Even if people absolutely, insanely despise her, or more fairly make a rational argument against the value of any of her "official" public service, nobody can deny that Hillary Clinton has achieved the rarest of statuses, that of a living legend.
You can count me as one of your biggest fans, and a huge supporter of your bid for the presidency. You've probably got some of the best, most highly paid political consultants planning your every move, but stop listening to them. I already don't like what I see.
And so it begins. Hillary Clinton is now officially in the race for the White House. Her announcement, like pretty much everything else about her upcoming campaign, will be microscopically analyzed within an inch of its life.
Why on earth did Hillary Clinton hide when announcing her well-known intention to seek, for the second time, the White House? Why would she mandate her campaign chairman, former Bill Clinton's chief of staff, to announce her decision through social media rather than doing it herself?
I am a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton for president, but here is my warning to her: American voters don't want to be sold a "new Hillary," which is reminiscent of an earlier politician whose handlers invented the term "new Nixon."
I see no one who can begin to match Hillary Clinton's qualifications for the presidency. So why not let the elephants outspend her while she demonstrates, once again, that money alone cannot fill the gap between a weak candidate and a strong one?
Most offensive in LaPierre's insensitive, ignorant diatribe is that in these instances Hillary Clinton was the victim. Since when do we ridicule and punish victims for the actions of those who violate them?
It struck me that if indeed America delivers a battle between its contemporary political aristocracies, the Bushes and the Clintons, that the challenge for Hillary will be to overcome comparisons not with her Republican rival but with her peripatetic global do-gooding husband.
If this force of celebrity star-power and selective memory proves impervious to objective scrutiny and enlightened skepticism, than Hillary Clinton may very well win the next presidential election. In that case, the loser will be America.
What does history teach us about the wisdom of going the 'easy' route and voting for candidates from political dynasties? Does being part of such a dynasty impart one with greater political wisdom or a higher level of achievement?
The GOP can't get past the fact that they don't like Hillary Clinton so they campaign against her personally rather than deal with relevant political issues and this makes them more of her ally than opponent.
The following is a version of what I would like to hear Hillary Rodham Clinton say as she announces her Presidential campaign. A campaign that will lead this brilliant accomplished woman to being sworn in as the nation's 45th President.
Regular inspections will be held by the UN and teams from all nine signatories. Leaders of these nations will be coming to the White House for a mammoth State Dinner. The Dow Jones Hits 20,000.
It should not be surprising that male-dominated state legislatures are now passing so-called "religious freedom" bills. They have little to do with religion and everything to do with power.
What kind of priest would be against a Religious Freedom Act? The kind of priest who is all in favor of religious freedom -- and inalterably opposed to having religious freedom hijacked and misused as a weapon of mass discrimination.