Hillary Goes to War--New York's junior senator has her eye on 2008.

Wall St Journal ^ | 5-6-03

[Paleo Conservative]

The great controversy in 1960 about JFK's Catholocism was almost entirely made up by JFK. He needed to be a victim of unfair bigotry.

That is total BS. In fact the bigotry was similar to the anti religious bigotry of the left today. For example Ted Kennedy's campaign agianst Mitt Romney in 1994.

[Mia T]

 

John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, said... she always starts with AT LEAST 33 percent that hate her guts."

...Jeff Stonecash, political science professor with the Maxwell School at New York's Syracuse University, [said] he had "never seen a candidate who, before ever running for office, elicited such remarkably polarized reactions.....

Hillary '04 Speculation Continues Amid Declining Popularity in NY

Can you spell
u-n-e-l-e-c-t-a-b-l-e ??

 

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

 

Mia T, THE ALIENS

 

Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

^{Q ERTY8}Either THEY are obsolete… or civilization is bump!