When I said that Hillary Clinton was riding her husband’s coattails into the White House I was mocked. “No, she’s a serious politician in her own right,” I was told. Of course this is true, which is why I did not dispute it, but nonetheless I did not think it detracted from my point; serious politician or not, she would never have been given a snowball’s chance in hell of being future President, were it not for who her husband is. And yet, when I continue to claim that the only reason for sane people to vote for her is because her husband did the job (and did it well) I get criticised. Well, it seems I was right. Not that I’m surprised, I’m often right. I am not like the lesser mortals that mock my very good points, only to later be proved wrong. Not wishing to spend too much time gloating over the fact that I am simply better than you, I shall move on.
The very fact that she is so clearly trading off her marriage is the main reason I oppose her candidacy. Of course it does help that I think Rudy Giuliani would be a better President, but even if I believed that she would make a good president (which I do not, she is quite possibly the worst of all the candidates) I’d oppose her on the grounds of her shameless use of her husband for electioneering. Her actions have sold out her entire gender, suggesting women can only do the job if they marry the right man. When one looks back on the Lewinsky situation, one can’t help being cynical and believing she only stood by him because he was her meal-ticket into the White House herself. Not that I have any issue with what he did, this blog is inspired by that momentous occasion. I admire the man.
Sadly I can’t say the same about that pathetic excuse for a wife he has.