Greenwald: "Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion...a fucking hawk..."

[ProSense]

61. It's really

"Although the post was locked, I saw the words with your name next to them. I'll provide the link with your permission, the one where you call Hillary a hawk. Let me know."

...important to prove your bogus point, isn't it? I mean, using the word "hawk" to describe Hillary doesn't mean I agree with Greenwald's point which was:

"Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically."

Again, Greenwald's a hypocrite and an opportunist. His attempt to pre-emptively discredit critics is telling: "But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist."

Even more bizarre is his attack on a strawman, a future "gay" Democratic Presidential candidate: "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

"They'll" seems to be a reference to the Democratic Party.

Should I repeat that again?

I mean, it's clear that Greenwald fans have adopted is rebuttal tactic: claiming he's right because he's just like (insert name).

No, I don't agree with Greenwald. You're going to have to find validation elsewhere.