On Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was condemned by one of her opponents for the bad judgement she showed in supporting the Iraq war, arguably the worst decision in American history.
However Hillary used her extremely high IQ to adapt the situation to her advantage. She stated that she and anti-Iraq war Obama had debated that issue countless times when they were both running for president 8 years ago, and that Obama ended up trusting her judgement enough to make her Secretary of State. The audience cheered.
However in my humble opinion, President Obama made her Secretary of State, not because he values her judgement, but because he needed to unite the Democratic Party after a bitter Primary battle, and because he’s scared to death of her. Ever hear the saying “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”? That perfectly describes his relationship with Hillary.
In my opinion Hillary has been scheming to be President of the United States since she was a teenager, but coming of age in the 1960s, she realized there was too much sexism to get elected on her own merits, so the plan became to marry an Ivy League ambitious charismatic man who could take her to the white house, and then to parlay her First Lady gig into a political career of her own.
The lifelong plan was working brilliantly: she was the most admired woman in America and far and away the front runner to be president in 2008, and then out of nowhere came a young unknown inexperienced, arguably unqualified man named Barack Obama to derail decades and decades of brilliant planning and execution.
And adding insult to injury, he was black. For in the eyes of many white liberals, blacks should be so grateful for all they (the white liberals) have supposedly done for them. Indeed when Bill Clinton saw this black man ripping the nomination for President away from his wife, he reportedly said: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” In the eyes of many white liberals of Hillary’s generation, blacks should worship at the feet of white liberals, but they should never ever challenge them as equals.
It was enough to make Hillary cry, literally, as mocked in this infamous video:
And then in a last minute act of seeming desperation too horrific to even describe, she lashed out in the following way:
But Hillary was far too shrewd to be seen acting like a sore loser for long. She feigned joy over the election of the first black president and happily joined his cabinet, knowing that an alliance with Obama was the only way she could win back the black support she needed to make a second run for the presidency.
But in my opinion, inside she was seething with a rage that this man, this black man, had robbed her of her lifelong dream she was within striking distance of achieving, and President Obama knows it. In fact, I believe part of the reason he made her Secretary of State was to keep an eye on her and try to control her.
And as we approach Halloween, President Obama must be living in utter terror. For Hillary Clinton is now once again on the verge of making her lifelong dream of being president a reality, only if she finally gets there this time, she will not, in my opinion, forgive or forget the one man who snatched the dream away from her the first time, when she was still young enough to enjoy it, and made her waste eight years of her life as a scandal plagued Secretary of State.
I suspect President Obama is trying desperately to get Joe Biden to jump into the race and challenge Hillary, because if Hillary wins, she’ll be not only the most powerful woman on the planet, but the most powerful human on the planet…and she’ll be hungry for revenge against one man: President Obama. And she’ll have four to eight long years to take her revenge, again and again. With an extremely high IQ, and the entire power of the presidency behind her, there’s no telling all the creative ways she’ll dream up to make his life miserable.
And if Bill Clinton’s alleged rape victim Juantia Broaddrick is to be believed, Hillary Clinton is a woman who knows how to play hardball:
Pumpkin Person 
agree Hillary was the more competent and experienced candidate in 2008, and now, despite losing, she is the second most powerful woman in the world. Having an exceptionally high IQ obviously helped her get as far as she has.
obamacaca
Maybe you should do a post explaining, regression to the mean, genetic randomness aka luck , how genetic expression works, and how iq is determined by both genotype and phenotype.
I am suggesting this because it seems like a lot of the anti hbders led by ta nehisi coates don’t seem to understand it and they interpret it as aFrican immigrants should have 85 iq children!
I discussed some of those topics here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/05/more-thoughts-on-the-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/
I do not think that the POTUS is the most powerful person on earth. He or she is constrained by the same social rules of antiracism, feminism etc. which have controlled public life in the west for decades. What can he or she do anyway? Really powerful people are people who rule in local areas, but who have real control in their little territories. Maybe a landlord who terrorizes a little, unknown indian or chinese village. A warlord in Africa. A gangster in middle America.
In the west very few white people have real power. Many black people and muslim people have real power in the West. Say an arab gangster boss in Paris, who is far more powerful than the french President. An Islamist in London. A black guy who controls the street in NYC.
Somebody who has real power can rule over the complete life of other people, he can decide everything, even life or death for others is his decision.
Somebody who beats up someone else in the street, has within the relevant 2 minutes more power than somebody like Bill or Hillary Clinton ever had and will ever have.
You don’t get to where Clinton is today in America by putting revenge higher than self-aggrandizement.
What do you think Clinton’s IQ is? I don’t think it’s higher than Obama’s. I’d put her in the lower 130s, Obama at 140, which seems a consensus.
I don’t get the impression of great intellect from Clinton’s debating style. Highly canned, a question merely being an opportunity to match with a prepared spiel. Someone with high g would have the capacity to answer the questions directly.
It seems like a common range is 120-140 for public figures
125-140 for ‘core’ science
> 140 deep, theoretical stuff
An IQ of around 125-140 seems correct for Hillary. Her formative years were unspectacular and she started college at 18, graduating at 22. Exceptionally smart people tend to finish sooner, which puts a limit at around 140, tops.
Hillary was a national merit finalist so if SAT is used as an IQ test, she’s at least 138. I doubt she’s any smarter than 138 however because she flunked the bar exam.
Obama likely scored lower on the SAT since there’s no evidence he was a National Merit Scholar, a National Merit Semifinalist or an Outstanding Participant, despite the fact that he attended a prestigious private school where kids compete for those honors. On the other hand, the LSATs of the 10 blacks from Columbia who applied to law school when Obama did are known, and they all equate to IQs of either below 120 or 134-141. Given Obama’s achievements. pedigree and eloquence, he was likely one of the two who scored 134-141
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/08/the-iq-of-president-obama/
but that was a long time ago when I imagine it was much easier to become a finalist
prole-in’ it up again.
american politics is professional wrestling.
tards gonna tard.
proles gonna prole.
America is become more prole by the year, this is the most optimistic national IQ estimate for 2060: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412
yet more evidence that HBD is bullshit…
spanish player for arsenal, hector bellerin, ran the 40m in 4.41s.
fastest NFL 40y time ever is 4.24s…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3037354/Arsenal-youngster-Hector-Bellerin-faster-Theo-Walcott-Jamaican-100m-world-record-holder-Usain-Bolt-40m.html
funny that the black guy whose time he beat also had the name Walcott.
Perhaps there is a grain of truth to this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/work-success-study_n_5635227.html?cps=gravity_2892_4422184273197703554
Men with broader faces do better financially, than those with more slender faces. Unsurprisingly, dolichocephaly is found in more domineering “alpha” men, such as blacks who tend to have slender faces, and brachycephaly is typical of less domineering “beta” men, such as East Asians and Alpine Europeans, with broader faces.
Spaniards are more dolichocephalic than other Euros, and they aren’t particularly savvy businessmen, when comparing to the Alpine Germans, Ashkenazis and East Asians. However, Nordics and Japanese, are the exception rather than the rule, perhaps due to their higher IQs (but wealthy Nordics and Japanese lag wealthy Chinese in money, vis-a-vis, comparison).
Maybe I’m wrong. The study described in that article, however, doesn’t take the alpha-beta dichotomy into consideration. Beta men are known to be providers (they have more resources and wealth accumulation), and might be better negotiators, when it comes to money.
still more evidence that hbd is bullshit.
rates of diagnoses for ADHD in 2010 by US region…why is there any difference?
rates of ADHD diagnoses by Norwegian county in 2013…notice how much lower they are in every county yet how huge the difference is between counties, even in Norway, a fairly homogeneous country compared to the US.
children are easy marks.
why is there such a difference in rate of diagnoses by US state for autism?
why is there such a difference in rate of diagnoses between large geographic region?
or by country?
as redacted likes to say…think horses not zebras.
the explanation is both simple and subtle. that is, it requires social intelligence to see what’s really going on and that it is despicable.
[pumpkinperson: one word redacted for gratuitous name calling, Oct 18, 2015]
Had to redact a word from your post for gratuitous name calling. Please grow up. You’re not in high school anymore.
and no peepee i’ve never been diagnosed with either. maybe i was too old for that.
but amphetamine is used as a “study drug” so i was curious, and it has been used for depression, so i convinced a doctor to prescribe it for me for depression.
it was horrible. even in the low dose i took it just made me super intense and kept me awake and always wanting to do something, but it didn’t make me smarter. it did make me more “confident” too.
so,
sometimes i think entrepreneurs and other “successes” have this unpleasant state of mind as a constant, and that rather than their IQ explains their success.
even a low does is like being pulled by a team of horses. it’s totally horrible.
If you were a kid today, you would be diagnosed with autism
And not because you have a low social IQ (you don’t) but because you have an indifference to social norms, which is now considered a sign of autism too
no i wouldn’t be you fucking fucktard. you don’t know anything about autism. look up the fucking symptoms. and they start at birth or age one or two.
and you’d have to be a little mongoloid girl to think the internet has social norms.
good and evil and social norms INEVITABLY conflict.
whoever chooses the latter over the former is EVIL.
like you peepee.
the only reason to obey “the rules” is if it gets you something, or if you agree with them. but the former reason is EVIL.
and there are no fucking “signs” of autism.
there is no blood test.
the symptoms ARE the disease.
you’re probably thinking of “schizoid personality disorder”.
I only said you would be diagnosed with autism. I didn’t say you actually are. Autistic people are sane.
A few of us actually think you’re borderline schizophrenic which in some ways is almost the opposite of autism, however schizophrenics often get misdiagnosed with autism.
Your high IQ probably saved you from full blown schizophrenia
ha! ha!
peepee-tard.
what symptoms of SCZ do i have?
hint: none.
i don’t have a beard or any facial hair, nor would i ever. i don’t smoke. i don’t hear voices. i have no delusions bizarre or non-bizarre.
it’s your turn peepee.
the truth:
for the socially intelligent…
everyone thinks he’s very smart, yet not everyone is very smart.
the less than very smart are confronted by this reality occasionally.
initially it produces “cognitive dissonance”…but they soon overcome it…
their response, in order to avoid “cognitive dissonance”, is to say to themselves that “genius is next to madness” or that their cognitive betters are crazy.
so predictable.
and the impartial reader, should there be any, will note that peepee has diagnosed me with:
1. autism
2. schizophrenia
3. obsessive compulsive disorder
4. pervasive development disorder, blah, blah, blah
whereas i am much more parsimonious.
peepee is DUMB.
and “a few of us” is peepee’s way of giving AUTHORITY to her pronouncement.
peepee-tard,
people call people crazy all the time…and mean it.
the great fear of being called crazy by persons in authority is never the crazy, it’s the consequences of being called “crazy”.
no psychiatric condition directly shortens life expectancy by any means other than suicide. the problem of “mental illness” is 100% a social problem, not a biological problem…like cancer.
that is,
to be called crazy…like > 10% of american children are today…has no non-social consequences.
but socially retarded people like people still take social judgement as reality.
they’re sheep.
DOMESTICATED
ANIMALS.
i forgot peepee has also diagnosed me with:
1. homosexuality
2. alcoholism
of her 6 diagnoses she got one right!
You have many symptoms of schizophrenia,
A) especially delusional beliefs:
1) There are no genes for intelligence (excluding pathology).
2) There are no genes for autism
3) All ethnic groups have identical genetic intelligence
B) Delusions of moral grandeur with religious overtones such as:
1) Anyone who doesn’t share my worldview is EVIL!!!
C) Word salad…topic salad..jumps from one topic to another
D) Monitors behavior poorly
E) SAT score two or three standard deviations higher than your WISC score. Or was it the WISC-R?
F) General knowledge far higher than abstract reasoning. Wechsler regarded this as text book schizophrenia.
word salad only for those with LOW VERBAL IQ peepee.
my SAT score was LOWER than my WISC! and my “abstract reasoning”?…i was a math major and made the high score in North America on the first exam of the Society of Actuaries…and 99th percentile on similar tests in chemistry.
again…an unforced error…you just hit into the net peepee.
i’m macenroe. you’re some unrated douche. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY
hey,
i admit.
i have been very depressed and sought medication for it, which was totally useless. but the cause was always…
Dr. McCoy discovers Spock’s blood chemistry is extremely active and has the presence of unknown hormones. If the condition persists, Spock will die in eight days. Spock does not wish to discuss what is currently affecting him, but Kirk demands an explanation. Seemingly embarrassed, Spock informs Kirk that his condition is called pon farr, a syndrome that all Vulcan males painfully endure periodically throughout their adult life.[note 1] During this time, they must mate or die.
or rather McEnroe.
but peepee has just diagnosed half of america is schizophrenic.
whoever’s not an hbder is “crazy”.
whatever ‘tard-cakes.
my SAT score was LOWER than my WISC!
So you lied about scoring 1560 on the old SAT?
i never lied and i never lie…very unlike you peepee who never tells the truth.
and there is no single “old” SAT.
the test has been reformed multiple times. it had been reformed before i sat it and has been reformed after i sat it.
but yes, i scored 800 M 760 V (higher on the M) on what i believe is the second most recent iteration, but i haven’t kept up with the ETS bullshit.
peepee also assumes…in a socially retarded way…that
1. i take her and her blog and her blog commenters seriously.
2. i comment with a blood alcohol level less than…whatever a fifth is in 6’1 1/4″ 220 lbs of pure muscle.
of course,
mac wasn’t the best in the absolute sense, but in another…
if there ever was a genius at tennis, as if such were possible…
mac was THE GENIUS.
only 3 of my great great grands had irish surnames, but as peepee knows two of those were quite distinguished…well at least they have wikipedia pages.
SAT 1560 pre-April 1995 = IQ 160
SAT 1560 post-April 1995 = IQ 145
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/24/converting-sat-score-to-iq/
Either way your score is much higher than your childhood WISC, where you scored 135+ on verbal but below 135 on Performance IQ and full-scale IQ.
Now did you take the WISC or the WISC-R?
peepee qua hbder and hereditist should watch secretariat’s belmont again and again and…until she “gets” it.
until…
she…
GETS…
IT!
lying again.
i’ve never told you what i scored on the WISC peepee.
and this is the real problem in canuckistan and america-stan inter alia.
one side
LIES
and
LIES
and
LIES.
one side is THE PEOPLE OF THE LIE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie
gassing them or lining them up and shooting them is the right thing to do.
but i did score 800 800 800 on the old GRE…that’s verbal, quantitative, and “analytic” sections.
i think the ETS got rid of the “analytic” section after i sat it and made the other sections less “g-loaded”.
anyway,
both score qualified me for the BGI study.
i also did a 770 on the GMAT. my practice test score was 790. i promised myself i’d apply to B-school if i made a perfect score, which is quite rare. but i didn’t, so i didn’t.
On July 31, 2014, you posted the following on my other blog:
and btw, i was given the wisc at age 9 after scoring much higher on an achievement test than my teachers expected. my score was hgih, but not that high. i was termed a “gifted underachiever”. but i was only 9 and different iq tests do give different results. and at about 11 i suddenly became very good at math.
i think the college/grad school entrance exams (used to qualify for the bgi study), even the math parts, skew towards verbal iq more, and i was in the 99th percentile on my wisc for that. also at age 9 i scored at the mean level of a 19 year old on some test of general info.
and i’ve been fired before for being “an idiot” and a “slow learner”.
i’m really just a drink sodden loser.
I interpret this to mean your verbal IQ was above 135 (99 percentile) but your performance IQ and possibly full-scale IQ were not.
Of course you were only nine, and IQ is much less genetic at that age, so you were possibly a late bloomer like Richard Feynman who reportedly scored 125 on a childhood IQ test… I would take your SAT score as a more accurate measure of your adult IQ, even though the Wechsler (in my opinion) is a better measure of intelligence than the SAT in most cases
and what the fuck would it matter peepee?
you’ve dismissed study after study because it was done on children.
and i took the WISC when i was 9…and no one told me i was EVEN taking a test…
the only reason i was given the test was because i had scored so high on some achievement test and my MORON teachers thought i was an “under-achiever”.
not much of an underachiever…i was doing fine in the 4th grade…just…
OBVIOUSLY TO THE NON-SOCIALLY RETARDED…LIKE PEEPEE…
MY SCHOOL WAS SHIT. MY TEACHERS WERE SHIT.
EXPECTING SMART PEOPLE TO “EXCEL” AMONG PROLES LIKE PEEPEE IS EXPECTING WAY TOO MUCH.
the trope of the drink sodden loser or the drug addict or the crazy person is just more prole mythology peepee…just more…IDEOLOGY.
you’re still sucking the cock of your betters.
but your betters are for the most part NOT better.
yet you suck their cocks or clits all the same.
pathetic.
there are reasons why people drink, take drugs, “bug out”.
good reasons.
reasons you couldn’t even understand.
for example,
rates of alcohol “abuse” vary ENORMOUSLY by country and county just like those of ADHD and autism…and the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with genes.
that isn’t to say that there aren’t some people who are by nature addicts for one substance or another.
it is to say that such people, so far as they exist at all, are extremely RARE.
i checked my genome for all of the supposed SNPs “associated” with alcoholism.
I DIDN’T HAVE ANY ONE OF THEM.
Childhood IQ only correlates about 0.7 with adult IQ I believe, so it’s entirely possible that your adult IQ is 145 or even 160, and your childhood IQ in the 120-135 range. Statistically we would expect such regression in some cases given the imperfect correlation between adult and childhood IQ, especially when measured on different instruments.
Still your childhood Wechsler scores are a rich source of clinical data, quite apart from your overall IQ. Indeed Wechsler used his scales as much to diagnose mental illness and pathologies as he did to measure intelligence.
If you find your childhood score report please post it…it would be fascinating to see your scores on the individual subtests.
It would also be useful to know whether you took the WISC or one of its revisions (i.e. WISC-R)
except you’ve got no clue peepee.
1. i scored higher on the verbal than on the performance. right!
2. but i scored above average on EVERY subtest of both halves.
3. my testers weren’t concerned with actually measuring my ability…just making sure there was nothing “wrong”.
psssst…
they found nothing wrong. my “diagnosis” was “gifted underachiever” from the psychometrist.
i wasn’t drinking when i was 9.
4. my subscores weren’t that lopsided. children who have high full scale scores MOST of the time have one of two scales much lower. my performance score wasn’t much lower than my verbal score.
5. at the time i was in the dumb kids’ math class. but 2 years later i was in the smart kids math class…and have been there ever since…so to speak. maybe it was testosterone.
but for God’s sake peepee. my mom and dad were both english majors. my dad was a JD and mom an ma in english…it would be really weird if i didn’t score higher on the verbal part…and for reasons unrelated to my genes.
anyway,
i’m waiting for peepee’s WISC scores.
moron canadians are spared having to be smart and take the SAT, but their grad schools often require the GRE general and subject. and their B-schools require the GMAT.
tell the world how dumb you are peepee.
with bated breath…i await your sole HONESTY.
not…gonna…happen…
peepee is a person of the lie.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqMoxRLECvkhJQGGBsuahEjWyxBqfTXPN282cBrKEB1Jy3hjjo
DOES PEEPEE HAVE A SINGLE “IQ SCORE” THAT ISN’T FROM ONE OF HER HIGH (ACTUALLY LOW) IQ SOCIETIES?
IT TAKES SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE TO REALIZE THAT HIGH IQ SOCIETIES ARE FULL OF PEOPLE WITH LOW IQS.
i’m waiting for peepee’s WISC scores.
You still haven’t provided yours. You’re the one who claims to have an extremely high IQ. And I’ve provided my scores on chronometrics, which are an actual physiological measure of g.
moron canadians are spared having to be smart and take the SAT,
Canada’s best schools require high grades in classes like calculus and physics. That screens for intelligence about as well as the SAT does. Canada’s academic elites come across as more intelligent than America’s despite our tiny population. Just listen to CBC radio, if you can Even graduates from America’s Ivy League come across as hicks.
BUT I HAVE PRO0VIDED MINE LYING PEEPEE TARD.
WAITING STILL…
AND PEEPEE,
CANADIANS COME ACROSS AS BOTH HICKS AND BORING AND STUPID…
AS DO MOST BRITS, BTW.
BUT OF BRITAIN, IRELAND, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA…
CANDIANS ALWAYS SOUND BY FAR THE DUMBEST. THEIR EDUCATION SYSTEM WHICH DOESN’T USE TESTS AT ALL IS THE LIKELY EXPLANATION.
AND…
HOCKEY IS MUCH MORE PROLE THE AMERICAN FOOTBALL OR RUGBY.
STILL WAITING FOR PEEPEE TARD TO GIVE A SINGLE IQ SCORE.
THE PARTICULAR TEST DOESN’T MATTER.
CRICKETS!!!
AS EXPECTED.
PEEPEE WORSHIPS SATAN.
AMERICAN:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/42/61/42619f3d6a8a0eb92d708c8c815362cc.jpg?itok=tbYp6tIx
CANADIAN:
of course that’s just anglo-canada…a prole shit hole like all the rest of the anglo-sphere.
Still waiting for your actual IQs on the WISC: Verbal, Performance, and full-scale. And which version? The WISC or the WISC-R?
I’VE ALREADY GIVEN PEEPEE TARD AS MUCH AS I KNOW. I’M JUST REMEMBERING WHAT MY PARENTS TOLD ME OF WHAT THEY WERE TOLD…WHEN I WAS 9 FUCKING YEARS OLD.
BUT I’VE ALSO GIVEN MY GRE. I KNOW THAT FIRST HAND…RATHER THAN SECOND OR THIRD HAND. I ALSO KNOW MY SAT AND MY GMAT.
DOES PEEPEE WANT ME TO CALL MY OLD PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ASK FOR MY IQ SCORES?
PEEPEE HAS YET TO GIVE ANY SCORE AT ALL, DESPITE HER IQ BLOG BEING UP FOR HOW LONG?
DOES PEEPEE WANT ME TO CALL MY OLD PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ASK FOR MY IQ SCORES?
Yes, that would be quite helpful.
I ALSO KNOW MY SAT AND MY GMAT
Your SAT is meaningless without specifying whether it’s before or after April 1995. And none of those are official IQ tests.
PEEPEE HAS YET TO GIVE ANY SCORE AT ALL, DESPITE HER IQ BLOG BEING UP FOR HOW LONG?
Not true, I gave my IQ equivalent on a chronometric test on my other blog.
EVEN PEEPEE’S LIES ARE LIES.
SHE THINKS A “CHRONOMETRIC TEST” IS AN IQ TEST.
SO IS THE LENGTH OF MY DICK PEEPEE.
Chronometics is about as g loaded as the GRE, and the GMAT and the SAT, and much less culture biased.
Can you leave the gratuitous insults out? They’re just going to be placed in moderation as I don’t wish to lower myself to a mud fight with an animal.
Hi there! First comment on your blog. Just found this site a few weeks ago. Interesting read. Quick question — I did a quick search through brainsize and didn’t see anything about your chronometric test. Link it, please? Thanks.
–Tenn
how different can two developed countries be?
that’s rate of child poverty.
so canuckistan is 14.9% compared to denmark 2.4%.
and scandinavia has seen its already low rates of autism diagnoses drop recently. (see above)
in an ideological society poverty is a disease.
Meriproles are as poor as their cousins down under in Mejico!!!
JV must like my vision of a prole anglo-world. Yes, all of the English speaking domains are where 21st century kings live like kings, and throw their scraps to their prole subjects.
here’s the difference in rate of diagnoses for ADHD by US state:
lowest for CO, highest for AL.
must be genetic.
the problem with all hbders isn’t just their low IQs.
it’s also their very low level of social intelligence.
Do you REALLY believe this crap?
I believe it’s a plausible hypothesis that can be proven or debunked by historians. It’s not something I’m certain of which is why the heading of the post had a question mark
It’s loony nonsense. There’s no evidence for it, for one. For another, my understanding (feel free to correct me on this) is that Bill Clinton was nowhere near the White House in 1975, when they married –– he hadn’t even been elected governor; he might well have had aspirations, but it’s not a great strategy to stake your political career on one of many aspiring politicians. (Why couldn’t she have tried to marry someone much higher up?) For a third, I doubt Hillary Clinton would risk her credibility on something as picayune as revenge against Obama. Christie did something similar (the bridge scandal) and it basically ruined his candidacy. Clinton may conceivably try to exclude him from further political power, but whatever lurid, Friday the 13th-inspired idea of revenge you have is not feasible. You’ve been watching too much horror.
It’s loony nonsense. There’s no evidence for it, for one. For another, my understanding (feel free to correct me on this) is that Bill Clinton was nowhere near the White House in 1975, when they married –– he hadn’t even been elected governor; he might well have had aspirations, but it’s not a great strategy to stake your political career on one of many aspiring politicians. (Why couldn’t she have tried to marry someone much higher up?)
I don’t think she went to law school with the strategy of marrying a future president. I think when she arrived she was still planning on reaching the white house on her own merits, but I think after she met Bill and saw how politically gifted he was, she adapted her strategy to focusing on his career, with the idea of eventually using it as a launching pad for her own
For a third, I doubt Hillary Clinton would risk her credibility on something as picayune as revenge against Obama.
That’s a good point. As my favorite cable host Chris Mathews likes to say “nobody can afford revenge”. On the other hand, presidents have a such a ridiculous amount of power that there are a lot of subtle things she can do.
Christie did something similar (the bridge scandal) and it basically ruined his candidacy. Clinton may conceivably try to exclude him from further political power, but whatever lurid, Friday the 13th-inspired idea of revenge you have is not feasible. You’ve been watching too much horror.
The fact that Christie did it is precedent right there, only Hillary’s probably a lot smarter than Christie and would be better able to get away with it. Politicians are not above such behavior. Hillary had an enemies list just like Nixon:
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/01/all-hillarys-2008-enemies-are-doing-pretty-great/356942/
I’m not thinking in terms of lurid horrific revenge, but I would not be surprised if she does subtle things like exclude him from power as you suggest or try to undermine his legacy, or engage in Nixon type behavior.
Fair enough. That’s reasonable.