Quit Laughing, Hillary Really is Just LIke Margaret Thatcher

With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, one of the greatest, most powerful women in recent political history, the American Old Media establishment is all abuzz about… Hillary Clinton. To their minds, talk of the powerful and brilliant Thatcher naturally brings to mind the wife of one of their favorite presidents and Hillary, as far as they are concerned, is somehow “just like” Margaret Thatcher.

I know, I know. Stop your laughing. Hillary really is just lIke Margaret Thatcher.

Or maybe not.

But, of course you should laugh. The idea that Hillary Clinton is anywhere near at the level of a Margaret Thatcher is laughable, indeed. The fact is, there is no comparison. Hillary is an influence peddling, lightweight compared to the great Margaret Thatcher, and I am not even talking about ideology.

The difference between Maggie Thatcher’s accomplishments and Hillary’s couldn’t be more stark–and not in Hillary’s favor, either.

Thatcher rose in a man’s world to become the leader of her party and her nation. She took on some of the most difficult times her nation faced as it spiraled into a socialist nightmare that was destroying its economy. Thatcher faced the existential threat of a nuclear armed Soviet Union even as some of her own, more deluded people battled to destroy her.

Thatcher stood like a rock for her principles and fought like a tigress to make sure what was good and right won the day in her great nation. She implemented serious reforms and devised a complex ideological plan to guide her people. And through it all, Thatcher made her mark completely on her own capabilities, without the boost of a husband or family that eased her into life at the top.

Then there’s Hillary.

Hillary glommed onto a man she thought might get rich or make it in politics.

She felt she suffered for having to move to Arkansas because she had no other options for an avenue to the good life and fame.

She suffered through multiple bouts of her husband’s philandering–dubbed “bimbo eruptions”–because she feared trying to make it on her own.

When her husband became President she tried to ply his influence to force government-run healthcare on the United States. She failed miserably. Other than that one big failure, she is not known for anything as First Lady.

After her husband was impeached and finally left office in disgrace she ran on his name to become a carpetbagger Senator from the State of New York because she didn’t want to have to move back to Arkansas.

She served the Empire State but had a completely undistinguished tenure and left that office having done nothing she was known for other than being the wife of Bill Clinton.

She ran for president and got trounced by a wet-behind-the-ears nobody that had no experience and nothing but flighty catch phrases as a campaign.

When that flighty candidate won the White House, she accepted his appointment as Secretary of State, again relying on a man to make her way in life.

As Sec. of State she had no successes or positive accomplishments and left office only months after one of her own ambassadors was killed by Islamist militants. During this incident, she lied repeatedly about what happened to that poor man and never answered questions of what she knew and when she knew it.

Now she wants to run for president having built her whole life on the sweat–and blood–of other people.

Yep. Hillary is nothing at all like Margaret Thatcher. Nothing.

Brandon Darby's Epic Smackdown of Wankette
Hypocrisy: Concert Rocks Fiscal Doomsaying White House
  • herddog505

    WTHOther than that one big failure, she is not known for anything as First Lady.

    Absolutely not true: I believe that she holds – by a handy margin – the record amongst First Ladies for the number of times she’s said under oath, “I don’t remember.” I believe that she also holds the record for the number of close friends and former coworkers who are jailbirds.

    WTHWhen that flighty candidate won the White House, she accepted his appointment as Secretary of State

    And, apparently, a really big check to pay off her campaign debts.

    Now for the REALLY big difference between the Hilldabeat and the Iron Lady:

    Thatcher was a chemist who did actual useful work prior to politics, in contrast to Slick Willie’s wife who… was a shyster lawyer and then… his wife.

  • jim_m

    I thought you were going to say she had passed.

    I feel tricked.

    • Commander_Chico

      Let’s get ready for your outrage that “the left” is celebrating the death of Maggie.

      • jim_m

        I said I felt tricked. That is a far way from the dancing in the streets and handing out candy that the left is doing after Thatcher’s death.

        That’s the problem with the left. They go around shouting from the roof tops celebrating and if another person cracks a small smile they think the two are equivalent.

        • herddog505

          How can you say such things??? Don’t you know that lefties are all about tolerance, compassion, and empathy?

  • GarandFan

    Sorry Todd, can’t read it. I’m still laughing…………………..

  • SteveCrickmore075

    There are lots of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton as a potential nominee, but I wouldn’t think lack of experience or clout is one of them. Quite the opposite! We may have already had too much experience of Hillary; she seems to have been in national politics forever, unlike Thatcher before she gained international prominence. Margaret Thatcher was in the conservative cabinet as Secretary of State for Education and Science for four years, not a senior post, relatively inexperienced and considered a lightweight- BBC2 News Extra rolled a clip from May 1973 demonstrating the Thatcher sneer at full pitch. (She was saying that she wouldn’t dream of seeking the leadership.) She sounded “like a cat sliding down a blackboard”, according to Clive James,- but she was a conviction politician, when she ran against Ted Heath in 1975, and became Leader of the the Opposition and then Prime Minister, a few years later, in 1979 when the Tories won the General Election.

    • I think we need to just cut the political dynasty cord altogether. Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys of various ilks – there’s a vast difference between name and skill – and a lot of the long-term dynasties aren’t about job ability, it’s about the name recognition and the ability to get elected. (Which, admittedly, is one of the benefits of name recognition.)

      ’cause if you’re really looking at experience as a qualifier, it’d be hard to find a contemporary President with less experience than the current occupant. But man, can’t the SOB fundraise and doesn’t he look good doing all that speechifyin’ shit!

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Indeed, I have been a little disillusioned with Obama too, but for other reasons. As for dynasties, we are not much better than India with the Gandhi family, including their Italian born daughter-in-law Sonia, who barely spoke HIndu but who has been president of the Indian Congress for over a decade or Pakistan with the Bhuttos. It goes on everywhere. Justin Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau’s son is expected to be chosen the new Canadian Liberal Pary leader, at a convention in a few days..

        • “Indeed, I have been a little disillusioned with Obama too, but for other reasons.”

          I think I know why – but what the heck, I’ll take agreement with you where I can get it, lol.

  • 914

    4 dead in Benghazi and politics of personal destruction are Hillary’s legacy.

    Case closed!

  • Brucehenry

    What examples do you have of the “Old Media establishment” articles claiming Hillary is “just like” Thatcher? Seems like you would have included a link or two.

    Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter has noticed that National Review’s got this Thatcher comparison thing nailed:


    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah, I have missed those comparisons. Although I bet Hillary would be a tough war leader. In fact, I’m afraid she’d be too aggressive, might invade Canada or something.

  • Actually, you forgot what her real accomplishment in the Senate was: she managed to get the ethics code changed to include the words “Senator elect”. Her only way to justify her book deal was to claim that the ethics rules didn’t cover Senators elect only Senators sworn in. Thus the illiberal press was able to claim that she acted in an ethical manner by finding a semantic loophole in the the ethics rules, without realising the irony.