FBI's Comey: A Weasel Among Rats

“You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.” – FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey's psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?

Recall, the FBI's motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau's former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor. Men like Eliot “untouchable” Ness who risked life and limb to combat criminally rather than condone it as James Comey clearly has. How else does one explain his actions of last January, of laying out an unambiguous case of multifaceted Clintonian law breaking, only to ultimately sit on his hands and close the investigations?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Comey foolishly took the political heat for his public pronouncements. Yet, the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation's top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn't a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?

So, one supposes during their 20 to 25 minute exchange, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Clinton only chitchatted about the grand kids as was claimed? Seriously? That's the same malarkey as Mrs. Clinton's yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding plans that she claimed populated her private servers. Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.

By ignoring the law—and the evidence—Mr. Comey wrongly recommended non-prosecution. He laughable claimed he didn't want to interfere in the upcoming election, but he has done precisely that—and not on the side of the angels. How is any presidential candidate known by reputation to be a habitual liar—an immoral and greedy person mired in 40 years of infamy—good for the country? If the email scandal wasn't malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn't even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey's a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.

Experience repeatedly demonstrates that honesty and the 'for sale' Clintons have never coincided. They should be on the verge of the big house, not the White House. What on earth is going on here? How can the superficial irrelevancy of identity politics—this time in the trivial form of an empty skirt by a corrupt wearer—obscure this obvious truth? One wonders, is this propagandist Germany of 1933 or freedom-loving America of 2016? How can such an ignoble character enjoy such mindless support—and have a 50/50 shot at becoming the next U.S. president?

In any case, Mr. Nixon was drummed out of the nation's highest office for his law breaking. He certain didn't go in the door dogged by a well-established track record of villainy as Hillary Clinton hopes to. That, too, is a vital distinction. Yet, the Mrs. Pig Pen of American politics has only one unpredictable barrier to overcome if she can: outsider Donald Trump.

In the final analysis, political power without a guiding morality—and/or respect for law—is inherently corrupt. This dynamic encapsulates the disastrous Obama years (soon mercifully to be in the rear view mirror), James Comey's “weaselly” words of last week, and the titanic mistake of electing another corrupt Clinton to the Oval Office in November.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary's Hypocrisy Henchmen

“If it were not for double standards, liberals [politicians and the MSM] would have no standards at all.” - WMAL's conservative radio personality Chris Plante

When extreme leftist klansman David Duke announced public support for a Donald Trump presidency, the MSM wrongly smeared the Republican candidate for the endorsement. Honestly, in what sane world is any candidate responsible for any nutcase who chooses to back him? If American culture consistently demonstrates anything, it's that it takes all kinds of people freely making choices for their own reasons. That's democracy.

Yet, this jaded presentation of information was not journalism's objective reporting of facts, but naked partisanship based upon false innuendo. For starters, a racist, anti-suffrage klansman will never populate the party of Abraham Lincoln—Republicans then as now—that's the Democrats' department. Before one jumps to the erroneous conclusion that liberals aren't “that way” anymore, which of today's political parties bases its polarizing narratives on irrelevancies like gender identity? Which party's candidate says: 'elect me because I'm a woman?' Furthermore, which party successfully counted on another superficiality, that of race over the last eight disastrous years?

Even the educated are fooled that the Democrats “atoned” for their disgraceful pro-slavery history with the passage of Lyndon Baines Johnson's “holy grail”: the 1964 Civil Rights bill. However, what is always true of progressives—then with Johnson, now with Clinton—is that things below the surface of their media-spun actions don't line up with truth. At the time, LBJ admitted privately his real agenda:

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!”

Started in the 20^th century and carried forward, what accompanied the good anti-discrimination statutes were invisible economic chains that have tricked generations of minorities into the barest government-supported subsistence in exchange for becoming loyal Democratic voting blocs. This dynamic is better known as the Democrat's poverty plantation. How else does one explain 90% of Afro-Americans supporting Republicans in Lincoln's time, but only approximately 10% more recently?

Minorities are perpetually infantilized; convinced by Democrats via their MSM creature that obtaining a free identity card is a bridge too far to cross. That such a standard applied to anyone of voting age is somehow surreptitiously racist. Yet, as anyone sensible knows, an ID is a basic, modern necessity. How else does one open a bank account, get a job or legally drive a car? As president, only Barack Obama doesn't need one. While he habitually golfs with millionaires—and parties with billionaires—his wholly abandoned Chicago fellows eek out impoverished lives in inner city slums more dangerous than some Middle Eastern war zones. Only the most extraordinary individuals—a select few like Dr. Ben Carson—rise from such humble beginnings to enjoy our now debt-ridden capitalistic system. If Hillary's advocacy of Bernie Sanders' style socialism is the path to mass prosperity, wouldn't brainy Mr. Carson support her?

Speaking of unhinged support for a corrupt liar, we arrive at the funny farm of colorful characters that actually do endorse this Clintonian hydra of American scandal. While the media has ensured nutter David Duke is a household name, the powers-at-be have ignored John Bachtell. (“Jeopardy” champions, does that guy ring a bell for you?) Mr. Bachtell—an outspoken Hillary advocate—is the little known chairman of the Communist Party of the United States.

Think he's just an exception to the rule? Let's try the better known two-faced Seddique Mateen, a vocal Taliban supporter (read: pro-terrorism) and simultaneous lip service apologist for his jihadist, mass murdering son. (The younger Mateen, Omar, slaughtered 49 innocents at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse.) Unlike Trump, the “objective” press did not take Hillary Clinton to task for not disavowing Seddique's clapping presence at her Kissimmee rally (ironically featuring a speech about the tragedy). For his part, obviously, the elder Mateen felt quite comfortable in Mrs. Clinton's company. He even told a local TV affiliate: “I was invited by the Democratic Party.”

Naturally, the Clinton camp denied Seddique's claim—much as they habitually deny every unsavory reality related to their candidate. The press has not followed up on the matter. Nor are they ever likely to. Why? For one thing, 93% of journalists self-identify as Democrats. Moreover, as with all contemporary Clinton wrongdoing, one must heavily factor money into the equation (read: Clinton Cash). Thus, the larger answer lies in the fact that as of 2011, 6 conglomerates control 90% of the legacy media. Given all of the kid glove, fawning coverage of Hillary Clinton, what are the odds that virtually all of these corporate behemoths are not contributors to her “charitable foundation” and/or her presidential campaign?

As Charity-gate has already demonstrated, “dead broke” Hillary peddles high level government influence for an ill-gotten 238 million dollar personal fortune. Undoubtedly, the liberal media has met Mrs. Clinton's asking price. Therefore, they have both a philosophical bias and a substantial investment in her presidency. Simply put, the fix is in. In effect, the MSM functions as the propagandist arm of the anti-JFK Democratic Party. All of the above truths are easily obscured, buried under an avalanche of 24-hour MSM spin.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Radioactive Hillary

It's as easy as yellow cake—highly prized uranium—to know which U.S. presidential candidate Vladimir Putin supports. Despite the MSM tall tale, that's not unpredictable, tough guy Donald Trump. If the Russians want to interfere in America's presidential contest, it's clearly in their country's best interest to support the one they can readily push around: lying, corrupt Hillary Clinton.

Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton has a well-established history of bartering high level government favors to specifically benefit the USSR. Therefore, Mr. Putin knows Hillary can be cheaply bought. As Mr. Obama's former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. Per a bombshell New York Times article back in April of last year, Canadian records show that Uranium One's chairman made four donations totaling $2.35 million to Mrs. Clinton's sham of a charity. A real windfall for the Soviets! If that payoff's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock.

That's Putin's big carrot to dangle before greedy, immoral Hillary anytime he wants something. After all, formerly “dead broke”—now part of the 100 million dollar club in less than 15 years—Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated as long as she's living as large as the billionaire class she aspires to, what does she care for the 93 million unemployed fellow citizens (read: the “little people”) left to foot the ruling elites' escalating spending, the nation's $19.4 trillion debt?

If the carrot mysteriously doesn't work, there remains for Mr. Putin a Trump card. A big stick: manipulation and blackmail. Recall Server-gate, Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal servers chock full of highly classified material and American secrets. Does anyone seriously believe that foreign powers like the Russians or the Chinese have not stolen those 33,000 deleted emails, and would not use that information against her (and us)? Donald Trump certainly thinks so.

Despite her repeated, pathological denials of any wrongdoing, she has committed treasonous acts more than once. As a true-life Orwellian Big Brother figure, Barack Obama not only doesn't hold her accountable for her clear law-breaking, but also he laughably promotes her as “most qualified” to proceed him. Thus, solely for personal gain—an ever growing slush fund accumulated via her bogus charity—Mrs. Clinton has permitted the foundational material used to make nuclear bombs to be monopolized by Russia? To further this nefarious equation, as the Soviets have business relationships with Iran—the greatest state sponsor of ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism—does it really take a nuclear scientist to connect all of these dangerous dots? What's to stop Russia from sharing its cache of American-acquired uranium with Iranian Imams (with their burgeoning nuclear ambitions and their desire to bend the will of the world to Islam)? Precisely nothing.

Hillary Clinton is a menace of the highest order. Make no mistake, she belongs in the big house not the White House. Seriously, should she be given free access to the “blank check” treasury—and the entire latitude of the U.S. government? Is branding—the irrelevancy of her husband's name—and the superficiality of her gender enough to reward this amoral creature with the keys to the kingdom? America doesn't need another polarizing, anti-American president. Likewise someone who promises a virtual Obama third term and a continuation of his eight disastrous years.

People complain about Donald Trump's unfiltered speech, but wholly ignore what Hillary has actually done? In the final analysis, what any person does is more important than what any person says. Given First Amendment protections of unpopular or controversial speech, no statement should disqualify any candidate from being president. Yet, based upon Mrs. Clinton concrete track record of unequivocal poor judgment and criminal misbehavior, she's not qualified to be dogcatcher. This is the truth despite her empty resume of impressive titles and her uncanny, Clintonian ability to slither out of multiple scandals.

Self-serving she has no love for America. Because of her lies, her unchecked lawlessness and her complete absence of moral fiber, she's a toxic candidate. Indeed, she's as dangerous and as destructive as the foreign hands now holding the radioactive uranium she sold access to. One can scarcely imagine the untold damage wrought on our country by this immoral influence-peddler from the Oval Office. Speaking of branding, the presidential ballot should come with a warning: the skull and crossbones symbol next to Hillary Clinton's name.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Nail-biting Binary Politics

One way or another, Neo [an anagram meaning “the one”], this war is going to end. Tonight, the future of both worlds will be in your hands... or in his. – The Oracle from “The Matrix.”

Due almost entirely to anti-American progressives (read: lawless Obama and his lying would-be successor Hillary Clinton), national politics are so polarized, they are binary. That's exactly like on/off computer code. In the almost 8 years under the corrupt ministrations of Barack Obama (much like his O-shaped symbol) America has been a zero (0). In practical terms, that means off an economic cliff (with an escalating 19.3 trillion debt) and an impotent void (0) overseas. In truth, our republic's vitality and viability hangs by a thread. A 50/50 rescue/ruin paradigm to be determined by November's presidential election. Will America continue to be a zero (0), helmed incompetently by yet another lying Democrat? This one arrogantly exclaimed:

“For goodness sake, that is not gonna happen [a campaign-ending federal indictment]. I’m not even answering that question.” — Hillary Clinton

Or will it be revitalized to a First World one (1) by Donald Trump? The stakes could not be higher, the outcome more uncertain.

Make no mistake: neither Hill nor Bill care not one whit (0) for our country. Mrs. Clinton's potential election is a victory solely for them (2 = 0). The Oval Office is the ultimate economic trough for this tag team of amoral sows to stick their collective snouts back in. It's retaining political power for even greater shakedowns: power brokering for stratospheric self-enrichment. See the well-established pattern: how else does one go from Hillary's “dead broke” to worth over 100 million in 15 short years? So they can do better, become billionaires in 4 (or 8) short years from further ripping off America to the highest bidder?

That's a zero-sum (0) game for everyone else. One wonders if divine intervention is necessary for average Americans to finally wake up to the insidious truth. It is insanity to elect another America-hating, Constitution-disregarding Democrat to high office. Progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are anti-Reagan and anti-Lincoln. They are twin scourges of Founding Fathers' nightmares. What their built-in checks and balances have failed to rein in (read: the Congressional do-nothing Republican establishment and “Notorious RBG” on the Supreme Court).

Let me be clear, a plague has flourished on the U.S. political landscape: hard left big government control fascists, equal parts lawlessness, lies and corruption. To ignorantly choose such creatures to “lead” America in the future is yet another self-inflicted wound with domestic, global and historical consequences. Liberty has been greatly dimmed at home—and virtually extinguished abroad (read: the Middle East takeover by ISIS, the Iran nuclear “deal” etc.). In the extreme, one no longer wonders how monstrous figures rise to absolute power like in Germany in 1933:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” – Adolf Hitler

This is why progressives (fascists), abetted by a propagandist MSM, make empty promises to the next generation of “free” stuff. This blatant trolling for votes is a resounding warning (school bell) to the wise.

Related specifically to Mrs. Clinton, the fix has been since the beginning. Specifically, way back in February during the Iowa Caucuses, how else does one explain 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall Ms. Clinton's way? (Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads or tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against.) An outcome that luck has nothing to do with. Likewise, during the sham contest between she and now vanquished socialist Bernie Sanders, he kept winning state elections, but losing in the all-important delegate count. Moreover, fast forward to the political theater of last week. On the same day, the first day Clinton and Obama appear together on the campaign stump, FBI's Director James Comey announces his boundary-overstepping recommendation that criminal charges not be filed against Hillary for Server-gate?

So it's no rules or consequences for the elites like Hillary ‘scot-free’ Clinton, is that what our dilapidated democracy's come to? A coin flip that may place the fate of the nation (and perhaps the world) in immoral hands such as hers? In a poll released last Monday, despite clear evidence of law breaking—and treasonous espionage—only 56% disapprove of the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton? That's little more than another coin toss. (How about completely failed Mr. Obama's approval ratings that also inexplicably hover at 50%?) Despite unambiguous criminality, why do half of those surveyed not seem to care?

This tragic political phenomenon is not exclusive to America of late. A case and point was the successful Brexit vote to leave the ‘bananas’ European Union. That was 52% for and 48% against, another virtual 50/50 split. In every one of these situations the political establishment (via the media) throws its nefarious weight in an autocratic direction beneficial to itself. That direction always maintains the status quo. This is the reason for moral equivalency, and the infestation of political correctness in today’s national politics. Since Obama, world-shaping decisions are either left in wicked hands, or to the whims of fate. A highly risky numbers game favoring the powerful (and enmeshed) establishments of both political parties (2 = 0). Therefore, for the voters to unite (1) behind the outsider—the unconventional candidacy of Donald Trump—remains the average citizen’s best bet to return America to her deserved First World (1) glory. It's a 50/50 proposition so choose wisely. One (1) or zero (0)?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Democrat’s Micky-D’s politics (An analysis of anti-American Progressivism)

There once was an innocent time when children actually clamored for McDonald’s food before the multinational juggernaut of a fast food chain had to advertise the superficial slogan “I’m lovin’ it” to obscure the fact that the food is not of a particularly healthful quality.  That is a precise analogy for today's Democrats and the deleterious effect their anti-Capitalistic policies have on America. 

The very small clown car of four “same well” politicians includes (interchangeably): one shrew, one socialist, one buffoon and one empty suit.  Indeed, all the so-called contenders for the Democratic nomination sing from the same hymnal of “good sounding” vote-pandering appeals designed to woo the unemployed (and part-timers via Obamacare), the stupefied (the low-information voter via MSM) and the socially alienated masses (the Occupy movement and more recently Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD violently rioting “no justice, no peace; hands up, don't shoot” city-burning anarchists) for that Pavlovian lever pull.  (Full disclosure: that 'D' in the voting booth now stands not for Democrat, but for “dupe.”)  For example, which one of the quartet recently said: “Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create, in our own country, an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind.”  (The answer: failed Maryland governor and former mayor of the racial powder keg city Baltimore, MD.)  Certainly, the ever spunky Mr. O'Malley—a former outspoken advocate of madam's first unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008—could not possibly be referring to his dear friend Hillary Clinton (the former “dead broke and in debt” resident of the White House) who via the Charity-gate corruption scandal has parleyed her high level governmental influence as Obama’s first Secretary of State into the rarified air of the uber-rich: the 100 million dollar club of the huge carbon footprint private jets and gas-guzzling limousines.  She, the “queen of money-grubbing green” (and per the Secret Service, a potty-mouthed “queen of mean”), can afford a blasé, a modern day Marie-Antoinette ‘let-them-eat-cake’ persona, because she’s not one of the 93 million able-bodied, but idle citizens—desperate for gainful, full time employment with or without health insurance—who would scarcely dream of her Grey Poupon lifestyle, let alone pay the rent. 

Even taking a family of four to McDonald’s would be a luxury for the rest us.  What difference, at this point, does it make?  A great deal actually if any one of these progressive keystone cops are put in charge of “the land of the free” going forward.  Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the other stagehands—place-holders to promote the fiction that the Democratic nomination is a contest rather than a fait accompli—are cut from the same rabble-rousing (“There is only the fight...”) Sal Alinsky mold.  Their ilk foment and prey upon the despair of the masses in order to get elected (as in Hillary’s case in 2016) or reelected (in Obama’s in 2012).  Given the last six years, I have serious doubts that any of them—collectively—could successfully run a child’s lemonade stand.  Besides taxing and regulating the hell out of it, of course.

By contrast, the Republicans are drawing a diverse field of non-professional politician contenders like Fiorina [the private sector]; Carson and Paul [former medical doctors] and one minister (and former TV personality) [Huckabee] as well as a cadre of truly substantive and up-and-coming political leaders [Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio] and the yet undeclared, but accomplished Scott Walker and family dynasty scion, Jeb Bush.  Throw a dart: any one of them would be a vastly superior choice to Hillary.

Progressivism belies a more critical and deeper-seeded issue that warrants a needed cultural discussion.  To my mind that political philosophy is an anti-American pathology infusing the ranks and the leadership of the Democratic party.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party.  It left me.”  Democrats have come so far off the boil that one of their most popular and beloved standard-bearers JFK, who at the time of his 1960s presidency advocated pro-business tax cuts (“By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth”), a strong military and anti-Communism (there would be no throwing of his metaphorical arms around the dictator Fidel Castro in a loving Obama embrace) would be considered, at minimum, a moderate Republican and fiscal conservative.  Specifically, Kennedy expressed his cherished Catholicism in faith-based speeches.  He was staunchly pro-Capitalist: free trade, strong dollar, low taxes and low deficits.  And, to illustrate the cavernous divide between Mr. Kennedy and today’s mainstream Democrats most tellingly, the 35th U.S. president was pro-individual responsibility.  The Party would show Mr. Kennedy the door on the basis of that final position alone.

In an alternative universe can anyone with a straight face imagine Mr. Obama as a Kennedy-Democrat uttering his famously patriotic and selfless words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for you country?”  Not hardly.  As the last six years clearly demonstrates, Obama’s temperament (“the fundamental transformation of America”) shows absolutely no reverence for the American ideal Kennedy valued.  JFK was a unifier and a stark defender of the United States; Obama is a weak kneed apologist who publicly condemns his own country to the glee, no doubt, of America’s geo-political foes. 

One of my favorite, personal colloquialisms is “just because there’s a MacDonald’s on every corner doesn’t mean it’s [a] good [thing].”  The MSM, everywhere too, continues to slickly promote the very people and policies antithetic to a healthily functioning America.  It is time for rank-and-file Americans to reject the Left’s ‘whack-a-mole’ game of divisive victimhood-politics.  In the mold of a youthful, federal government-slashing version of Reagan, we should elect an outspoken pro-American and fiscal conservative.  Perhaps a strict Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz paired with a hands-on practical reformer like Scott Walker is a team worth clamoring for. 

I’m lovin’ it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

Why Hillary can and will run (How Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden has it wrong)

It's a rare occurrence for Wesley Pruden to read the tea leaves so wrongly, but in this case his wishful thinking is tantamount to hysterical blindness.  It is a pop culture axiom succinctly expressed by the Oracle character in the Matrix movie: 'What do powerful men [or women] want?'  The answer: 'more power.'  In the battle of dueling Washington Times columnists the women have it when Monica Crowley correctly points out in her brilliant "Hillary and Obama" piece of Thursday, January 15 that Mrs. Clinton would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama as president.  In the case of the Clintons, their obsessive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form.  I have no doubt in their private moments to this day that the Clintons—who are legendary for holding grudges—still grouse about the fresh-faced political upstart that was the Barack Obama phenomenon of 2008 that stole "her" prize.  Unlucky for them, Mr. Obama was an attractive, articulate blank slate that the average person could, and did, literally tie his hopes to, and a better narrative: the first Afro-American president.  That trumps the first woman president narrative by a mile, and besides Hillary has enough political baggage to make Samsonite jealous.  In any case, thanks to Bubba's actions of a few years ago I knew the fix was in—that Mrs. Clinton was positioning herself for a 2016 run—back in 2012.  Indeed, given their longstanding political grudge why would Bill stump for the very person that prevented his spouse's ascension to the White House during the 2012 Democratic convention?  The answer lies, I suspect, in a political calculation; something at which the Clintons excel.  If Romney ran successfully against Obama's weak record and won, the likelihood of Republican control of the executive branch for eight years would likely end Hillary's window of opportunity.  (She will be 73 in 2020.)  Better to use Bill's "good-ole-boy" persona and honey-tongued charm to woo the voters and shore up Obama who would be out in four years.  Mark my words, Mr. Pruden: Hillary can and will run.  Her playbook will alternately play the gender card or the victim card of long-suffering wife as it suits her.  It will be a one-note Virginia Slims political campaign of "we've come a long way, baby" and phrases like "breaking the glass ceiling" will be used.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media.  Democrats know: say the lie loud enough, and loud enough, at it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.  The fact that Ms. Clinton public persona is shrew-like or that she lacks Bubba's political gifts or is a polarizing political force á la Obama is irrelevant when the press will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed by Mrs. Clinton simply as "old news" and a non-issue; more road kill in the rearview mirror of the relentless Clinton political machine.  A multi-millionaire using phrases like "dead broke" may be an inartful lie, but Mrs. Clinton is exactly right when she states that it will "make no difference" as most Democrats exist in a consequence free zone of an adoring, biased press.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/