Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:00 am

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn’t alone at Yale Law School, she hasn’t been alone all these years since - her years primarily as an enabler of younger classman William Jefferson Clinton (born William Blythe III) is just part of her story.

Well I just got confused by Clintons’ histories, while trying to confirm that former Ambassador John R. Bolton had been a classmate of at least one of them in New Haven for law studies.  I just got confused for having been of thinking that I had read that "Hillary" was a year ahead of "Bill" then and not of the same graduation year, a year so seemingly just discovered as a year ahead of above mentioned John R. Bolton.

We have the Clintons spending monies abroad we don’t necessarily have to spend and without any of the "tough love" that President Bush with his Department of State of Secretary Condoleezza Rice had routed us with as a better reasoned and rational path for U.S., now finally better understandable as superior to the "wrong direction" much thought of Clintons easy (HUSH) money and "COMMITMENTS".  For argument sake it may be better to wax here about the "I" of Ambassador John R. Bolton but the "TEAM" and his "we" with then attempted routing to a tougher "love" of international diplomacy thought too "COWBOYISH" and of a tighter purse.

It is hard to separate Ambassador John R. Bolton of his history with Bush administrations foreign policy to just an "I" of "John" - his tougher stands likely would have better positioned us all if the Democrats hadn’t so whined and wiggled and waggled us as a greater "we" away from a better "We" so then.  We now are of having missed a rare opportunity for America to have held back with purse and disbursements long enough maybe to have garnered a new and greater cooperation globally with matching fiduciary contributions.  We have that Ambassador John R. Bolton was the front-man for Bush Administration to such a harder "love" for so many about the world trying to trap the United States of America as the "sole superpower" into being the expected "GLOBAL POLICE FORCE" and at their own expense — and with the Democrats the opposition so willing to get trapped so. 

We would have been better to have let Bush work a greater "COWBOY DIPLOMACY" with his TOUGH LOVE wrangling with his Ambassador John R. Bolton - But who and whom are those that so considered such then as our best path that now should be called back?   The Clintons, both, maybe getting sufficient "bang for their bucks" but hardly with it being reasonable to claim than any others, other Americans, are actually benefitting as well.

Sure, President Clinton probably figured out early that he had more Presidential possibilities if not still "William Blythe III" and so of a mashing of history with story of William Blygh and the Bounty - THE MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY so a story of British era soon after loosing its American colonies, near immediately after American Independence.

We have a necessary partisan divide now all about Washington DC and arguably as great as likely if only of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton now so after years of "Hillary is so polarizing."  The Democrats have left themselves no "middle ground" and have taken us places that missed the opportunities Bush admin advanced with hopes for Ambassador John R. Bolton heavy handedness so contrary to that now regular softness of easy disbursements of both "Bill" and "Hillary." 

And, now with so much of (HUSH?) monies so spread around globally by both Clintons of at least "Hillary" of outlays from our Department of State still of original amounts only processed for such when them of expectations that economy would turn around within Obama’s first year.

As a side note:  I do get that the years "Barry" Obama was at Harvard Law School were near the last years that a law school wasn’t up with the Rhenquist Revolution and adjustments to a better "layman" legalese and so there then as last class institutionalized and indoctrinated in the old and outgoing ways.  I do not know about the difference in just a year so at Yale Law School between the Clintons and John R. Bolton.  I do remember leaving law school myself after first year a few miles away from Harvard Law and in the spring of the year of the fall of Obama, the fall that Obama started at Harvard — I remember leaving thinking the law needed to get with the Reagan Revolution and likelyhood that the United States of America was looming to becoming a sole superpower and would need a better "laymanish" legalese, really.

But really, let me be clear:  The Clintons both are making our future "Diplomacy" and share of a greater global economics more difficult with the easy (HUSH?) monies they are spreading around liberally, and when such isn’t much "affordable."  We had a chance at a better way and one that may have helped correct our global economic mindset and habits sufficiently to have encouraged a stabilization of economy maybe enough to have helped prevent the timely "CRISIS" the Democrats have been using as a foil to their hearts content much of  "unnecessary" NECESSARYs. 

The Clintons may now be much just the "we" of Obamanomics and his foreign plotting, but then they may still be the "I" of the "CLINTON TWO-FER" so much as just the "We the Clintons…". 

There is no "I" in Clintons?    And there is now "we" in "Clintons’ two-fer"?  And now there is no way back to smarter and tougher attempted global posturing of Bush’s Ambassador John R. Bolton?

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.