I couldn’t bring myself to watch The Hillary Debate. After watching this self-appointed “Smartest Woman in the World” foul stuff up continuously since 1991, I just didn’t have the stomach for it. I’ve already seen her schtick. It would be like watching a crappy “B” movie that you hate, just one more time, for the hundredth time. Enough already…please.
Simply put, she suffers from several personal flaws. Some are internal character flaws. We don’t want to go there. Many are environmental (even though self induced). For instance: 1) she came from a “conservative family,” which we’ve come to understand may mean nothing at all, 2) she went to Wellesley, or something, 3) her education was exclusively Ivy League (sad, but it happens), 4) she was fired from her first legal job for deep-sixing exculpatory evidence during the Watergate hearings (her boss was a liberal), 5) she married the Arch Cracker, but she hated the down-hominess that he relished and utilized so well, 6) she botched the first attempt at universal healthcare (which was her first attempt at creating a crisis and from which she learned nothing), 7) she got her head handed to her by an unknown amateur in 2008, 8) she always forgave Bill, 9) …..awwwww…why go on?
The Ruskie Politburo, back in the good old days of the Cold War (when our dumbest politicians were smart enough not to create great political vacuums and donate our Abrams tanks to the murderous cretins who rushed in to fill the void), had a practice without a name, whereby every year or two the Chair Guy politely died and was replaced promptly by the oldest living member, thus ensuring everyone would get a chance to yank around on the levers of power. It kept all the old dudes on the Politburo polite and reluctant to engage in intrigue. They were assured their “fifteen minutes of fame” and then some. The Politburo Non-Power Play is my only explanation for the Dems picking this old nag with no ideas. Unfortunately, this is not the only similarity between the Dems and the old guys of the Politburo. Case in point; Bernie Sanders a self-avowed socialist vs. Hillary an un-avowed, non-committal whatever.
I never was clear on that “Smartest Woman in the World” claim. Do we infer she thinks women are typically as smart as men, but in a different way? Or are all women not as smart as all men? Or are women and men pretty much equally brainy, which means that maybe only a few men are smarter then she…otherwise she’d claim to be the smartest “person” in the world…right?
Somehow the safest inference is that she isn’t the smartest person in the world. Which everyone with a brain knew when the claim was made. That’s how things work with “sexist” or “racial” generalizations. Her claim isn’t much better than, for instance, “All white folks are devils.” Most of us see such a statement as inherently false …except Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, the self-entitled citizens of Freebie Nation …and, of course, their dim-witted disciples.