The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
What Do We Have to Lose?
2016 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
        Oh well. So she lies. So she seems diligent, and successful, in her apparent goal of becoming a person that can't be trusted. But what the heck. Isn't it about time we had a woman president? Men have gotten all the glory and all the bonuses of the High Office, higher pay for the same work, and so many benefits in other areas. But they so often screw things up. Look at all the wars we've fought, the high taxes, the millions of poor people, so let's see how a woman handles it. What have we got to lose?
        Never mind that she will be like a third-term Obama, or that she wants to heavely tax the wealthy people who paid outrageous sums of money to hear her and her hubby speak to them. Never mind that, as Cal Thomas said, "We've heard it all before" about her Convention speech, which the New York Times rated "Not well written, not well delivered." Or what the Clear Politics said, "Clinton is giving the eighth best speech of the Convention."
And maybe the best and most accurate thing that could be said about her, according to Thomas, was that she has a "thin record of accomplishment".
        The Wall Street Journal added, "This November is about whether Americans can look at 40 years of Clinton chicanery and nearly a decade of broken Obama promises, and pull the lever for her." But all this is beside the point, perhaps. She is a woman. That's all some liberal women need to know. By God, they say, this is no longer a man's world. We're as good as they are. It's about time, we need a change, regardless of qualifications. Never mind that her husband called her the best "change maker" he's ever known. What else would he say? But change is what Obama promised, Mr. Thomas repeats, but failed to deliver. And the president spends much of his time now deciding how he's going to spend his post-office time, owning a major league sports team, or a high office in some department of the business world, or as a play-by-play sports announcer. And the man supports her in the run for the White House. And the list of why she should not be elected goes on and on and is not over yet. The woman does not qualify. She only has these day dreams of her and her "loving" husband, sitting at the oval office, where Bill spent some interesting moments, being waited on hand and foot, making "strategic", higher-tax-rate decisions, so that her name will go down as the first woman president and the wife of a prior president. You can bet that's what she wants. Tune in 4 years from now and see if even the most liberal of liberals can say, "We did the right thing. Wasn't she great?"