thanks to you and your presidential hubby’s devising the 1994 crime bill that led to the world’s highest incarceration rate. And consider the countless American mothers – in and out of prison – whose children have grown up much more self-reliant, without all those patriarchal education and lunch programs foisted on them by the welfare system you demolished.

When you think of it, nearly everything has been feminized: zip-up-the-front pants, the U.S. military, prison, poverty… Like, I just read that 3,000,000 kids now live in U.S. households with incomes of less than $2 a day per person. Talk about self-reliance!

– Sisters are doin’ it for themselves!

 

Darling Bra Burner,

Was sort of blue last night, so just to perk up my spirits, I held a little raffle at the local Quaker meetinghouse. I called this raffle, “Win a Night on the Town with Hillary Rodham Clinton”! Guess what, Hillary?

I WON!

I have never seen such hatred emanating from so-called pacifists. But I don’t care. Have you ever been so happy that you were afraid? Afraid of losing it all?

I hope you like Thai food!

Susie Day
About Susie Day

Susie Day writes a regular political satire column and lives in NYC.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    June 22, 2016, 4:15 pm

    “Masterfully” should be “mistressfully,” shouldn’t it?

    Those who support Clinton because she is a woman should have it drawn to their attention that with Jill Stein of the Green Party standing we have a choice of female presidential candidates.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      June 23, 2016, 5:32 am

      I don’t know why people are making such a fuss about Clinton being a female presidential candidate. Actual women presidents and prime ministers have become quite common since Mrs Bandaranaike became PM of Sri Lanka in 1960. Even very conservative countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and – gasp! – Australia have had women heads of govt. What’s the big deal?

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        June 23, 2016, 6:58 am

        The US is unfortunately is quite backward when it comes to a female President, or equal pay for women.

        Many nations around the world elected women as President or Prime Minister, and the concept is nothing new. Despite the millions of dollars to paint Muslims as dangerous and primitive, there have been many Muslim women elected as leaders, and the nine well known:

        http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/06/09/meet-the-nine-muslim-women-who-have-ruled-nations/

        It is disappointing that in the world’s greatest superpower there are some still unable to get their heads around the fact that women are just as capable as men to lead this country.

        I only wish it was not Hillary, who will be Israel’s female puppet.

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        June 23, 2016, 7:34 am

        All the places you named aren’t the united stakes, what else?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        June 23, 2016, 8:53 am

        What’s the big deal?

        Did any of those nations you mentioned had any form of institutional frameworks that placed women as inferior beings to men? Did any other country apart from the US banned women from voting on the grounds that they are not psychologically and cognitively unfit to do so?

        The big deal is just like Obama proved that you didn’t have to be white in order to be a competent, capable leader Hillary will have the opportunity to bury the myth of male superiority that is imbedded within the fabric of the nation.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 23, 2016, 7:52 pm

        “the fact that women are just as capable as men to lead this country.”

        We…are…so…screwed! That’s what I’m afraid of! Anyway, of the two womens which can be said to be on offer (for what Republicans apparently consider an entry-level job!) I know which I would vote for. Or will, if I get the chance.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 23, 2016, 11:18 pm

        “Did any of those nations you mentioned had any form of institutional frameworks that placed women as inferior beings to men?”

        Did I mention Pakistan and Bangladesh? Yes, I did. Do you know anything about those countries, and the general attitude to women there? Do you really think that the US is the only country with social or institutional barriers to women?

        Here are a couple of lists of women leaders. Note the countries.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government

        “The big deal is just like Obama proved that you didn’t have to be white in order to be a competent, capable leader”

        Obama is competent?

        “Hillary will have the opportunity to bury the myth of male superiority”

        And bury a good chunk of the world under rubble.

        The more notorious of the women leaders of the world have certainly buried the myth of female superiority. They have proven that women leaders can be just as evil, or incompetent, or both, as men.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        June 24, 2016, 5:29 am

        Roha

        “Did I mention Pakistan and Bangladesh? Yes, I did. Do you know anything about those countries, and the general attitude to women there? Do you really think that the US is the only country with social or institutional barriers to women?”

        You are being irrelevant. General attitude towards women means what exactly? How is a general attitude measured? Last time I checked, women in Pakistan or Bangladesh are not being economically forced to engage in degrading and dehumanising sex work in the same scale American women are. There are also sophisticated societal mechanisms that empowers women politically, financially and politically in Pakistan that is completely foreign to American women.

        And I honestly don’t know if the US was/is the only country with structural frameworks put in place by the state that aimed to disenfranchise and dehumanize women, but I know for sure that even the most “backwards” countries in Asia have yet to block women from voting and holding public office.

        Obama is competent?

        Well, compared to all of the preceding figures in his office, I would argue he is by far the greatest, most capable person who have ever graced the premiership of the nation. Bar none.

        http://www.gq.com/story/obama-greatest-president-legacy

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 3:38 pm

        The more notorious of the women leaders of the world have certainly buried…”

        Hilary? “Notorious”? Please, she’s a lamb.
        “RoHa” just think what Catherine of Russia would have done with Bill Clinton! Packed him off to Ropsha, prontoski, at the very least.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 10:49 pm

        “Last time I checked, women in Pakistan or Bangladesh are not being economically forced to engage in degrading and dehumanising sex work in the same scale American women are.” “Simalcuz”

        Well, if you checked on that, please link us to your info .
        And what do you mean by “on the same scale”? Which scale? You always use weasel phrases like that. Why do you qualify it with “economically forced”?
        You are fishing for the ugliest stuff you can find aren’t you? I don’t think you will get a bite here.

        “There are also sophisticated societal mechanisms that empowers women politically, financially and politically in Pakistan that is completely foreign to American women.” “Simalcuz”

        You must tell us the names of the “sophisticated societal mechanisms that empowers and etc“. Oh BTW, “empowers” which women in Bangladesh?
        You must tell us how they work. Maybe we can adopt them in the US. Anything on the Web about them? Please, don’t leave us in the dark! And “sophisticated societal mechanism, blah, blah, bloah” is not exactly something I can Google. So hows about it?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 25, 2016, 12:54 am

        “General attitude towards women means what exactly?”

        It means regarding women as inferior, and social restrictions on women that are not placed on men. It means pushing girls into arranged marriages regardless of the girl’s wishes. Ask Malala Yousafzai for further details about the position of women in Pakistan.

        So if countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh elect women as leaders, why is it such a big deal if a more liberal country – the USA – elects a woman? (Not that Clinton has been elected yet.)

        “Last time I checked, women in Pakistan or Bangladesh are not being economically forced to engage in degrading and dehumanising sex work in the same scale American women are.”

        Research that supports this contention?

        “And I honestly don’t know if the US was/is the only country with structural frameworks put in place by the state that aimed to disenfranchise and dehumanize women”

        I’ve never heard of any such structural frameworks being in place in the US since 1920, which was before most Asian countries had any voting at all.

        “compared to all of the preceding figures in his office, I would argue he [Obama] is by far the greatest, most capable person who have ever graced the premiership of the nation.”

        If we measure competence by the death, destruction, and chaos he has caused in the world, he is certainly as good as many of his predecessors.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 25, 2016, 12:57 am

        “Hilary? “Notorious”? Please, she’s a lamb.”

        She isn’t a leader yet. I was thinking of some of the women who actually were leaders, though not Catherine the Great.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 25, 2016, 8:46 am

        Though I have to admit that Obama’s intervention in th Brexit debate was really helpful to the Leave campaign

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        June 25, 2016, 9:40 am

        Roha

        means regarding women as inferior, and social restrictions on women that are not placed on men.

        The USA most certainly views women as inferior and place additional social restriction on them through the threat of violence. Of all the leading developed countries, the US has the greatest pay gap between equally qualified men and women while at the same time, products and services catering specifically to women are charged a higher price. If you value women, you wouldn’t short change them of their labour and swindle them off their money.

        American women are also carry the greatest risk of sexual assault or rape within all developed nations, where a woman is expected to be raped every 6 seconds. Rape culture is widespread in places you would least expect primal subhuman behavior to rule, namely in places of higher education. Female college kids are being harassed, cat called, sexually assault and raped at a rate that is unseen anywhere in the world, not even in India or South Africa.

        In addition, despite men and women being equally educated, 90% of executives in American companies and more than 80% of political offices are held by men. If you don’t view women as inferior, why sideline them in business and politics, which are the backbone of any nation? If women are not allowed to run businesses and hold political office, how are they meant to pursue and protect their interests within society? American women are left dependant on the charity and good-will of the men that rule over them, like second class citizens.

        Looking past all that BS, American women are also relentlessly and endlessly sexualized across all ages, from children to teens to grown adults. They are made objects to be desired, to be fought for, to be bought through men’s frenzied participation in the capitalist market. Hollywood lays the groundwork for the sexualisation through movies and TV shows, private companies bolster the process through its commercials and sponsorship, while the billion dollar porn industry finish it off by unreservedly turning women with souls and aspirations into living sex dolls.

        What makes thing even worse is the fact that women are suffering due to reasons entirely intrinsic and endemic to American society, unlike the situation in places like Pakistan or South Africa.

        No one colonized the USA and messed up its social systems and maliciously dismantled its national framework leading to the problematic present. The nations you used as examples for rationalize American ill-treatment of women just came out of centuries of ruthless foreign rule, that decimated their wealth, destroyed their native economic and sociopolitical infrastructures, imposed foreign legal systems and modes of governance that were ill-suited for their native populace. And despite going through such difficult times, they somehow managed to treat their women well-enough to allow them becoming national leaders, something America is yet to have done.

        References:

        https://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker/reasons-all-women-need-feminism?utm_term=.jcYoQ4Kbm#.vpq5bKel2

        http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/porn-women-study_n_6831402.html

        http://selfesteem.dove.us/Articles/Written/Hyper-Sexualization-of-Girls.aspx

        http://www.themarysue.com/tv-teens-girls-sexualized/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casey-cavanagh/why-we-still-need-feminism_b_5837366.html

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-paige-rosen/women-in-the-us-are-still-wage-gap_b_5018490.html

      • gamal
        gamal
        June 25, 2016, 10:23 am

        “which was before most Asian countries had any voting at all.”

        there was one in West Asia called Palestine, used to be, ruled by a democratic country but not democratically, like India, Burma, Pakistan, Vietnam and some others, you are right naughty things had no vote is that because they are not nice to girls?

        ” Ask Malala Yousafzai for further details about the position of women in Pakistan.”

        and in no way engage your critical faculties, news like this just blows in the door,

        “Is Malala in real life the equivalent of Mrs. Bagchi of the Bollywood movie? Let us explore this further.

        Malala was born on July 12, 1997. Her father, Ziauddin Yousufzai, owns a number of for-profit schools. While almost everything else in Pakistan is going down the drain, for-profit schools and the closely related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are generously financed from abroad are thriving businesses.

        It was a BBC reporter Abdul Hai Kakkar who discovered Malala in early 2009. His assignment was to find a courageous schoolgirl willing to share her experiences of the threats by Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) against girls getting education. The TTP led by Mullah Fazlullah was shutting down schools in Swat Valley as it flexed its muscles. Kakkar approached Ziauddin Yusufzai for help and he willingly offered his own daughter’s experiences.

        The plan gelled into Malala, then 11 years old, writing her diary that the BBC World Service would put on its website under the title, “The Diary of a Pakistani School Girl.” In order to protect her identity, Malala was given the pseudonym “Gul Makai” (corn flower). The diary detailed Malala’s life under Taliban rule, their attempts to take control of the valley, and her views on promoting education for girls. One cannot help but wonder whether her father’s motive was in promoting girls’ education or he feared his income dwindling if the girls’ schools he was running were shut down.

        Malala’s cover, however, was blown that summer when Adam B. Ellick of the New York Times featured her in two videos describing her family’s life as well as showed her at school. This was the time the Pakistani military was about to launch an attack on Swat Valley. What was the reason for the Times to go public with this information and who is Adam Ellick? Scott Creighton, a war veteran who writes for the blog the American Everyman, had this to say about Ellick on October 17. “Meet Adam Ellick, the Council on Foreign Relations member and apparent CIA mockingbird stationed at the New York Times. He’s the guy who helped create the Malala Psyop in the first place, the plan to bring for-profit school systems to all of Pakistan.”

        The Times’ videos led to Malala gaining instant international fame. For the Pakistani media — print and electronic — this was a great opportunity to project their loyalty to America. That is where the dollar pipeline comes from. In the WikiLeaks cables released in 2010, the US embassy messages to the US State Department say Pakistani journalists are easily bought and can be made to do anything for a mere invitation to the US embassy. Despite such insulting revelations about their low character, the US-doting Pakistani journalists are not deterred.

        Malala’s Times videos brought the Pakistani media flocking to her door. She began giving interviews in the print and electronic media. We need to keep in mind that she was barely 11 or 12 years old at the time. At the same time, she was appointed chairperson of the District Child Assembly Swat. Further accolades followed when the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, nominated her in October 2011 for the International Children’s Peace Prize. But there was something else that was even more striking. Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan who died on December 13, 2010, had also discovered Malala, or her enterprising father. Their picture together has gone viral on the internet. Why would Holbrooke, a no nonsense diplomat, be interested in Ziauddin Yousafzai unless there was a larger plan at work? Two months after Bishop Tutu’s nomination of Malala, the Pakistani government came up with its own award: the “National Youth Prize Award,” a first for Pakistan, that was given to Malala.

        Her interviews on television were powerful and direct, even being blunt and provocative. It seemed as if the young Malala was deliberately being pushed to say things to provoke the Taliban. Here is what she said in one TV interview, “In a situation where a lifelong school break was being imposed upon us by the terrorists, rising up against that became very important, essential.” Considering that even Pakistani politicians surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards and other security detachments speak more guardedly, Malala’s statements, however, true, were bound to evoke a strong reaction. This is not to suggest that the Taliban are right or that they should be allowed to intimidate people but the reality is that unless there is adequate security against such threats, it would be prudent not to provoke them unnecessarily.”

        http://www.crescent-online.net/2012/11/was-malala-yousafzai-used-for-a-larger-us-plan-zafar-bangash-3412-articles.html

        devils in the details as well those nasty foreign cultures obviously.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 25, 2016, 1:48 pm

        “The most competent person to grace the premiership of…”

        The “premiership”?” We usually call it “the Presidency”, but you go right on ahead.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 25, 2016, 8:54 pm

        “While almost everything else in Pakistan is going down the drain, for-profit schools and the closely related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are generously financed from abroad are thriving businesses.”

        Why thank you, “Gamal”. I was wondering what those “sophisticated societal mechanisms that empowers women politically, financially and politically in Pakistan that is completely foreign to American women.” http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/letters-to-hillary/#comment-168690 were called. Some of them might not even be “foreign to American women”

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        June 26, 2016, 10:06 am

        Gamal,

        Thanks for the additional information about MY, but does this show that she does not know anything about the status of women in Pakistan, or that women face no social obstacles there?

        Of course a lot of Asian countries had no vote in the 1920s because they were under the control of Western powers, but so what? The legal barriers to American women’s participation in politics had been removed before people in those countries had a chance to create (or not) legal barriers to women in those countries.

        But simalcuz is wrong when he says “even the most “backwards” countries in Asia have yet to block women from voting and holding public office.” Two, at least, did just that.

        The Japanese started experimenting with this voting stuff in the late Meiji and the Taisho eras, but it was illegal for women to even attend political meetings until the 1920s. Votes for women came in 1945. China started having elections, sort of, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, but women did not get the vote until 1949. (1947, according to one researcher.)

        And when, in his clumsy attempts at English, he asks “Did any other country apart from the US banned women from voting on the grounds that they are not psychologically and cognitively unfit to do so?” he reveals that he knows nothing of the struggle for women’s suffrage in the rest of the world.

        So when simalcuz tries to pretend that women politicians in the US face some special set of obstacles the like of which no other women politicians face he is simply talking bollocks.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        June 26, 2016, 7:26 pm

        ” I was thinking of some of the women who actually were leaders, though not Catherine the Great.”

        You don’t meet women like that anymore. Now, they’re all called just “Cathy”.

  2. JWalters
    JWalters
    June 22, 2016, 7:02 pm

    Fortunately for the oligarchy candidate, the oligarchy press doesn’t report on what’s ACTUALLY going on in the world.

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      June 22, 2016, 9:55 pm

      re “the oligarchy press”

      Nice phrase: more descriptive than the tired old “MSM” that I’ve seen and used for so long. I may well start using it (probably without attribution).

  3. ritzl
    ritzl
    June 22, 2016, 8:15 pm

    Well done!

    I keep forgetting about Honduras.

  4. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    June 22, 2016, 11:20 pm

    OT:

    The head of NATO called for ramped up ties with Israel Tuesday, as President Rueven Rivlin visited the alliance’s headquarters ahead of the creation of a mission for the Jewish state there.

    The new mission had been discussed for several years but was held up by opposition from Turkey, a key NATO member which is reportedly on the verge of normalizing ties with Israel, once its close regional ally, top officials said Tuesday.

    NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Israel had been an active alliance partner for 20 years and now it was “essential” to step up cooperation and go a step further.

    “Violence in North Africa and in the Middle East is a clear threat to all our nations…. It is vital that countries which share the same values … stand together against hate and terrorism,” Stoltenberg told reporters … [emphasis added]

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/nato-chief-says-upping-cooperation-with-israel-essential/

    —————

    In a speech at the Herzliya Conference, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Herzi Halevy, took Israel’s long-standing position that it “prefers ISIS” over the Syrian government to a whole ‘nother level, declaring openly that Israel does not want to see ISIS defeated in the war.

    Quoted in the Hebrew-language NRG site, linked to Maariv, Maj. Gen. Halevy expressed concern about the recent offensives against ISIS territory, saying that in the last three months the Islamist group was facing the “most difficult” situation since its inception and declaration of a caliphate.

    Israeli officials have regularly expressed comfort with the idea of ISIS conquering the whole of Syria, saying they find it preferable to the Iran-allied government surviving the war. At the same time, they were never so overtly supportive of ISIS and its survival.
    [emphasis added]

    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

  5. Marnie
    Marnie
    June 23, 2016, 7:35 am

    That was bitchin’ Susie Day!!!

  6. Mahboob Khan
    Mahboob Khan
    June 23, 2016, 8:17 am

    Well written letter.

    It may be sent to her.

    Unfortunately, I do not see any leader of the caliber of JFK.

  7. Theo
    Theo
    June 23, 2016, 10:20 am

    Susie, thanks for your “letters”, I had such good chucles reading them.
    Humor is a balsam for the soul.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      June 23, 2016, 5:51 pm

      “Humor is a balsam for the soul.”

      That’s right. It’s not just for saps. Our souls pine fir it.

  8. genesto
    genesto
    June 23, 2016, 3:17 pm

    Hillary reminds me so much of Claire Underwood in ‘House of Cards’, so consumed by blind ambition to be President that she has lost her humanity in the process. Trump may potentially be the most dangerous President we have ever had, but Hillary isn’t far behind!

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      June 24, 2016, 7:29 am

      We have two lousy choices. Drumpf is in Scotland having a news conference, and it was embarrassing to see this so called Presidential candidate act like a cheap salesman and keep peddling the best golfing resort and mention Mar-a-lago and his other “best hotels” in the process. He once again shows he is a showman and hardly qualified to lead this country.
      Hillary is damaged goods and in bed with all the wrong people who are harmful to our political system. The co-founder of PNAC is fundraising for her too.

      “Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, will speak at a Hillary for America fundraiser in Washington’s Logan Circle neighborhood on July 21. According to an invite obtained by FP, the “event will include an off-the-record conversation on America’s continued investment in NATO, key European allies and partners, and the EU.”

      “During the heat of the Democratic primary campaign, prominent Sanders supporters sought to tie Clinton to the more hawkish foreign policy of Kagan and other neoconservatives, noting his favorable remarks toward the former first lady.

      “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Kagan told the New York Times in 2014. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

      Anyone who is surprised by this just hasn’t been paying attention.”

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        June 25, 2016, 2:13 am

        Per President Drumpf

        All foreign dignitaries must reside at Drumpf Tower/hotels or resorts (buzz kill)
        ” ” ” must eat Drumpf Steaks – the best meat in America! (fail)
        ” ” ” must drink Drumpf wine or face Drumpf whine (‘nother fail)
        ” must read Drumpf mags – foreign and domestic (whoops)
        ” children must attend Drumpf University (dang it!)

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        June 25, 2016, 2:43 am

        “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Kagan told the New York Times in 2014. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” Of course, as long as they don’t call it what it really is.

        Because you know she’s all about her base
        ‘Bout her base, ziobase.
        She’s all about her base
        ‘Bout her base, no treif-all
        She’s all about her base
        ‘Bout her base, next level!
        She’s all about her ziobase
        base… base… base…ziobase

        Yeah, it’s pretty clear, she ain’t for Palestine – no news.
        She’ll shake them and break them like the neocons tell her to do.
        ‘Cause she’ll be getting that boom boom that the chosen few wants to use
        On the folks that her peoples have said ‘No state for you’!
        (from Meghan Trainor “All About That Bass, sorry Ms. Trainor)

        Because she’s all about that base…

Leave a Reply