Only difference is hair color

It’s not surprising that as contempt for Obama’s policies and the condescending arrogance of he and his wife grows, whispers for a challenger become roars. And predictably the cacophony of voices becomes a chant for Hillary.

I’m on record, having written at least two syndicated pieces, detailing my thoughts that the stage was set for her to run. For many, she was their first choice anyway, so much so, that no few refused to vote for him. But, for those thinking “anybody but Obama,” they should remember, that besides a difference in hair color they are politically two peas from the same pod. I will pay Hillary the compliment, that she is more of a man than Obama could hope to be – then again most women are, but I digress.

It’s important to remember the first move by Hillary as self-professed co-partner, and co-equal, in her husbands presidency, was an attempt to pass a universal healthcare that would cover everyone at government (read: taxpayer) expense. The difference, the reason for same notwithstanding – someone in the Clinton administration had the good sense not to fracture the country, by forcing it upon us, as Obama was eagerly willing to do.

But, scandal was never far from Hillary. There were her moments of questionable behavior, lies, and blatant racial insensitivity. There was the moment she hugged the wife of the terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, the sworn enemy of Israel – immediately after Suha Arafat had given a speech claiming Israel had purposely poisoned Palestinians with poisonous gas. She sarcastically commented that Mahatma Gandhi “ran a gas station down in St. Louis.” Said was a condescending stereotype of South Asians living here. She lied about writing her own book, and while Senator she claimed Congress was a plantation and that she was a slave. Needless to say those in attendance at Al Sharpton’s Martin Luther King Day conference held at his church were neither pleased nor respecting of her remarks.

We should remember that she lied about her daughter being at ground zero on 9/11 and that she had gone to find her. We all remember her claiming her plane was fired on by snipers as it landed in Bosnia, and running with her head down as she was fired at. The imagine of Hillary running as a sniper was firing at her is as humorous as the thought of how a sniper could miss that wide of a target. But once again, I digress.

There was her “travelgate” controversy which may have died down, but was never explained to the satisfaction of the public. There was the Rose Law Firm, Monsanto, her commodity options profit, Whitewater Real Estate Development and the missing billing records, questionable involvement with the Rich family, questionable campaign donations. And there are her socialist viewpoints pursuant to how children should be raised and educated.

But perhaps the worst was her protection of Bill CLinton, as he raped, groped, lied, and assaulted women from Wellesley to Arkansas, to the White House. Instead of protecting the rights and dignity of women, she by her support of his actions endangered women. And, like Obama, she had an enemies list of those women accusing her husband of sexual misdeeds. Her plan was to condemn the victims.

Thus all said, my caveat would be – we know the devil that is in office now and we have a very clear history of the devil that was there when she was first lady and of her as a senator. Ergo, for those considering her from a democrat perspective, what would the difference be between the two?