Posted on 10/13/2005 7:58:56 AM PDT by Mia T
Susan Estrich While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.
Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
Mia T, 10.02.05
G. K. Chesterton
While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.
Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.
This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)
Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.
But it did not.
(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)
This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.
The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Mia T
OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK (with additions, corrections, addendum)
It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?)
While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack.
Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.
You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)
In your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:
On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?
The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)
And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.
Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.
I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher.
Sincerely,
P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me.
CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN |
i.e., Estrich's warning of Democrat death by clinton-induced anoxia...
Get the Clintons Off the Stage The Clintons are back. Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again. Hillary's book is next. Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem. The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it. Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they? Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future. It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight. It raises money for their causes. The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not. Let's not mince words. Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers. But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive. Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future. Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him. Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats. |
Peter Benchley, Jaws The stream of puffery rising from the clintons' perpetual promotion machine seems unbroken and endless. (The discontinuous miasmic belches are barely perceptible.) This clinton-machine effluence defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy. That is, if one fails to considers entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy. Clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots is currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault.... There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into irretrievable heat by the clintons. Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must. Mia T, 6.23.05 |
HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue
Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches?
A "handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD
SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor
HILLARY IN AVIARY
New York, New York -- if hillary can't make it there, she can't make it anywhere
bump
That was the discussion on F&F this morning.
bump
Thanks, but I have read six biographies of Hillary, because I was so appalled and wanted to make sure they were true. The way she behaves is completely unacceptable to me.
bump
positively bumping!
The cunning chameleon, her predator husband and slimy enablers are history. Our Declaration of Independence from them will be November 2008 vote.
Run Hillary Run!
Thanx. We will no doubt be able to impeach Estrich with her own words. The usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity. The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny or that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her. Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.
|
Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators. Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick." HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know. She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."
doug from upland to Sean Hannity, "Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America. Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too. Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness. Richard Poe
|
Let's keep fighting, Mia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.