IMPERIOUS HILLARY (THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)

12.06.05 | Mia T

[Mia T]

IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)

 

 

 

by Mia T, 12.05.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

FOREWORD

The context is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the underlying issue is whether our democracy will survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and eliminate the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, hillary clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we do about hillary clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

Mia T
December 6, 2005

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

illary dumps Geena for Maggie,¹ and when that doesn't fly,² she dumps Maggie for bill. Without missing a beat.

It's the old Dick Morris Hail Mary pass, (when in trouble, triangulate³), the once trusty play that for eight years kept two clumsy kleptocrats⁴ in the Oval Office and out of the slammer (even as it placed America and Americans in ever-increasing peril.)⁵

That missus clinton has managed, thereby, to stake out Iraqi territory occupied apparently by no one⁶ seems to have escaped her notice. Nonetheless, this constituency of zero is the least of her troubles.

FOLLOWER, NOT LEADER

We mustn't mistake the flip-flops for fickle. Missus clinton is not fickle. Fickle implies capricious and inner-directed. Missus clinton, to the contrary, is preprogrammed and poll-driven. ⁷

Said another way, missus clinton is a follower, not a leader. And she is an opportunist. A ruthless one.

Just like her husband. ⁸

And, like her husband, she moves--albeit far more clumsily--to the syncopated, always breathless beat of Old Media.

SPEAKING OF WHICH...

Next month watch for the airing of a curiously structured hillary 'event.'

~ Chitchat meets town hall.~

Think of it as the resuscitation of hillary by hybrid vigor.

C-SPAN may run this slice of unreality in real time.⁹ (Lucky us.)

To ensure cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind, missus clinton always demands the added firewall of the sycophantic host¹⁰ --Jane Pauley this time, ever-sweet despite Doonesbury.¹¹ (A prescreened audience from that ultra-left-wing city by the bay apparently wasn't sufficient protection for missus clinton against the nasty followup.)

Understandable. Real questions served up by real people¹² remain the ubiquitous clinton sinkhole. Even in San Francisco.

"PARDON ME!"

Missus clinton can make these demands--and, even more amazing, certain people will actually obey them. Simply because she is MISSUS CLINTON.

It's not negotiable. Missus clinton doesn't do real questions... which, the media may not have noticed, include theirs.

HILLARY ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE

The only solo press conference I can recall is the one way back in February 2001.¹³ It was missus clinton's first (and apparently, her last), an ad hoc affair hastily arranged, (by which I mean the clinton machine didn't have the necessary heads up to exert its usual control over process and content).

Missus clinton's stated purpose for the press conference was to defend freedom. Her own.

Her one and only solo press conference was a bust. Pity her 'freedom' 'defense' wasn't one, too. (Thank you, Robert Ray.)¹⁴ 

But I digress....

EUCLIDEAN SPACED

The concept at the epicenter of the clintons' error in movement seems a tad too left-brain for Lefties, so I will put it as simply as I can: The polarized post-9/11 world, by definition, cannot be triangulated.

A triangle requires more than two points, missus clinton.¹⁵

 

RELICS

And so it is. This move to the vacant middle by the clintons settles it. The clintons (and, by extension the American Left, (which includes Old Media)), are inextricably bound to their failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy. ¹⁶

The American Left today is relevant to America only insofar as it imperils America.¹⁷

I wake up every morning at nine and grab for the morning paper. Then I look at the obituary page. If my name is not on it, I get up.

Benjamin Franklin

OBIT

Would that the clintons were similarly inclined. The more dreaded consequence of hillary's latest move (more dreaded from the clintons' perspective, anyway) is that it confirms an inescapable post-9/11 truth: missus clinton as a viable national candidate is done, finis.¹⁸

As a matter of fact, missus clinton as a viable national candidate was always a mirage.¹⁹ Her presence on the national stage is maintained daily by all manner of device, not the least of which being the zipper-hoist, the complex question and other sleights of hand and, of course, the jackboot.

ASIDE: As I wonder who delivered the coup de grâce and why, I cannot resist noting that it is the husband who is pulling all the strings. (On the docket: THE HILLARY PUPPET)²⁰

'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE

To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.

The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).

Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.

Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....²¹

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.²² (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)²³

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.

In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.

I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, ²⁴ both the book and candidate.

Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )²⁵ on its literal head.²⁶ (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)

ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)

Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.

She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.

The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.

So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.

For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.

The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.

Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....

In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.

Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.

Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005 

---

1. REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
   (clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
   how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂
   
   

2. New movie! Tim Robbins et al.
   
   

3. 
   

   The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
   
   

   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, June 9, 1999
   THE ALIENS
   

    

   
   
   l 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.

   ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean variety , with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint today.
   

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

   
   

4. 
   

   C-SPAN asked noted presidential historians to rank the American presidents¹ along the following ten dimensions: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within context of times.

   bill clinton emerged as middling in most dimensions; he was surpassed in others by a settled mediocrity (Carter) and a putative failure (Nixon). In moral authority, bill clinton was rated dead last.² He did fairly well in public persuasion, not a surprising finding given the volume of snake oil he managed to peddle during his putative presidency.

   "It's NOT the economy, stupid!"

   Clinton's best scores were on the economic management and pursued equal justice for all dimensions. However, both of these results are meaningful only insofar as they redound to the moral authority dimension: they are wholly based on clinton fraudulence, cooked books and black poses, respectively; and clinton's shameless Rosa Parks eulogy last week assured us that the insidious brand of clinton racism is alive and well during these tiptoe years of what the clintons hope will be their interregnum.

   Note that although Brinkley doesn't place much importance on the economic management dimension--he argues that the economy variable is not durable over time--he fails to recognize that the evaluation of the clinton economy by the historians is erroneous to begin with.

   Note also that C-SPAN historians found no evidence of clinton "greatness" irrespective of his moral-authority deficit, contrary to Douglas Brinkley's claim made at the clinton revisionist confab³.

   (NOTE: Later research has revealed that Brinkley's qualified mention of clinton "greatness" was not a claim but rather a polite guest's white lie about an abject loser. Instead of taking the AP report at face value, one must carefully parse Brinkley's actual words and especially note the subjunctive construction.)
   

   MIDDLING

   
   Twenty presidents rank higher than bill clinton and 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.

   If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.⁴ If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last.

   That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.⁵

   Mia T, 11.10.05
   Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
   C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit
   

    

   
   

5. 
   

    
   

   WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
   Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
   by Mia T, 8.18.05
   

   
   (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
   thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio
   

   
   DISCUSSION
   
   

   
   

   "I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

   I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

   bill clinton
   Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
   Larry King Live
   

   "Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

   We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

   At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

   So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

   bill clinton
   Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
   Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
   I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
   

   
   

   deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"
   
   
   (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
   FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME! 

   COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

   
   
   
   

6. 
   
   

7. 
   
   

8. 
   
   

9. 
   
   

10. 
    
    

11. 
    
    

12. 
    
    

13. 
    

    Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton Holds News Conference

    EFFECTIVELY PLEADS 5^TH BY INVOKING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE

    
    
    
    by Mia T, February 23, 2001
    

     

    
    
    
    
    ASHINGTON- February 22. Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton held her premiere press conference today on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to answer questions about the peddling of White House pardons by her brother and her campaign treasurer. Notably absent among the press queries were any about her own involvement not only in those pardons, but in the larger universe of sold pardons--the incipient clinton scandal du jour--Pardongate.

    KnowNothing's brother, Hugh Rodham, secured two of the 141 clinton midnight pardons, one for a cocaine kingpin and the other for a snake-oil swindler. Rodham netted a quick $400,000 for his "work" according to various rodhams and clintons and their assorted lawyers. KnowNothing's campaign treasurer, William Cunningham III, himself a law partner of longtime KnowNothing adviser Harold Ickes, helped obtain last-minute pardons for two convicted felons.

     

    LA FAMIGLIA

    Displaying a willingness to throw her brother (along with her husband) to the wolves, Sen. Victim Clinton was quick to make a distinction between her big, bad brother's pardon "work" and that of her campaign treasurer, "a fine lawyer and a fine man." The "family" connection of brother Rodham to Clinton rendered Rodham's "work" offensive, whereas the campaign treasurer Cunningham's connection to the senator and her campaign coffers made his securing of two pardons in record time a sterling example of highminded, effective public service.

    KnowNothing is apparently not the best of thinkers. If the "family" connection makes lobbying for cocaine-kingpin and snake-oil-swindler pardons unsavory for brother Rodham, then the "family" connection makes lobbying for the Hasidim 4 (see Keating 5) pardons even more distasteful for the wife, First Lady and senator-elect. Moreover, pardons for votes is arguably a greater offense than pardons for cash.
    

    EFFECTIVELY PLEADS 5^TH BY INVOKING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE

    KnowNothing specifically declined to answer when asked whether she discussed the pardons with her husband, effectively pleading the 5^th. Turning aside questions about the pardon decisions her husband had made, she told reporters they should address those issues with him and his staff. She refused to say whether he should agree to appear voluntarily before congressional committees investigating the pardons. Interestingly, no one asked her whether she would agree to appear voluntarily before those same congressional committees.

    I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH THAT PARDON

    "I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.

     

    RESURRECTING RUFF

    KnowNothing noted that her"best memory" was that she never spoke to her brother or to Mr. Cunningham about the pardons. With variations of "I don't have a memory" and "my best memory, and avoiding the more obvious "I don't recall" and "my best recollection," KnowNothing reprised the Ruffian standard used during the clinton years to commit perjury without penalty.
    

     

     

    I GET LETTERS

    ...or more precisely, envelopes. During her denials of involvement in any of the pardons, KnowNothing made the curious claim: "People handed me envelopes, I passed them on [and never opened a single one. Honest.]"

     

     

    
    

    
    

    
    
    
    I AM VICTIM

    Reprising the role of victim that enabled her to win a senate seat in spite of low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures, the senator peppered her answers about big, bad Hugh (understanding that the subtext was big, bad Bill) with "saddened" and "disappointed" and "heartbroken" and "shocked."

    UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE

    This session today was cut short by a staffer when reporters appeared dissatisfied by Senator KnowNothing's lack of candor.

    In the end, this press conference full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication was just another display of the clintons' utter contempt for the people. Bill Clinton committed the same error last Sunday in his shameless, lie-filled New York Times Pardongate Apologia.

    The clintons' fundamental error: 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.
    

    
    

14. 
    
    

15. 
    

    A Scoundrel's Pythagorean Imperative
    Mia T, 12.14.03
    
    

    z = distance between flag lapel pin and chin

    d = distance between midpoint of chin and jowl

    y = distance between the midpoint of chin and top button

    x = distance between top button and flag lapel pin
    

    

    
    

     

    

     

    
    

16. 
    
    

17. 
    
    

18. 
    

    It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

    G. K. Chesterton

    Reviews of "Commander-in-Chief" mislead; they suggest that this new ABC offering, this electuary of suds and psychologizing, is optional for missus clinton, that Rod Lurie's latest clinton agitprop is nothing more than the icing on missus clinton's inaugural cake.

    The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.

    
    THE PROBLEM

    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 on the battlefield 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 COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
    COMPLETE ARTICLE
    see descriptor morphs
    
    

    
    

     

    I M P E A C H M E N T
    h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
    
    
    by Mia T, 11.11.05
    

    This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

    Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

    According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

    Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

    If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
    
    COMPLETE ARTICLE
    
    

     

    IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
    by Mia T, 11.14.05
    
    (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
    
     
    

19. 
    

    It is no accident--and the Sheehy hagiography notwithstanding, it is certainly not because of any patriarchal society--that this reflexive kleptocrat never sought office. She never ran simply because she is a perfectionist and an incompetent who cannot tolerate personal (as opposed to bill-related) criticism, witness the prescreened, heavily controlled, sycophantic crowds, her pre-programmed, totally scripted appearances (or, alternatively, her totally mute "listening tour"), her unavailability to the press, indeed, her "bluebird."

    Mia T, 8.16.05
    HILLARY IN AVIARY
    

    
    (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
    ARTICLE
    

     

    Clinton Administration Veteran:
    "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life."

    
    My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.... there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

    J. Bradford DeLong
    professor of economics, Berkeley
    clinton Administration veteran
    

    
    

    The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this proxy scheme to even more outrageous extremes. The latest: an actual hillary clinton proxy presidency, populated on both sides of the camera by assorted rodham and clinton ex-staffers, sycophants and should-be felons, witness the latest hire.

    'Commander-in-Chief,' a show that sets out to crown a 'queen,' instead exposes the kitschy simplemindedness of Hollywood fantasy and the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego.

    Mia T, 10.27.05
    THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
    Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
    (clip included)
    

    
    
    

    Having failed to snare the Nobel Peace Prize by ignoring terrorism, clinton has apparently decided to intensify his America-bashing on foreign soil, the method employed by Jimmy Carter to great (if somewhat belated) effect. (The Nobel committee, sufficiently mollified only after 24 years of the peanut president's America-bashing, awarded Carter his 1978 Peace Prize finally in 2002.)

    Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the missus, the other half of the clinton construct, maintains her hawkish pose (though not without bird problems of another sort).

    Yet another example of the clinton conflation ploy, (see SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor), this variant allows "clinton, the construct" to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, thereby enabling the missus to avoid in '08 the trap that repeatedly ensnared the ever 'nuanced' Kerry in '04.

    Do you now understand how stupid the clintons think you are?

    A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA
    Mia T, 11.17.05
    
    REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
    (clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
    how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂
    Mia T, 11.23.05
    

    
    
    

    It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

    G. K. Chesterton

    
    Reviews of "Commander-in-Chief" mislead; they suggest that this new ABC offering, this electuary of suds and psychologizing, is optional for missus clinton, that Rod Lurie's latest clinton agitprop is nothing more than the icing on missus clinton's inaugural cake.

    The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.

    
    THE PROBLEM

    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 on the battlefield 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 COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
    COMPLETE ARTICLE
    see descriptor morphs
    
    Mia T, 11.23.05
    REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
    (clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
    how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂
    

    
    
    
    

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

much thanx for your help. :)

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

thanx for your help ping :)

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump.

[scott7278]

Bump!

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

thx :)

[bmwcyle]

Bill O'Phony had Hillary in his sites once and let her go. He will never get a second chance at her butt. The Email was ruff on him but he just ignored it.

[Mia T]

O'Reilly did do her in by proxy... Guess he's given up on interviewing the missus.

THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY:
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy

by Mia T, 10.27.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

[jmaroneps37]

Why this cult like fascination with this woman?
If she is the rat nominee in 2008 it will be the best thing that ever happened to us. Already 40% say they would never vote for her. That's a number no one, not even the beast can overcome. Rasmussen's polls have shown this 40% number for a solid EIGHT MONTHS. Other polls, even rat controlled college polls show the same thing. If it weren't for the old media's refusal to write about this, she would be laughed at and rightly so.
Bring it on beast, bring it on.

[Mia T]

My foreword attempts to explain why the focus on hillary clinton.

As for hillary's inherent repulsiveness, I agree with you. hillary clinton is a dud. Her place on the political stage is a wholly manufactured product.

The danger is not that people will suddenly fall in love with this creature. The danger is that the clintons' usual methods will overcome her repulsiveness. As I wrote above:

"As a matter of fact, missus clinton as a viable national candidate was always a mirage. Her presence on the national stage is maintained daily by all manner of device, not the least of which being the zipper-hoist, the complex question and other sleights of hand and, of course, the jackboot."

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

oing

[Mia T]

ping