When you’re looking for information about which presidential candidate to vote for, there are a lot of things to consider: Which one has the better chance of winning an election, and who is better suited to serve as commander in chief of our armed forces, head of government of the United States, and leader of the free world?
So who would you ask? You would ask someone who failed in their quest for this job not once, but twice! And few people can say that, but one of them, Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, First of That Name, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, spoke out on this very subject in an essay published on Tuesday. New York Times.
Let us take a closer look at some of its key points.
Mr. Biden has accomplished something challenging and infrequent. Being president was a lifelong dream. And when he finally achieved it, he was exceptionally good at it. Giving that up and accepting that leaving office meant passing the baton required real moral clarity. The country was more significant. As someone who shared that dream and had to come to terms with giving it up, I know it wasn’t simple. But it was the right thing to do.
Yes, Joe Biden was never particularly good at anything in his long political career, except corruption – you have to admit, he was pretty good at that. He was arguably one of the worst – perhaps The worst president in American history. This, mind you, puts him in competition with good-for-nothings like Andrew Johnson and Jimmy Carter. He was propped up by the Democratic Party apparatus, which did everything it could to cover up the president’s progressive decline until they simply couldn’t hide it any longer – and then they unceremoniously sent him out.
Her Imperial Majesty writes about candidate Harris:
There is now an even sharper, clearer choice in this election. On one side is a convicted criminal who only cares about himself and is trying to turn back the clock on our rights and our country. On the other side is a savvy former prosecutor and effective Vice President who embodies our belief that America’s best days are yet to come. It’s venerable grievances versus up-to-date solutions.
A sharper, clearer voice? If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is certainly worth a million:
That’s a “sharper, clearer” voice? The queen of word salads? She’s the one of “what can be, unencumbered by what was” nonsense? On the teleprompter, Kamala Harris is only partially intelligible; when she speaks off the cuff, she’s abysmal. The ability to speak intelligently, without a script, teleprompter, or even notes, is a good sign of intellectual ability – intelligence, if you will. And Kamala Harris can’t do that. Take from that what you will.
See also: While the Democrats are cheering for Kamala Harris, the election reality suddenly becomes material
The rules of the game have changed, and Republicans must recognize this to avoid disaster
But here is the real screamer:
I know a thing or two about how demanding it can be for forceful female candidates to prevail against the sexism and double standards of American politics. I’ve been called a witch, a “wicked woman,” and much worse. I’ve even been burned in effigy. As a candidate, I sometimes shied away from talking about making history. I wasn’t sure voters were ready for it. And I didn’t run to break a barrier; I ran because I thought I was best suited for the job. While it still hurts me that I couldn’t break that highest, hardest glass ceiling, I’m proud that in both of my presidential campaigns, it seemed normal to have a woman at the top of the ballot.
Oh man. That statement just reeks of hubris, but that’s not the worst part of it. Even though Hillary Clinton was never the most qualified to do anything she’s ever done — except maybe corruption — she somehow claims, despite all evidence to the contrary, that she lost two presidential elections because of sexism. She lost those elections because she faced a younger, more charismatic candidate in 2008 — mind you, that sets the bar pretty low — and in 2016 because she faced an unprecedented figure who had a knack for reading the rules — the Constitution — and figuring out how to win.
But above all, Her Imperial Majesty lost because she was a terrible candidate and a terrible person. She is one of the most deeply and fundamentally corrupt political figures since Huey Long – perhaps Caligula – and she suffers not only from a hubris that would put the Kuiper Belt to shame and a monstrous sense of entitlement. Her 2016 presidential motto was “It’s my turn, peasants!”
And she still can’t accept the fact that she lost.
We all have our own criteria for deciding which presidential candidate gets our vote, but Hillary Clinton’s opinion on this issue should not hold water with any voter with enough sense to pound sand.
