Hillary Has Conservatives Scared

Boy I think the Cons are getting a little nervous over Hillary Clinton’s chances at the White House. Look what I just received from the fun loving conservative folks at Human Events (a great website that every liberal should sign up for if you ask me). Read and laugh.

Dear Fellow Conservative,

Bay Buchanan has just done something very dangerous…

No, it’s not that she has written a new book about Hillary Clinton. It’s much more than that.

It’s that Bay has scored a direct hit on the “Hillary Express” — and we all know for sure how hazardous that can be!

What Bay Buchanan has done is expose the inner workings of Hillary’s “extreme makeover” campaign, perhaps the most cynical, cold-blooded deception of American voters in the history of Presidential elections.

I’ve watched every Presidential election since the epic Nixon-Kennedy contest in 1960. I thought I’d seen everything big-time politics could throw at us. But I was dead wrong!

Bay Buchanan has uncovered the undeniable, bedrock truth about Hillary Clinton, which is…

She will not be elected President if the voters know the truth about who she really is… and what she really believes. And Hillary and her strategists know this!

Indeed, by the time “Team Hillary” — the biggest campaign staff ever amassed in U.S. election history — is finished, their “product” will be kinder, more thoughtful, a person of faith, a politician with beliefs and values that reflect those of Middle America, and a leader tough enough to be the nation’s commander-in-chief in a time of war.

Imagine! The long-time, anti-war, anti-military Hillary Clinton as “the best choice to defend the American Homeland.”

As soon as this book hits the bestseller list, as it assuredly will, Bay Buchanan knows she will be attacked personally and savagely in every print and TV news outlet by wave after wave of Clintonista shock troops.

But she wrote the book anyway. And having just finished reading it, I can promise you that you have never read a more enthralling (and alarming!) book about top-level, high-stakes political scheming in your life.

Today, for a limited time, Human Events is making The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton available to you absolutely free.

Click Here to get The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton — which it will be my pleasure to send you ABSOLUTELY FREE in hard cover

I dare each and every one of you to request the book and make them spend their precious resources. I think I will :)

24 Responses to “Hillary Has Conservatives Scared”

  1. steve Says:

    Oh man, if she winds up the front runner after the primaries and the conservatives have a solid candidate not named Guiliani… the shit is going to fly hard at that woman.

    I have voted for Democracts before as recently as last election. I voted for her husband once before (when I was 18 and stupid, lol). I am a sensible person and I know when we’ve been had. I cannot however vote for her however.

    The shit will fly next year… Get your bags of popcorn ready.

    (I am praying for a Thompson/Gingrich ticket to go up against that because even if they lose, it will entertaining as hell)

  2. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    I think it’s long past time for a woman or a black in the White House. This is not to say that I would vote for Hillary or Obama for president, necessarily, but it’s time, I think. Our Republic would survive either.

  3. manapp99 Says:

    I have no problem with a woman, black, hispanic or white male as president. I do not think it is time or past time however as this sounds a little like we should do it just to check it off our “to do” list. I predict if Hillary, Obama, or Richardson become the candidate and are not elected, we will hear how people voted against them on the basis of race or gender. Katy Couric is a good example of a person who broke the “glass ceiling” but did not get the job done. Because she is a woman? No, because she was not the right person at the right time for the job. I am also sure that no matter the next president, Dem or GOP, man or woman etc. our republic will survive and the government will not change all that much. The system is pretty well insulated against one man or woman having enough power to change the way the government operates significantly.

  4. tos Says:

    Well if either Obama,Hillary or Richardson are the front runners and they don’t win you can only blame the democrats for not voting for them because according to them they are going to win in ‘08.

  5. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    I wasn’t really talking about checking anything off the list as a virtuous act in and of itself. As I said, I wouldn’t vote for either Hillary or Barak. I’m just saying, that there’s been no woman or black in this country that has been that right person at the right time is no credit to America.

  6. manapp99 Says:

    Craig, when blacks, women and hispanics are held back due to what they are and not who they are, then you are correct. That is no credit. However I feel that the vast majority of American voters have moved past race, creed etc as motivation to vote. A half black man such as Obama would not have even reached the nomination level here in the 60’s and that was disgraceful. The attitudes then concerning non-white non male people in general were disgusting. However, I would hate to see us put a black, woman hispanic, chinese etc in the white house just BECAUSE of what they are and not who they are. I feel there may be pressure in this next election to do just that. I feel that your statement of being long past time for a woman or black in the White House would be more accurate if were stated that it is long past time to allow for a woman or black to be in the white house. I personally don’t care if it ever happens but it should have always been accepted as an option as much as for a white male. I am glad to see that we have progressed in this area.

  7. Ken Grandlund Says:

    Ahhh, but the book is only free if you sign up and order their newsletter for at least $39.95. Seeing how they say the book is only $27.95, I must be missing out on the whole “free” aspect of the deal.

    Typical right wing bait and switch…

  8. steve Says:


    Why do you hate capitalism? And that is not a bait in switch. A bait in switch is when a store offers one item at a low price to get you into the store. Once in the store you find they don’t have the item and all so they offer you another more expensive one. This store appears to have the item and it is free, so long you subscribe. Maybe it’s Tom you should be mad at for misrepresenting what the Republicans are offering.

  9. manapp99 Says:

    Ken, what’s the difference between offering the book free for a subcription and getting a tote bag for sending money to PBS? Or getting a $10 “sounds of the 70’s” CD for only pledging $75? Would this be the left wing PBS employing “typical right wing bait and switch”?

  10. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    It’s called a “gift with purchase”. Ken’s complaint may be valid, to a certain degree. It may be that that which is purchased is not actually worth the price that it’s being sold for — it’s probably not worth $39.99 in Ken’s estimation — in which case, it may be that the price of the purchased product has been jacked up in order to cover some or all of the “gift”. I have no idea. I’ve never read the thing. I have no idea what the cost of putting together the product is or what other such competing products go for. I am leery, myself, of “free” offers. It is my experience that capitalists rarely actually offer ANYTHING the cost of which is not covered, in its entirety, by the money sent in by the consumer. It seems to be a well established rule that there are no “free lunches”, so to speak.

  11. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Of course, they probably sell advertising and, so, perhaps the entire cost of the book and shipping is covered by income from advertising. In this case, the book would be entirely free to the subscriber. That may be the case here.

  12. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    On the other hand, if the cost of a $27 book plus shipping is entirely covered by advertising income, then it would seem to me that they could afford to sell the product for significantly less than $39.95 if not for the freely offered gift. Either way, it seems to me that the subscriber is getting what he or she pays for, nothing more.

  13. Ken Grandlund Says:

    My point about “bait and switch” was entirely related to the verbage in the e-mail as quoted by Tom. Nothing in that e-mail mentions having to pay for a subscription to procure said “free” offer. Perhaps Tom truncated the opriginal e-mail. I don’t know.

    As for the comparison to “left wing” PBS fundraising, this is an unfair comparison. This e-mail does not implore people to donate to keep the real publication “Human Rights” operating and that by doing so you could be eligible for a free copy of the book. It merely says “We’ll send you a free book.” Misleading at the very least. Still, if you go to the site, you’ll not find the “free” book as a bonus in a fund raising effort, but as a pitch to buy a regular product. At best, this is a subscription bonus, which is undoubtably costing the company nothing to provide, via Craig’s analysis above.

    So, I’ll stick with my original assessment that this e-mail mirrors the right-wing “show one thing, do another” demeanor of the past 6 years.

  14. Jersey McJones Says:

    Cons and Libs, Reps and Dems, listen up:

    There’s are sound, fundamental reasons the Right is talking up Hillary and none have been expressed in this post and thread.

    1) They are scaring the living shit out of the voting base in Flyoverland by pre-nominating Hillary to get them out to the polls next year.

    2) They are playing scared of Hillary for the consumption of the Dems to get them to nominate her because she is surely defeatable.

    I’m rarely wrong about these sorts of things. Hillary (and Obama) will lose against almost anyone the GOP can put up. It’s not Hillary’s fault. It’s not rational, or at least it shouldn’t be rational to a cognizant electorate. But it’s a fact. Mark my words. The GOP is convinced of it. Remember, when it comes to “bait ‘n switch,” the Right has it pathologically.


  15. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    1) By the time it is time to get to the polls next year, we will have known, without a doubt and for quite some time, who the Democratic nominee will have been. It will either be or not be Hillary Clinton. The idea that they are trying to pre-nominate Hillary Clinton, in August of 2007, in order to get Republicans out to the polls in November of ‘08 is, in my humble opinion, just plain silly.

    2) Of all the candidates in the Democratic field at the moment, Hillary is the one I would have the least problems with being the next president. If it has to be a Democrat in the White House in ‘08, I’d rather it be she. That doesn’t make your second point wrong, by the way, I’m just saying that it isn’t working on me if scaring red-staters IS the GOP’s plan…which is why, if your number 2 is a part of the GOP’s plan, it won’t work.

    3) The net-roots will never stand for a Hillary nomination so Hillary being the Democratic nominee ain’t happenin’. That’s my prediction. My guess: Kucinich or Edwards.

  16. Tom Baker Says:

    Craig the NetRoots doesn’t want Dennis. Heck his high King Kos has flatout said no to him!

    Edwards maybe, but I still doubt it. He will need to make a major surge. However of all the people I saw speak at YK, he is the one I liked the best. BR was second.

  17. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    Honest? I figured they’d love Kucinich. Isn’t he the one that has drawn up impeachment articles for Cheney? Isn’t he the one that voted against Iraq and has been against it from the beginning? What’s their beef with Kucinich?

  18. Jersey McJones Says:


    1) You should read the latest editorials and watch the latest Sunday talking heads. To call what I said, “just plain silly,” is only to make yourself seem out-of-touch.

    2) “Hillary is the one I would have the least problems with being the next president” - I know. It’s a “win win.” That’s also been the popular take on the matter. Here’s the scene: The Dems run Hillary, she loses, we get split gov’t for four more years… / Hillary wins, she plays both sides of the field anyway. Clintonia is a relatively safe place for the profiteers who defy Smithian rationality.

    3) That was a joke, right?


  19. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    1) I guess that makes me out of touch.

    2) Okay.

    3) I didn’t think so. I figure either Kucinich or Edwards would be perfect for the NetRoots. Tom tells me I’m all wet on Kucinich but hasn’t said why Kos rejects him. Do you know?

  20. tos Says:

    Wait did the Kos’ forget this statement?

    “As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.

    The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event — or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse — to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

    Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
    US Senate floor statement: “Iraqi Dictator Must Go”
    September 12, 2002

  21. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Edwards was duped, Tos. Bush’s evil brain lied and Edwards was brain-washed.

  22. tos Says:

    Heehee. Stupid Congress. Amazing how many fell for it. And here I thought they could think for themselves.

  23. Jersey McJones Says:

    Nothing entertains me more than sleazy cons holding up “liberal Democrats” quotes to prove their points!




  24. sandy Says:

    Conservatives are not afraid of Hellary. They are concerned for the future of the country. With her socialist plans, you can kiss your good healthcare goodbye. You will wait 3 years for emergency surgery. You will pay outrageous taxes. You will insure losers who won’t take personal responsibility. Ugh…

Leave a Reply