Via Stilton's Place
Monday, February 15, 2021
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Friday, March 30, 2018
Ma Clinton Makes Less In Speaking Fee Than
Semi-Literate TV Reality Star
Semi-Literate TV Reality Star
Once upon a time people were throwing six figures at Hillary Clinton for a speech. Despite being a book author *snork* she’s still a loser and she’s making less than Jersey Shore star Snookie for speaking fees. This week Hillary gave a speech at Rutgers University and was paid 7 grand less than the school dropped on a drunken Oompa Loompa.
NJ.com reports: Earlier today, NJ Advance Media reported that Hillary Clinton was being paid $25,000 to speak at Rutgers University, for a speech about “politics, American democracy and her role in shaping women’s political history.” To some, this sounds like a nice chunk of change. But to those who are familiar with the celebrity speaking circuit, it’s basically bubkes. Chump change. A drop in the DNC bucket. Consider that in 2015, no less a statesman than Matthew McConaughey was paid $135,000 (plus travel and expenses — alright, alright, alright!) to speak at the University of Houston, and that Katie Couric cleared $110,000 in 2006 from the University of Oklahoma (pre-recession, sure, but still impressive!). In fact, Rutgers has a history of shelling out considerably more that $25,000 to notable speakers. And Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi was given $32,000 for a Rutgers appearance that offered the sage advice, “Study hard, but party harder.”
Rutgers definitely got their money’s worth. The Hill reports that Hillary told the audience she won’t let sexists stop her from continually complaining about the reasons, not including her, that she lost the 2016 presidential election. The funny thing is, it is Hillary’s own party that is telling her to STFU. Democrats are trying desperately to distance themselves from this bitter old loser because she is so toxic it threatens them even in traditionally democratic districts.
Now that Hillary makes less than Snookie in speaking fees she has officially been demoted to the D-list. The only thing left for her now is judging pie eating contests at county fairs and signing autographs at RV shows. Then again, she’d have to spend time around deplorables to do these things, so she might actually be unemployable at this stage.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Friday, August 5, 2016
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
"Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We have become immune to lies and the liars who tell them.
I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful dishonesty has lead the way in lowering the bar for integrity in public life. ... We would have better politics and be a better country if we had stopped the Clintons years ago. It was obvious before his election that Bill Clinton was a stranger to truth, and it soon became obvious that Hillary was no better. ...
In a world that prized truth, she couldn't be dog-catcher. In our world, she could be president." — Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Friday, January 1, 2016
|Graphic via Freaking News|
It’s a good thing Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president, or else some people would be forced to find creative no-holes-barred ways to mention Bill Clinton’s most famous asset. Ever since he left office, it’s been hard to figure out by some how to insert the former president's notorious member into conversation. Which really hasn’t stopped anyone from trying. (Good job, Maureen Dowd!)
But now that the former Senator and former Secretary of State is running for the highest office in the land and blah blahing all the time, all over the place, about how we need a Strong Leader with girly parts, it’s irresponsible to talk about America's most notorious political penis. Tell us why "Liberal" columnist Ruth Marcus:
"Ordinarily, I would argue that the sins of the husband should not be visited on the wife. What Bill Clinton did counts against him, not her, and I would include in that her decision to stick with him. What happens inside a marriage is the couple’s business, and no one else’s, even when both halves crave the presidency."Marcus is one of those “liberal” “feminists” who is still SO MAD at Hillary Clinton, for letting her husband do infidelities to her, so of course there is a but:
"Hillary Clinton has made two moves that lead me, gulp, to agree with Trump on the “fair game” front. She is (smartly) using her husband as a campaign surrogate, and simultaneously (correctly) calling Trump sexist...." These moves open a dangerous door. It should surprise no one that Trump has barged right through it....."It makes perfect sense when you look at it that way, so long as you’ve also taken a whole metric load of acid first. Since Hillary “Doormat” Clinton unforgivably forgave her husband for doing stuff with his penis, and she has the audacity to let her spouse kiss the babies and the butter cow on the campaign trail like every other presidential candidate in history and she has observed (along with the rest of the radical man-eaters' sentients) that Donald Trump is a gross nasty sexist pig, Hillary Clinton started it, and it’s her fault for forcing Trump to bring Bill’s Big Dog into this, by being married to him.
Oh sorry, you probably didn’t take quite enough acid for that, did you?
The bottom line is that Hillary’s run for the Oval Office means the radical feminist and the internet blogosphere can finally, in the name of “politics,” return to their national obsession of the past with the actions of Bill Clinton and his famous member!
Me, no I wouldn't think of stooping to that......
Monday, September 28, 2015
Clinton supporters remain remarkably confused as to why their chosen candidate is having such a difficult time relating to the common people, even though she's clearly been communing with the proletariat on a regular basis since this candidacy took flight. To the public, of course, Hillary's lack of appeal is self-evident; her prickly, false demeanor speaks volumes about her ambition and her desire to lead. She'd make an excellent President - if only the job didn't involve actual Americans.
According to a new book, Bill Clinton recognized Hillary's disconnect early on and tried to hire master filmmaker Steven Spielberg to mold Clinton's image. The effort, though, turned out less like the director's remarkable crafting of an extraterrestrial into a friendly sidekick in E.T. and more like the crafting of an angry, reanimated Elsa Lanchester.
Hillary Clinton enlisted the help of Steven Spielberg in an attempt to maker her seem more likeable, a new book claims.
The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination was urged to seek help by her husband Bill Clinton - and he told her: 'Let’s ask Steven for help,' according to the book, which is called "Unlikeable".
So their friend Spielberg provided acting coaches to help Hillary prepare for speeches. But the sessions came to an abrupt end after Hillary took her frustrations out on a camera and knocked it off its tripod, according to an excerpt of the book published in the New York Post.
Hillary. Angry. Hillary. SMASH.
Apparently, she didn't like the suggestion that she "pretend" to like her audiences. After all, according to Hillary, she got paid a quarter million to deliver her speeches to salivating audiences across the globe - what advice did she really need professional actors? She's clearly fantastic at the art.
Since Spielberg has since bowed out of the process - at least according to reports - Clinton is taking on a different tactic in ingratiating herself to a willing public, aligning with comedian Amy Schumer and whatever-she-is Lena Dunham to chat about things Americans really care about, like Wall Street bankers and Lenny Kravitz's undercarriage.
Unfortunately, Lena Dunham is a softball interview, so even as Clinton lies directly to her face - she's not going to take on a single big bank, as she's already gotten millions from hedge fund bankers and financial sector PACs, and as we've seen her level of experience with technology, it's difficult to believe she could find a viral video on YouTube - so we're still left wondering whether Clinton really even lives in the same world the rest of us do. The interview even makes Kanye West look thoughtful by comparison.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
When Bill Clinton first appeared on the national stage, he brought a nickname with him,"Slick Willie". Twenty five years later, Slick Willie has disappeared. Bill Clinton isn’t slick anymore. Based on this article in the NYT's, 'Worked Up Willie' is probably a better fit for him.
In an interview today on CNN, Worked Up Willie does his best to take pressure off Hillary by saying:
“I have never seen so much expended on so little. She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion. And she’d like to give the election back to the American people. I think it will be all right. But it’s obvious what happened.”The problem Bill has, that Hillary has really, is what they can’t say.
Hillary can’t say that she’s sorry for compromising the United States’ national security by exposing the United States’ sources and methods to hacking invasions by China and Russia. Hillary can’t really say that she’s done everything possible to keep United States’ satellite imagery out of Chinese and Russians’ hands.
Bill Clinton knows these things. That’s why he’s attempting to deflect attention away from those questions. He’s doing for Hillary what Hillary did for Bill during Monicagate. The problem is that she isn’t the skilled politician he was. People don’t trust her. They don’t like her, either. That’s because Hillary hit the trifecta of negativity. She isn’t likable. She isn’t trustworthy. She’s definitely a terrible politician. You can do much worse than that.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
"Months into her e-mail scandal, Hillary Clinton is still trying to get away with lines like, 'There's no evidence of that.' Oh, and answering questions with laughter. No wonder she keeps falling in the polls -- behind a 74-year-old Brooklyn-born socialist in the first two primary states, where more folks are paying attention.
"Donors are panicking because she can't make the story go away -- and her campaign is reaching for a lifeline: It's started sending Bill Clinton out to fund-raise.
He's not doing public events yet -- the campaign doesn't want to be seen to need him. But that moment is coming -- because it's looking like the only thing that can save Hillary Clinton now is a truly gifted liar." - NYP
Thursday, September 17, 2015
"Blumenthal, who made his bones with Hillary by sliming Bill’s intern Monica Lewinsky after it became public knowledge she had been performing her services under the desk in the Oval Office, really outdid himself smearing Caroline. Blumenthal had an arrangement with Tina Brown where he could, as a freelance consultant, commission stories to be written for the Daily Beast.
He generated stories kneecapping Kennedy including two pieces critical of Kennedy, one referring to her as a “puppet” and the other describing her candidacy as an “insult” because the Clinton's feared that if she secured the Senate seat she could become a rival for power. Brown, a longstanding Clinton ally, facilitated the smears. She now says she was unaware Blumenthal may simultaneously have been on the Clinton Foundation payroll.Kennedy's timely endorsement of the little-known Barack Obama over Hillary in 2008 was significantly helpful in him gaining the nomination. It's said Caroline Kennedy is furious over the revelation that a confidant of Hillary Clinton secretly sabotaged her bid to become a Senator and Kennedy may seek her revenge by backing veep Joe Biden if he runs for president.
Is it any wonder democrats are starting to turn on her, and saying things in private they not dare say in public....at least not yet. They smell blood in the water and she's losing support daily with the drip drip of news of this woman's dealings, and is about to be exposed for what she is, a vicious uncouth politician, and criminal.
And the more we learn, the more she becomes red meat for people the Clinton's have wronged over the years, and for the natural enemies she made by aligning herself with the Obama administration. When the fall finally comes, it's not going to be pretty at all, and an opportunity for Clinton enemies to feed publicly on the the blood of the fresh red meat.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
What a Great Way to Hide Evidence.
Send it out to Your Supporters to Hide.
Meet "ThxBox"—a personal thank you from Hillary. Get on the waiting list to find out more: http://t.co/VOXlYiycaI pic.twitter.com/NntUpyTOgA— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015
By Monica Crowley
The Clintons have never taken a political hit lying down. But given their weak and panicky reactions to Mr. Obama’s current, well-orchestrated hit on her — the FBI investigation into her alleged mishandling of classified material as secretary of state — they have appeared to passively absorb the escalating attack. Until now.
As he presses his attack, Mrs. Clinton has two choices. Option one: fold early and negotiate a mild end to the investigation in exchange for dropping out of the race. But Mr. Obama is not a forgiving sort, and now that he’s drawn blood, he’s likely to go for the kill.
That suggests that the Clintons are going with option two: fight him — as part of an elaborate, unspoken negotiation between them over their secrets and futures. That requires a plausible defense. Their go-to strategy has always been to blame others, or inanimate objects such as documents, servers, “processes” — and to designate a fall guy (or gal) to take the rap.
This is the well-worn path they now appear to be pursuing to try to escape Mr. Obama’s ever-tightening political and legal vise.
According to a well-placed source, the four known documents at the center of the FBI investigation are deeply problematic. (They came from a relatively small sample; with each new email dump, there are more questionable documents.) Some of the documents appear to have had no original classification markings. A critical point: the federal government classifies by information, not by marking; that is, if a document contains obvious classified material, ie. information provided by a foreign government, it is automatically considered classified, even if it isn’t marked as such. Mrs. Clinton knew this — or should have.
Initially she claimed unequivocally that there “was no classified material.” She now says, “The facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified.”
This appears to be the basis for her defense: that some of the documents’ classified markings were removed or changed — without permission — before she saw them.
By whom? There are only three people who were close enough to her to have had that kind of access: