Let me start with the fact that there is no one I know of who has gone further, while getting away with more, and accomplishing less, than Hillary Clinton.

The only two times she got her backside handed to her so far were in the presidential races of 2008, when Barack Obama “trumped” her message of “overcoming female victimhood” by being Black, and in 2016 when Donald Trump “trumped” her by, well, being Trump.

It is now 2019.  Hillary is still around and another presidential race is in progress – one, it should be noted, in which the weaknesses of every major Democrat candidate might provide an opening for her one last shot at the Oval Office.  So she has re-emerged, and has been in the headlines attacking President Trump for the better part of a month now.

But, while doing so, she has also decided to attack second-tier Democrat candidate Tulsi Gabbard – by using the strategy most of our media have apparently given their imprimatur to: calling her a tool of Russia.

Tulsi Gabbard???  Who, before becoming a House member from Hawaii, had a truly distinguished career in our our military, was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait, and achieved the rank of Major (she still is a major in the Hawaii National Guard)?

Clinton, for who knows what reason (maybe she is still being advised by the same Disasterites who helped facilitate her loss in the 2016 election) decided to mount a frontal attack on, of all things, Ms. Gabbard’s loyalties – both to the Democrat Party and the United States.

Excerpted from Aaron Blake’s article in the Washington Post:

In a conversation on former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, “Campaign HQ,” Clinton suggested the Russians are leveraging a number of top U.S. politicians. She suggested Russia had kompromat, or compromising information, on Trump. She accused 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein of being a “Russian asset.” And she suggested Russia might back Gabbard as a third-party candidate.

“They’re also going to do third-party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Gabbard later responded harshly to Clinton on Twitter, telling her, “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”

Let’s start with what I think is now a reasonable question:  has Hillary Clinton become a raving paranoid?

Trump:  owned by the Russians.  Jill Stein:  owned by the Russians.  Tulsi Gabbard:  owned by the Russians.  And who else do you figure she’ll include in this group next?  (Can I suggest Bernie Sanders?  At least, there, you can make a case based on the issues he is touting).

(Incidentally, don’t you love Aaron Blake’s line that “Gabbard later responded harshly…”?  I wonder how he would respond to a full frontal defamation like the one Hillary Clinton tossed?)

Rep. Gabbard, she wasn’t through either.

Excerpted from Hunter Woodall’s article for the Associated Press:

In a series of tweets Friday, Gabbard called Clinton the “personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.” Gabbard also alleged there has been a “concerted campaign” to destroy her reputation since she announced her presidential run in January.

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me,” Gabbard tweeted about Clinton. “Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

This, folks, is not a friendly disagreement. It isn’t even an unfriendly one – that got left in the dust several tweets ago.  This is a hot war.

And Ms. Gabbard’s obviously bloated image of her standing in the race for the Democrat presidential nomination aside, I doubt that it is going to be – or even can be – glossed over in the near future.

This leaves me with the question I asked earlier.  If Hillary Clinton was going to pick a fight with a Democrat presidential hopeful, why in the world would it have been with Tulsi Gabbard?  Why wouldn’t it have been with a major candidate – for example, current front-runner Elizabeth Warren?  That would have made a lot more sense.

On the other hand, for all we know Clinton is about to spring definitive “proof” that Elizabeth Warren’s real name is Olga Warrenovski, and 1/1024th of her family came from Irkutsk.

The scary part?  If she did that, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of our mainstream media backed her up on it.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *