Hilary Clinton talks like Eleanor Roosevelt but she walks like Marie Antoinette

Hilary Clinton talks like Eleanor Roosevelt, but she walks like Marie Antoinette.  'The poor, they have no bread?  Then say we feel their pain and let them starve!  Vote for me the Republicans are even worse!  And I have ovaries!'

The Clintons are just like the Obamas: a power couple that sold out for money.

I recall back when Bill Clinton was first running for president, and he was like 4% in the polls and going nowhere.  Suddenly, completely out of nowhere, his campaign was showered with cash, the corporate press pushed him and pushed him - and when elected, he ruthlessly stabbed the American people in the back and was paid more than $150 million dollars and counting for services rendered to his wealthy patrons.  I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the Wall Street boardrooms back then: it certainly looked like a deal had been made and the fix was in.

During the presidential election of 2008 it looked like Hilary Clinton was a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination.  Then Barack "Magic Sparkle Pony" Obama had some meetings with Rupert Murdoch et al - who stated that he looked forward to working with Obama - and the rich decided that he'd be a better figurehead even than Hilary, and the fix was in again.  Hilary could do no right, she was only running because she was egotistical or post-menopausal and she had wrinkles and bad taste in pantsuits.  And after getting elected good old Barack broke every one of his promises and has stabbed the rest of us in the back so deeply he makes Nixon look like FDR.  And Barack's rewards will make the Clinton's pale in comparison.

So it all boils down to this: is Hilary Clinton going to be the appointed standard bearer of the oligarchs on the Democratic side this time, and if so, will they like her better than the appointed standard bearer of the oligarchs on the Republican side?  You will know when the fix is in by the sudden sea-change in press coverage.

If the mainstream press turns on a candidate it's virtually impossible for that candidate to win.  When all that everyone hears is 'so and so is out of it', it seems like a consensus, even though it is likely just a script approved by a handful of the people who own the media.  And if a candidate is ignored, if their logical arguments get no coverage, and you only occasionally hear some brief mention of problems in their personal life and their 'quixotic' quest for public office, well, it becomes accepted as common knowledge.  The press can't quite get someone like Romney widely accepted - but they do have a veto power, and can pretty much destroy anyone if they care enough.

So I wonder what Hilary is promising and to whom, to avoid being culled like last time?  The negotiations must be interesting.  Maybe the oligarchs are asking her if she would be willing to reintroduce child labor and indentured servitude?  Whatever, it will take a lot to match Obama's track record.

If Hilary doesn't pass the audition, there will be more 'she's out of it she's old what did she do as secretary of state anyhow' press.  If Hilary is the anointed one, there will be front-page articles showing her looking very distinguished and presidential with captions like "Is America Ready for a Woman President?"

One thing is certain though - Hilary Clinton, like her Hubby, is a whore. You need to avoid what I would call the Obama effect.  After Bush II the American people were desperate for a change, and Obama told them everything that they wanted to hear, and they bought it.  But it was just words, everything was a lie.  For example, publicly he was promising to renegotiate the anti-worker NAFTA trade treaty, but in private his emissaries were promising that he didn't mean a word of it.  More than six years later, I think we know which promises were kept and which were broken.

So we have to be very careful with someone like Hilary Clinton: she might suddenly start spouting populist rhetoric, like she's really going to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, or reign in the Wall Street, and the corporate press will fawn over her and debate her words - while ignoring her record, which is the exact opposite.

Before journalism became corrupt there used to be three ironclad rules for judging a public figure:

1. Look at the record
2. Look at the record
3. Look at the record.

Hilary Clinton and her hubby have a long track record of selling out for money, and betraying the American working class.  That you can take to the bank.  If you get a chance between voting for the 'viable' Hilary, vs some 'quixotic' challenger, don't vote as you are told, don't throw your vote away on someone who is your enemy.  Vote your interests, New York Times headlines be damned.