Hillary on Instagram

Hillary Clinton on Instagram

The Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign is now on Instagram, with a light joke about “Hard Choices”: a reference to a photo of her pantsuits in red, white and blue. It’s part of the effort to make a politician with blood-soaked hands look like just another ordinary American grandmother…and it just might work.

40 Comments. Leave new

  • Ted, if we could but devise some way to confine Ms Clinton and her exploits to Instagram, so that she had no effect on the real, non-Instagram world, I’d be delirious with joy (OK, I’d at least crack a smile – I do realise there are others out there just as bad)….


  • alex_the_tired
    June 11, 2015 5:53 AM

    Well, look at what you did, Ted. You immediately turned Hillary’s Instagram effort into a laughingstock. Remember a few months back when Bill Cosby’s team tried an Instagram campaign (I think it was Instagram. If not, then one of the other social media applications) and it blew up in his face in minutes?

    I think ANY politician who uses an Instagram (or Twitter or whatever) for anything other then “I will be appearing at the Union Square Barnes & Noble at 7 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2017.” is courting disaster.

    The Internet eats its young. Hillary’s got such a soiled past politically that the parodies will quickly overwhelm the actual.

  • Looking forward to:
    “Decided not to divorce Bill (or kill him) after the Lewinski scandal.” #hardchoices

  • prolecenter
    June 11, 2015 9:01 PM


    This comment is not related to this cartoon, but I’d like to say that I enjoy your regular appearances on RT. Spreading awareness of RT and Sputnik News is probably the most revolutionary act one could do at the moment.

  • alex_the_tired
    June 12, 2015 7:21 AM


    I’m going to increase my expectation that Hillary will implode soon. I’m now about 75% sure that she either won’t get the nomination or she will and lose the election.


    Here’s the New York Times item on the homepage right now:

    Story of Clinton’s Mother Is Emotional Core of Campaign
    Sharing the story of her mother’s childhood struggles is a shift for Hillary Clinton, who in her 2008 campaign was fiercely protective of her mother’s privacy and eager to project an image of strength.

    See the problem? It isn’t Hillary’s emotional core, it’s her mother’s emotional core. When you use someone else’s trials and triumphs in YOUR campaign, it only serves to emphasize that you, yourself, are empty.

    Lots of leaders have discovered that once the bubble pops, it can never be reinflated. I think Hillary’s about to start hitting that point. Let’s see how she’s doing in three months, when people start getting tired of her stories about how poor she is.

    • I’d be thrilled if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, but its more likely I’ll be blown by Britney Spears while getting hit by lightning and holding a winning lottery ticket.

      Despite my throwing both money and time at Bernie, the nomination is Clinton’s for the taking. And if she wins the nomination, she wins the election.

      There isn’t a single Republican candidate in the clown car whose election wouldn’t mean national suicide. And despite “progressives” best efforts, the nation just isn’t that suicidal.

      You heard it here folks, the 2016 election is going to be Bush vs Clinton (Yes, again), and just like the previous two times, Clinton wins.

      • prolecenter
        June 12, 2015 8:37 PM

        Bernie is “sheepdogging” for the Democrats. Don’t fall for his/their nonsense. Please see these articles on Black Agenda Report:



      • alex_the_tired
        June 12, 2015 9:00 PM

        Jeez, Whimsical, couldn’t I have 48 hours to imagine an election that wasn’t Bush v. Clinton? I mean, I lived through Reagan. Haven’t I suffered enough?

      • Sorry Alex, I lived through Reagan too, so no sympathy from me. In fact it was the Reagan/Mondale debate that made me realize that people living in their imagination were causing most of the problems in this country. In fact, you could say that Reagan set me on my path of trying to wake people up to the way things actually are.

      • Signature «Whimsical», one can’t help wondering if you are not either significantly more «whimsical» – not to say, confused – than even your signature would imply or simply a liar. Why on earth would you «throw[…] both money and time at Bernie [sic !]», if you believe that «the nomination is Clinton’s for the taking. And if she wins the nomination, she wins the election.» ? On this particular thread you provide comic relief by incessantly deriding «progressives» for chasing will-o’-the-wisps – and now you tell us that you have contributed both money and (your no doubt invaluable) time to Bernard Sanders’ campaign ! Are you a fool – or o you simply take your interlocutors for fools ?…


      • – or o you simply → – or do you simply

      • Because the longer Bernie stays in the race, the further Clinton moves to the left, duh.

        So while there’s little to no doubt that Clinton will win, or that even “as is” she’s orders of magnitude better than ANY of the current Republican candidates, there is room for improvement there.

        Oh, I understand she’ll never be “pure” enough (left enough) for “progressives”. But people who understand how things actually work get that the more left Clinton can be pushed, the better a candidate (and President) she will become.

        So throwing time and money at Bernie is a win-win. Either keeping him in the race makes Clinton go further left, which is a good thing; or he wins the nomination, which is also a good thing (Hey, I never said it was impossible, just EXTREMELY unlikely)

      • I appreciate your Homer Simpson imitation, «Whimiscal» ; it quite appropriate to your intellectual level. Anyone who can argue that Mr Sander’s pushing Ms Clinton to the left during the campaign would have any measurable effect on a possible Clinton presidency is even more «naive» – a euphemism for «stupid» – than the most starry-eyed «progressive». Or perhaps the most apt adjective would be «disingenuous», not to say mendacious ? And just how much money or time did you «throw» at Mr Sanders ?.

      • Henri ~

        Why are you beating up on Whimsical? He said he donated money … not “alot” of money. This is a cartoonist’s website, shouldn’t the commenters be provided with no less “artistic license” than is the cartoonist?

        It seems to me that Whimsical is highlighting the “Three-Evils” presence of a “Two-Evils” choice. You have Hillary, a clown-car survivor, and Bernie. Hillary’s the foregone conclusion, the clown-car her best argument, and Bernie the primary counterpoint as to why she may (or may not) be the lesser-evil.

        Personally, I think it’s all kabuki, and that our fearless leader has already been selected by the vote-counters. But at the artistic level, instead of the ad-hominem denigration, just educate us all on Whimsical’s erring ways … if you can.


      • I hadn’t realised that I was «beating up on Whimsical», DanD – in my opinion he himself does so far beyond my poor power to add or detract – nor am I aware that I anywhere claimed that he had donated «a lot of money» to Mr Sander’s campaign ; I merely cited the expression that «Whimsical» himself used to the effect that he had «throw[n]» money – and time at Mr Sander’s campaign….

        I’m not certain that «Whimsical»’s contributions to these threads qualify for «artistic license» – I should have thought that some sort of artistry would be required in such a case. As to «Whimsical»s «erring ways», I have in the above attempted to point out what I regard as dodgy in his claims ; if you find my argument unpersuasive, then so be it. Myself, to follow your Kabuki metaphor (have you ever seen such a performance ?), I’m just waiting for a scene in which members of the audience feel compelled to;stand up and shout : Â«ćŸ…ăŁăŠăŸă—ăŸ !»…


      • Henri ~

        So Whimsical “throws” money at Bernie’s campaign not too much unlike a tourist might toss some coins at a wishing well. I’m not insisting that Whimsical is being extensively artistic, just that he should be granted the same Rall-quality license-to-impugn like the rest of us.

        As far as viewing Kabuki performances, While stationed for about three years in Okinawa, I attended a couple. Mostly, after the novelty wore off, I frequently found it boring, a lot like American politics (British politicians are so much more entertaining). To reiterate, while Whimsical may be marginally picayune or even slightly off-focused in his communication, I just don’t understand why you respond with such insulting hyperbole. It seems that you’d save that kind of stuff for somebody truly more malicious.


      • @ mhenriday –

        “Anyone who can argue that Mr Sander’s pushing Ms Clinton to the left during the campaign would have any measurable effect on a possible Clinton presidency….”
        Everyone knows that a candidate’s campaign promises are always fulfilled after s/he is elected. Even Obama fulfilled 100% of his campaign promises.

        Where have you been during the last 50 years????


      • «I’m not insisting that Whimsical is being extensively artistic, just that he should be granted the same Rall-quality license-to-impugn like the rest of us.»

        I’m not quite certain about that adverb «extensively» in the above, «DanD», but I get the impression that by «grant[ing «Whimsical»] the same Rall-quality license-to-impugn like [sic ÂĄ]the rest of us.», you mean that s/he can post comments to these threads without suffering untoward responses from people like myself ; i e, that for some reason, I am not included in that «rest of us» you mention above. Not surprisingly, I don’t hold with you on that matter ; I don’t object to Whimsical«’s posting, but I do feel that I have the right to respond – just as you do to me, and I, in turn, to you….

        A pity that you found Kabuki boring, but then again, a performance conducted in a language and against a cultural background one doesn’t understand is likely to be boring to such an onlooker. Or am I unjustly «impugning» you here, and you are, in fact, a scholar of both the Japanese language and the country’s culture ?… 😉


      • «Everyone knows that a candidate’s campaign promises are always fulfilled after s/he is elected. Even Obama fulfilled 100% of his campaign promises.

        Where have you been during the last 50 years????»

        Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, mein verehrte Lerher ; I confess to being asleep this last half century and failing to notice this great improvement in political morality in the United States. I shall attempt to pay more attention…. 😉


      • @ mhenriday –

        I am always happy to assist with your edification, mon ami.

        That’s why I chose the moniker “derlehrer”!

      • I fear, mein verehrte Lerher, that I am deeply in your debt and own you at least three 頓驖 !… 😉


      • @ mhenriday –

        Not at all — not at all! (Thank goodness for Google Translate.)

        After all, what are friends for?

        Now, fulfilling my role as “The Teacher,” let me call to your attention the mistakes in your latest two posts:
        “mein verehrte Lerher” should be “mein verehrter Lehrer”

        [You used to be better than this!]


      • Danke, mein verehrter Lerher – it’s been so long since I’ve heard any spoken German, much less had the opportunity to speak it myself, that I’m in the process of forgetting everything I once new. Forty years ago, when a European – at least a Western European – was interviewed on Swedish radio, the interview would have been carried out in the language of the interviewee. Now almost everything is done in execrable English….

        Ainsi va le monde….


      • And it seems that I can no longeer type, either : new → knew…. 🙁


      • And longeer → longer….


      • Henri ~

        .Yup, you caught me out, I’m busted … back when I was in Okinawa I was a young stud, on a manhunt (me being the young man) for some cute tasty Japanese pussy. I was at that “shallow-end-of-the-pool” age, and my vision kept diverting to the chicks when, perhaps, I should have paid a bit more attention to the more indepth scenery of culture at my disposal.

        Then I came back to the States, got honorably discharged as an NCO, and ended up living in Hollywood. Afterward, I continued my young-man’s hunt at the Japanese-American Community Cultural Center in Little Tokyo, downtown L.A. It was there that I learned a slightly better appreciation of Kabuki, both as a play and a metaphor.

        As far as my Nippon language skills, I was talented enough to be understood, and even understand a bit also. Anata wa Nihongo ga hanashimasu, ka(?)

        What I criticize about you is the quality of your message. When the only punishment you care to render against anyone you choose to criticize is always the third-degree, even to an infraction dumbass, it severely marginalizes whatever criticism you do express to anyone. It seems that you have a surplus of knowledge, but your own “tired-of-walking-up-them-stairs” bitterness towards the more marginal awareness of others prevents you from expressing very much wisdom.

        It seems that you would use a hammer to punish the kitten that scratches you.


      • Well, DanD, you seem to regard what I should characterise as a little mild sarcasm directed at our beloved «Whimsical» as taking a «hammer to [a] kitten». While I do agree that «Whimsical» is a kitten, I suggest that «hammer» is a tad exaggerated…. 😉


      • I see the “progressives” are trying to peddle their delusions again.

        Delusion #1) That if we reward someone with election for campaigning left, they wont go left when elected. This is a bizarre and completely mistaken idea.

        What they actually mean is “Hillary will not go as far left AS I WOULD LIKE, as fast AS I WOULD LIKE”. But that’s just because their demands are so delusional and unrealistic that there isn’t a person on the planet that could do so given current circumstances.

        The idea that Hillary wont go left at all is cuckoo-crazypants. Like Obama; hell, Like most Democrats she will probably accomplish the vast majority of what can be accomplished in the eyeblink between elections.

        Of course that wont matter to “progressives” because of :

        Delusion #2) “If my demands are not met in full immediately, the Democrats must be PUNISHED! I’ll make sure they lose the next election- that will teach them to listen to me!” or “It’s better to go ten miles back than one inch forward if I can’t reach my goal RIGHT NOW”

        No it won’t, as any non-delusional person who has looked at the past 40 years with clear eyes will tell you. It will get you dismissed and ignored as a cuckoo-crazypants who demands the impossible immediately and tantrums when they don’t get it.

        But I love you guys, I really do : You prove my point over and over every time you open your mouths.

        YOU are the reason there has been little to no progress on the goals you claim to want. And there will continue to be none until you adopt realistic demands, understand how little can ACTUALLY be accomplished in the eyeblink between elections, and continuously reward Democrats for achieving most of what is possible instead of trying to punish them for not delivering the impossible immediately.

        But I know you care more about being able to bash Democrats for imagined failures and not living up to your delusional, unrealistic expectations, than, well, anything really.

        So I won’t hold my breath.

      • Henri-

        How much time and money have I thrown at Bernie? As much as I could spare. End of discussion.

        As regards campaign promises,Obama has fulfilled between 85-90% of what it was possible to achieve of them in the eyeblink between elections, given current circumstances. Realistically speaking, of course, which you would know nothing about.

        Thanks for coming to my aid but <>? LOL. Not even close <> would be more apropos.

      • Damn, the words hammer and NERF hammer are supposed to be between those brackets. Congratulations, Henri- you have stumbled across something Ive done incorrectly. Inadvertently, I’m sure.

      • @ mhenriday –

        Because I do not waste my time with TROLLs, perhaps I should point out to you (unnecessarily, I’m sure) that sometimes I post sarcastically, in the hope that lesser intellectually-gifted readers will comprehend my meaning.

      • Der , Der, der-

        I understood you perfectly. You; however remain unable or unwilling to understand me, so I’ll spell it out for you using small words:
        Your.expectations.nuts. Way.too.high. In.real.world.only.tiny.fraction.of.your.goals.possible.between.elections.Obama.accomplish.85-90%.of.said.tiny.fraction.

        tl;dr-: YOU. problem. NOT.Obama.and.Democrats. Get.Clue.

      • «How much time and money have I thrown at Bernie? As much as I could spare. End of discussion.» You seem to have the same views on campaign disclosures as your principal, «Whimsical» – nothing surprising there. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a tinker’s damn about how much of either you contributed to Bernard Sander’s campaign – if, indeed, you contributed anything at all – I merely asked to see if your response might possibly be an indication of how serious you were about pushing your own candidate – Ms Clinton – to the left. As expected, no answer at all, just more of that «Whimsical» wind about how silly «progressives» are not to follow the grand strategy of that latter-day Napoleon, «Whimsical», who would lead the Democrats to shining victory after shining victory if only they had the wit to follow him….

        But leaving aside the question of how much, which, as noted above, I find uninteresting – and to which, in any event, you’re incapable of giving a straight answer – let me ask about the nature of the «time» you allege you have devoted to Mr Sander’s campaign. Have you been out recruiting voters by telling them that «Bernie hasn’t a chance ; the real candidate is Hillary, but you might want to try pushing her a tad to the left by first voting for Bernie and then dumping him ?» or something of that sort ? If so, no doubt Mr Sander’s campaign has been and is most grateful for your invaluable support…. 😉


      • @ mhenriday –

        Why do you even bother with this TROLL???

        It appears to be omniscient, for my “expectations” are known to it, although I have never expressed any such in my posts, nor have I “whined” about their not having been met.

        This is how a TROLL operates, preventing and avoiding intelligent discussion — the reason I refuse to respond directly to it.

        Bless you for your patience, but it’s truly a waste of time.

      • For my own amusement, mein verehrter Lehrer, for my own amusement. DanD seems to regard «Whimsical» as a kitten ; myself I regard her/him as a clown figurine with a weight in the bottom – I think you call them roly-polys – which bounce back in the same manner, no matter how many times they are pushed/their arguments are demolished. But I readily admit that it’s a low form of humour – sort of like splitting a gut at people who slip on a banana peel placed for that purpose…. 😉


      • @ mhenriday –

        “kitten” = “pussy”

        TrÚs approprié!


      • «“kitten” = “pussy”» Well, mein verehreter Lehrer, DanD did eem to make a distinction between the two when he regaled us with his adventures on Okinawa, but one never knows – perhaps he regards our «Whimsical» in that manner as well…. 😉


  • Whimsical is trippin’. I’m with Henri. There is absolutely NO way that Hillary will move to the Left! Bernie “Bernstein” Sanders is “sheepdogging” for the Democrats. See the following article from Black Agenda Report:


    • pc;

      The linked article’s statement is just a different point of view from what I suggested. At the same time, Sanders establishes the Outer-Limits on what should ONLY be practiced within our political system as acceptably “far left.” No human-rights BDS “bullshit” here, in the darkest parts of his heart, Bernie’s also a stooge for Zionland.


  • prolecenter
    June 16, 2015 5:14 PM

    Whimsical is probably a paid shill; a Democratic Party operative. Such things do exist.

You must be logged in to post a comment.