Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STOPPING HILLARY [Podhoretz's Urgent Message (and it's not his 'Bitch' Theory of Electability)]
National Review Online ^ | 5.08.06 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted on 05/12/2006 8:32:03 AM PDT by Mia T

STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]

Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.

May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.
Stopping Hillary
John Podhoretz stands athwart history yelling, 'stop her!'

An NRO Q&A

CAN SHE BE STOPPED? That’s the title of John Podhoretz’s new book. “She” is Hillary Clinton and she is on her way to the White House. For Republicans, John writes, Hillary’s election should be concentrating the minds of Republicans and conservatives wonderfully. But it isn’t yet. And if we’re not careful, the disappointment many of you feel with the state of your party will translate into an exhilarating but potentially suicidal journey as the primary season gets under way in earnest in 2007. The road you should travel, the path you should take, is the one marked “Danger: Hillary Approaching.”

Today is publication day for John, so he took some questions from NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez.

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez: How bad would a President Hillary be?

John Podhoretz: We should start from this simple fact: Despite all the talk of her emergence as a "moderate," as a senator, Hillary has a 95-percent liberal voting record, according to National Journal. Let's go down the domestic list. Tax cuts? In June 2004, she told an audience in San Francisco: "For America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that [tax cut] short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She will feed the bottomless the Democratic-liberal appetite for ever more regulations at the federal level. And I haven't even mentioned foreign policy, where the Democratic party's lesson from Iraq will be to act with a degree of caution approaching total paralysis.

Lopez: What will her husband do as First Gentleman?

Podhoretz: I have no idea. I do know that managing him—keeping him quiet and in the background—will be a key element of a successful presidential bid in 2008.

Lopez: Why is it harder for a liberal to win the presidency than a conservative?

Podhoretz: Two reasons: First, it's still the case that twice as many Americans describe themselves as "conservative" rather than "liberal." That's why Democratic politicians don't embrace the "liberal" label. Second, conservatives know what they stand for—in brief, a strong America, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and traditional values. It's much harder for liberals to describe their positive beliefs, since they no longer subscribe to the view that we are on a relentless march forward to a glorious future.

Lopez: Why won’t Clinton fatigue be a significant obstacle in keeping Hillary from returning 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Podhoretz: When she runs for office in 2008, it will have been a decade since the revelation of Monica Lewinsky's name and almost 15 years since the word "Whitewater" entered the vocabulary. That's a long, long, long time.

Lopez: Besides name recognition and cash, what’s Hillary Clinton’s greatest advantage on the road to the White House?

Podhoretz: A 25-point lead in every poll among Democratic voters about whom they want to be their nominee.

Lopez: And disadvantage?

Podhoretz: The need to stroke and becalm the party's Deaniac wing, which can cause her a lot of unnecessary trouble almost solely due to her vote in favor of the Iraq war.

Lopez: Can we expect a pre-election announcement that Lindsey Graham will be in her Cabinet.

Podhoretz: Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the authors of the cliché that Hillary is uncommonly hard-working as a senator, which is alternately patronizing—as though she might otherwise be spending time in the beauty parlor—and an example of grade inflation—because, let's face it, what senator actually works hard?

Lopez: You call Hillary “cold,” “flat,” and “unwomanly.” Are you sexist?

Podhoretz: Considering that I say flatly Hillary will be the next president of the United States barring concerted Republican action to stop her and that she is an uncommonly intelligent and skilled political actor, I think "sexist" isn't the right description of my view of her. I argue that these hard and unattractive qualities help make her a very plausible first woman president—because America has to believe she can plausibly stand up to Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and Osama Bin Laden. She needs to seem tough, and whatever Hillary's weaknesses, tough is a pretty good word to describe her.

Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy?

Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP. He remains wildly popular despite having made almost no public appearances in the past two years. His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible.

Lopez: Why not John McCain? Why not an Allen or Romney?

Podhoretz: John McCain has too complicated a history with the social conservatives and activist groups, and is such a gadfly that it seems inevitable he will act in ways to divide the GOP coalition. Unlike Rudy, he seems to prefer making friends with liberals and attacking conservatives, and that's not a good stance for a party leader. I guess George Allen is a plausible candidate, but why is he at three percent in polls of likely primary voters while McCain and Giuliani are nearly 30 points higher? As for Mitt Romney, I just don't think the nation is ready for a Mormon president (and by the way, I say that as an observant Jew who doesn't think the nation is ready for a Jewish president either).

Lopez: You’ve previously talked up Jeb Bush. But not in the book. Why no dynasty vs. dynasty fight?

Podhoretz: I take Jeb at his word. He's not running.

Lopez: Why not woman vs. woman? Why wouldn’t Condi pull it off? Just more of your sexism?

Podhoretz: The presidency is not an entry-level electoral job. Condi Rice hasn't ever been elected for anything. She should run for senator or governor of California and take it from there. I would be thrilled to vote for her in 2016.


Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?

Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.

Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead?

Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing.

Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side?

Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book, which is one of the many, many reasons they and hundreds of thousands of other people should buy it immediately!

Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary?

Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.









THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE

by Mia T, 5.07.06



This is why many believe nominating a woman - nominating Hillary - will play into the GOP's hands. If the public is looking for a tough guy, won't the public want a guy?

Maybe. On the other hand, if there were ever an American woman politician who could pass for a tough guy, it's Hillary Clinton.

Start with the purely cosmetic. The fact that she never quite figured out what to do with her hair or her clothes, the fact that she's not a raving beauty, and the fact that she has a manner that is almost pathologically unsexy all work in her favor - just as they worked against her as a traditional First Lady.

Those qualities have created an image of Hillary Clinton as unfeminine. This connects her to the successful female chief executives in other countries. Golda Meir was a hard-edged old broad, Indira Gandhi a dominatrix, Margaret Thatcher a battleaxe....

She possesses a hard-to-describe style that may be the perfect blend for the first woman president.

Hillary possesses a very complex mien. She is almost always calm and composed, but radiates an icy hauteur....

The qualities that make Hillary Clinton a not especially likable, even a dislikable, public figure are pretty good ones for the first serious female candidate for president. For here's the bitter truth:

The first woman president must not seem over-emotional, or flighty, or guided by intuition rather than reason. She must not seem demure or delicate, nor can she seem brassy and sassy. She must not appear to be in a girlish quest of a strong man to help make things right. Above all, she must not seek to excuse any flaws in her conduct by suggesting that they are due to her being a woman - from the natural excuse, like a hormone rush jangling her emotions, to a political excuse, like an unjust society that won't give the XX chromosome an even break.

Just for vulgarity's sake, let me put it this way: She's got to be a bitch. And Hillary is a bitch. Her challenge will be to play up her anti-feminine qualities without being completely without charm and appeal.

Republicans and conservatives are sure she has neither charm nor appeal. And indeed, she doesn't have much. But she probably has enough.

TOUGH ENOUGH
By JOHN PODHORETZ
May 7, 2006

Adapted for The Post by John Podhoretz from his new book, "Can She Be Stopped?"



f the notion that hillary clinton's repulsive "bitch" affect renders her electable is silly, the assumption that the only real swing voter will elect another clinton in this Age of Terror is downright absurd. And yet, John Podhoretz, normally an intelligent, seemingly sane fellow, is trying to sell us the former by assuming the latter.

False premises, non sequiturs and Oedipal issues--not necessarily in descending order of importance--infect his argument. I examine the first two here; the last I leave for him and his mother (or shrink) to resolve.

THE ERRORS:

  1. Sang-froid is hardly hillary clinton's strong suit. Missus clinton's reputation for out-of-control rage precedes her. 1

  2. Missus clinton is the quintessential coattails-riding-- zipper-hoisted in her case--wife.

  3. Missus clinton's viability depends on her arrogating her husband's 'achievements' and personna as her own, i.e., depends on the clinton 'twofer" construct, the clinton conflation ploy,2

  4. hillary clinton is weak. She is historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

  5. hillary-the-bitch isn't running. hillary-the-contrivance is, a constantly-adapting-to-the-polls fake that is put forth on a daily basis by all manner of proxy, from simple spinner to elaborate Hollywood production.3

  6. Indeed, if hillary-the-bitch would make such a perfect commander in chief, why did hillary clinton's people fashion "Commander in Chief" after Condi Rice?4

  7. When was the last time you observed hillary clinton 5 partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. hillary clinton answers to no one.6 hillary clinton doesn't play in Peoria.

  8. Positive numbers for hillary (such as they are) are inversely related to appearance frequency, and, more specifically, inversely related to the following mouth variables: magnitude of agape, amplitude and frequency of effluvia.7

    The bottom line is this paradox: In order for hillary clinton to have any chance of winning elections, hillary clinton, in all her "bitchy" manifestations, must all but vanish from the public stage.8

    (Which she has.

    'Hiding Hillary' is the overriding clinton strategy. All manner of proxy, from clinton operative to elaborate Hollywood production, create the illusion of presence while the Right lacks the courage to force the real hillary clinton onto the public stage.)

  9. The Bush 41-43 analogy doesn't apply. What we have here is not generic 'clinton fatigue.' It's specific 'hillary hatred.'

    Men despise hillary clinton. She is their worst nightmare: their mother-in-law, their nagging first wife and the Nazi commandant in Seven Beauties all rolled into one low-center-of-gravity package.

  10. Women--specifically white women, the only real swing voter--will not vote for a Democrat9--and most definitely will not vote for a clinton--in this Age of Terror.10

    Especially after they learn about the rapes.



 

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

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 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--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), 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
(see descriptor morphs)




1.

HILLARY CLINTON'S REPRESSED RAGE


"She is angry. Not all the time. But most of the time."

author Gail Sheehy
Hillary's Choice
(New York: Random House, 1999) p. 11

"[Hillary Clinton] is in a perpetual state of suspended anger...."

former Clinton adviser
to author Gail Sheehy
Hillary's Choice
(New York: Random House, 1999) p. 139

"Hillary hit him between the eyes. She was angrier than Paul had ever seen her. 'You f**king Jew bastard!' she screamed."

author Jerry Oppenheimer
quoting campaign aide Paul Fray
State of a Union
(New York: Harper-Collins, 2000) p. 153

 

[W]hen White House Counsel... Abner Mikva finally bowed to the law and delivered subpoenaed documents, she and her White House scandal team lashed at him with such a vicious streak of humiliating profanity that he resigned.

Barbara Olson
Hell to Pay
(Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1999) p. 5

"Anyone that stood up... was smashed down and belittled,very personally. [N]ot only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around, Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience."

former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers
PBS Frontline, 16 Jan 2001
The Clinton Years

Longtime Hillary aide Carolyn Huber, who saved Mrs. Clinton's buns in 1996 with a convenient cover story about how her mysterious Rose Law Firm billing records magically appeared in the White House book room, described the former first lady's fits of rage to Sheehy as nearly lethal. "The person on the receiving end never gets over it," Huber remembered, reportedly shivering as she spoke those words.

Hillary's Scheme
(New York: Crown Forum, 2003) p. 88
Hillary's Choice
(New York: Random House, 1999) p. 11

The rages continued even after Mrs. Clinton took up residence in the White House, where she blew up at a Secret Service agent for declining to carry her bags. When the agent explained that he needed to keep his hands free in order to protect her, she replied, "If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags."

Joyce Milton
First Partner
(New York: William Morrow, 1999) p. 259






2.

 

 

Her head bobbed nonstop in servile compliance.... Her gaze was fawning, fixed on him.... Her mouth was frozen shut, corners upturned a carefully calibrated nine degrees above the horizontal.... Not a smile.... (Never a smile).... Just enough of an upturn to hide the always-present anger. His sock puppet was on display.... Finally....

He spoke for both of them, alternating between oily racist and reliable misogynist.

Instead of striking out as her own person in this friendly venue--it was the Coretta Scott King funeral, for heaven's sake--she reprised their '92 electoral refrain. 'Two for the price of one' would be, as it had always been, the order of the day.

NO BARGAIN

If they didn't know in '92 that one was not enough, they certainly know it now. (Refuting the axiom that 2 x 0 = 0), their 'twofer' construct remains the lifeblood of her electoral--(and, arguably, non-electoral)--life.

She of the 'plantation' blunder simply wouldn't play here. He, as First Black President?, was providing cover.

And still the central question remains: Can spilt oil raise a sinking ship?

THREE WOMEN AND A FUNERAL:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR
3
by Mia T, 03.18.06

READ MORE 





3.


'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?

 

by Mia T, 02.02.06



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)



unning vicariously, as we have argued, has its risks.

What was supposed to be Hollywood propaganda to make a hillary presidency marginally palatable has instead become a parable about missus clinton's own dystopian future.

ABC announced the other day that it is pulling "Commander-in-Chief" off the air "until spring." Missus clinton's proxy presidency, you see, has been in a ratings free fall ever since "American Idol" took it on.

In a perverse life-mirrors-art moment, support for the real-life missus clinton's presidency has plummeted, too. This even sans Rudy, her real-life "American Idol" opponent.

'Ars artia gratis.' Please!

Samuel Goldwyn must be turning over in his grave....

 

 

READ MORE

 



4.

 

 


STEP 1




STEP2

Commander-in-Chief" Mackenzie Allen is a carefully crafted Condi-Rice clone. She is not hillary clinton. Indeed, she is specifically antihillary.

This can mean only one thing: hillary clinton and her agitprop machine have determined that missus clinton, the construct, is unelectable.

Because ABC is part of the permanent clinton agitprop, because the "Commander-in Chief" head writer is a veteran of clinton campaigns and hillary's press office, because the show has been perfectly positioned to desensitize the electorate to the notion of a woman president just in time for hillary, because of all of the above, one would not expect ABC to model the show's protagonist after hillary clinton's infinitely more qualified potential rival.

So why has it done just that?

READ MORE

Why ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" is a Condi Rice clone
by Mia T, 9.28.05





5.

 

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


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

Hillary Clinton?
Who would even know her name were it not for her attachment to a man?


Thank you, Gavin McNett, for your tribute to the incomparable Tammy Wynette. (TAMMY WYNETTE, 1942-1998)

Too many pundits, usually leftist and privileged, sneer at country music. To these critics, any music created by poor, Southern whites (at least those poor, Southern whites who didn't attend an Ivy League university) must be held in contempt, along with its correlatives: incest, racism and trailer parks.

Hillary Clinton? Who would even know her name were it not for her attachment to a man? Where would she be now if she as a child had to pick cotton from sun up to sun down?

Tammy Wynette stands alone, a legend; and she will be admired wherever people appreciate the honesty of the human experience. Human beings are vulnerable. We all should be thankful to any artist courageous enough to bare her soul on the public stage so the rest of us who are listening and know whereof she speaks might benefit.

Sean Smith
Fresno, Calif.
Salon.com



 

Hillary in Aviary

 

 

 

 

 

by Mia T, November 2000, sometime before "the first Tuesday after the first Monday"

 



"Bird of paradise" would have been a brilliant wrong answer for the New-York-state-bird question; in one fell swoop it would have flattered the necessary constituency, rendered hillary's cheating marginally believable and suggested a quick, secure, creative mind.

But the obsessively perfectionistic dodo wasn't able to fake even one wrong answer in the Letterman phony "pop quiz," a nostalgic electuary of "Twenty-One" fraud and (Groucho) Marxist left-wing crow.

Instead, this documented incompetent with no apparent creative or analytic (not to mention thespian) skills gushed forth with a lame--"It's the bluebird--I know that" --globally exposing herself to be the corrupt clown that the sentient among us already know she is.

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."

Thus, the question begging to be asked is this:

Why would this compulsively perfectionistic grotesquerie allow herself to be unambiguously exposed as the utter incompetent and fraud and fool and horror that she is?

And why would this self-proclaimed protector of "the children" prolong her own child's profound trauma by forcing her own bottom-heavy self, soiled in its own right, onto the political stage?

The answer, I believe, resides more in liberty loss than in power gain.

Simply put, she is not running for office; she is running from indictment.

And I fear Starr successor, Robert Ray, is unable to catch her...
Or catch on. (On second thought, maybe the problem is that he does....)

Ray's recent statement , " I have been charged with responsibly conducting the work of this office. Some of my responsibility is to ensure that there is no untoward effect on the political process," both confirms and encourages this latest round of clinton raping, pillaging, despoiling, destroying.

Will this nightmare never end?


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2000, 2005


 


6.


December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton



Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not 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 defeat 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 decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005


 

 

 


7.

 

NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton

by Mia T, 7.31.05




Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

 

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999







ur leaders are inexorably shrinking.  According to our current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack.  At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.

The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.

The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)

"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.

History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.

 

 

 

 

 

 


8.

 

SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

by Mia T, 8.03.05



They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back into the 19th century. Back us out of that Republican tunnel, fill it in, go back across the bridge.... We'll have a giant celebration when we come back to Columbus in 2020. There's nothing more wonderful than making dreams come true.

 

hear hillary clinton
address to the
Democratic Leadership Council
Columbus, Ohio
7.31.05






issus clinton is a dud.

I could say she has all of bill clinton's baggage and none of his charm, except I don't find bill clinton charming. What she lacks, in my view, is lubricant. Snake oil. She grates.

It's more than simple dislike. You don't want to see her; and you definitely don't want to hear her.

Missus clinton is everyman's worst nightmare: ex-wife, fishwife, frigid wife, mother-in-law; worse, the abusive Nazi commandant in the Lina Wertmuller masterpiece. When she humiliates, which is always, she dons the military-issue undershirt, she grabs the whip.

The clintons are clearly aware of this problem and are attempting to mitigate it with veneer.

Their first ploy is to pushpoll to artificially jack up missus clinton's numbers; this is a relatively easy task, given a compliant press. This illusion of electability is intended to fool the voters, activate the herd mentality and ultimately fool the smart money of the David Geffen-Harold Ickes stripe.

It won't work. Missus clinton has 100% name recognition. Any vote she doesn't already have, she won't get. Conversely, many voters have 0% information on the clinton abuses of power and utter failures. From this it follows that many votes she has today, she won't have tomorrow.

Their second ploy is to conflate "bill" and "hillary." "The clintons" become a single construct. Missus clinton arrogates bill's "bridge to the 21st century " as "theirs." And, by lifting the lyrics straight from Pinocchio, she becomes "the man from 'hope'."

The danger here for missus clinton is that with the bridge and the hope come the abuses and the utter failures.

 

 

READ MORE


 


9.

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





10.
ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)

ALBRIGHT1: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War2 on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'

by Mia T, 4.28.06



 

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.


READ MORE


COMPLETE ARTICLE

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

Mia T, 12.05.05
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006





UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."


ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)


MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)


HEY CLINTON!
SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.


HILLARY REMEMBERS


HILLARY DOES NOT RECALL, DOES NOT REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE SAID IT BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IF SHE DID.


HILLARY CLINTON VOTES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BEFORE SHE VOTES AGAINST THEM
HEAR HER NOW


"HAIR" THEY GO AGAIN: CYNTHIA McKINNEY PLAYS THE RACE CARD


BILLY + CYNTHIA McKINNEY vs. BILL + HILLARY CLINTON
a distinction without a difference


HILLARY DOES JESUS
"FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIANS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW"



HILLARY VOTE FRAUD
missus clinton uses Jesus


SEX, LIES AND SOCK PUPPETS:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR
4


THREE WOMEN AND A FUNERAL:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR
3


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


SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor


AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


hillary's burqa


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


ON PEGGY NOONAN ON 4 PRESIDENTS AND A FUNERAL


KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE



HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)~PART TWO~
THE
(oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO



'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?


THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy (clip included)


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


HILLARY IN AVIARY


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

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



AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
December 7, 1941+64


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



IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


ON WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND WIRETAPS:
THE ABYSMAL CONSTITUTIONAL RECORD OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


CLINTON 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'


THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY:
HOW DECADES OF CLINTON DOUBLE-DEALING COMPROMISED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY


DUBAI-ITIES:
HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON STRIKES AGAIN


DICK MORRIS:
CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI


REVERSE MORPH FOR HILLARY


THE VOUCHER RANT OF MISS HILLARY:
WHY THE WHIFF OF RACISM EXCEEDS THE WORDS


HILLARY CLINTON, DANGEROUS DEMAGOGUE
WHAT IS HER VOUCHER RANT REALLY ABOUT ANYWAY?



WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NOPART ONE
EXPENSIVE CHINA: the clinton legacy


WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON ~PART ONE~


THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)


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?



KARL ROVE'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION: MOI
HEAR HILLARY, CHRIS MATTHEWS ET AL.



"I DON'T RECALL"
(THE CLINTONS COMMIT PERJURY WITH IMPUNITY)


PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR


BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS:
HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08


HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY


HILLARY'S EXPOSED LEFT FLANK 'SCARES THE HORSES' (VIDEO)
(MISSUS CLINTON SUPPORTS ALITO FILIBUSTER)


IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?


ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT



SEE VIDEO: "HILLARY IS 'DOOMED'" (more 'plantation' fallout)


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


for the birds
(
THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: elections; hillary08; hillaryclinton; rape; terrorism; theterrorismstupid; waronterror; whitewomen; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2006 8:32:16 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.

Many don't seem to be practicing avoidance :-(


2 posted on 05/12/2006 8:34:24 AM PDT by pookie18 ([Hillary Rotten] Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

ping


3 posted on 05/12/2006 8:35:08 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; Slyfox; ...

ping


4 posted on 05/12/2006 8:36:26 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Stopping the Marxist Medusa is strictly a function of WHO AND WHAT runs against her. A strong conservative that will FIGHT and show this criminal socialist for what she is, and always has been, can EASILY bury her in smart fashion.


5 posted on 05/12/2006 8:41:48 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux

ping


6 posted on 05/12/2006 8:42:10 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bump


7 posted on 05/12/2006 8:47:33 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy?

Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP.



Rudy for Prez.


8 posted on 05/12/2006 8:47:53 AM PDT by Blackirish (BORDERS!!! BORDERS!!!!! YIIEEEEE!!!! Now can we get back on topic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
What you need is toughness, leadership, ability to communicate, proven competence in the war on terror, someone who does not seem overly ideological (altho he may be).
Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP. He remains wildly popular despite having made almost no public appearances in the past two years. His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible.

9 posted on 05/12/2006 8:49:27 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

fyi


10 posted on 05/12/2006 8:50:42 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Podhoretz has a hard time stepping outside of New York and identifying with the rest of us.

As a heartland Christian conservative I can tell you that being a Mormon or a Jew would in no way cause me to not vote for someone if I agree with his political stances.

I don't like Romey a lot because he is too waffley, and because he was too phoney during the whole gay marriage thing in his state. Yes, I give him some blame for that.

McCain is crazy and he hates the First Amendment. I could never ever vote for him.

I like Rudy, but he is a liberal state Republican and his positions on the issues are too liberal for the Republican base.

Give me someone like Pence. Why don't we have a good candidate like him in the mix?

But if Republicans could find a black Christian conservative I think we would walk all over Hillary.

11 posted on 05/12/2006 8:51:12 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.

The "more conservative than thou" purists will get her elected unless they learn that no candidate is absolutely perfect. Many would rather let Hillary get elected than vote for Republican candidate that could win....Rudy, for example.

I would vote for him if the alternative was Hillary, but we have a lot of "snob conservatives" who remind me of the religious police in Saudi Arabia. They spend their hours looking for fault in other conservatives, relishing the moment when they can denounce them and spell out all of their nonconservative traits.

They may as well donate their time and money to Hillary's campaign because they are working FOR her, regardless of what they think they are doing. These "super conservatives" are making the liberal mistake of never calculating the end result of their efforts.

12 posted on 05/12/2006 8:52:21 AM PDT by capt. norm (W.C. Fields: "Hollywood is the gold cap on a tooth that should have been pulled out years ago.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia T. Bump.


13 posted on 05/12/2006 8:58:12 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm


FOREWORD: A note to the Religious Right

I am not arguing here that you change your deeply held convictions. To the contrary.

Your convictions--the evangelical ethos-- is precisely my premise, my starting point. It is precisely why I cannot envision how you would doing anything to help elect hillary clinton, someone who is anathema to all you believe.

But that is exactly what you would be doing if, in the next presidential election, you stay home or vote for a 'Perot.' You don't have to physically pull the lever or mark the box or touch the square next to the name 'hillary clinton' to help elect her. To think otherwise is to play with your mind.

It is tempting to rationalize this issue... even to ignore it. It's a difficult issue. It's a dilemma. But rationalizing the issue won't make your actions morally right... and ignoring the issue won't make it go away.

The clintons equate the Religious Right with the islamo-fascist terrorists, with the enemy. They are attempting to transfer onto the Religious Right the hate and fear and disgust Americans feel for the islamo-fascist terrorists. To disseminate their vile invective, the clintons chose a church for the venue and what the they believe to be a vulnerable, easily demagogued population for the audience. (A population they've exploited forever.)

The purpose of this article is to inform you of the clintons' contemptible and dangerous scheme. To let you hear clinton for yourself.

It is critical that you know fully what the clintons think of you and to what extremes they are willing to go to harm you, to defeat you, to crush you.

You must not ignore or rationalize away this threat to your existence. As a Jew, I tend to be vigilant about such threats. I implore you to do likewise. You must not make the same mistake my brethren made almost seven decades ago.

 

READ MORE

WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


by Mia T, 03.16.06


 
14 posted on 05/12/2006 9:01:14 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Wow, Mia, the volume is overwhelming! When I read anyone saying that hatellary's demeanor is contrived, that hatellary has the bitchiness to be effective, that the media hasn't protected her so we see the real hatellary whenever she's 'out in public', well I remind myself of the media whoredom water carrying over her senate opponent merely walking over to her podium and offering to shake hands or sign an agreement, I remind myself of the revelations by security folks who worked in the Whitewhore House during her reign over same. I also go back and read the data regarding FBI files SHE demanded SHE have access to so she sent her goon, Livingston, to collect them. When the spittlist democrats and their yapping propaganda lapdogs in media make such a fuss over phone records collected legally (because people signed a waiver allowing such when they signed up for service) to mine in efforts to find and apprehend terrorists, I remind myself of the FBI files the unauthorized bitch of the degenerate collected that not one damn democrap ever objected to ... but I forgot, there were democrat congresscritter files in hatellary's stack so perhaps that explains their obeisance to her lowness.
15 posted on 05/12/2006 9:02:43 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

thanx :)


16 posted on 05/12/2006 9:02:53 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Clafrence Thomas for President!... No, wait, we need Him on the subpreme court until we can get at leaast one more Constitution purveyor on the bench. Hey! How about Condi Rice? She actually has accomplishmens to show as opposed to hatellary and her fabricated queenship.


17 posted on 05/12/2006 9:08:04 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I don't think Condi is the right choice. I think we need a black man against lilly-white Hillary. I would love that. It would really mix things up. LOL! Oh, and give him a conservative Jew for a running mate. So perfect.


18 posted on 05/12/2006 9:12:50 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I remind myself of the revelations by security folks who worked in the Whitewhore House during her reign over same I recently spoke with someone who had the nasty job of protecting her "heinous." It was very interesting....
19 posted on 05/12/2006 9:14:57 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Hillary...who?


20 posted on 05/12/2006 9:17:10 AM PDT by P-40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Hillary may be lily white but she may have the race card covered because she is married to a criminal who was anointed America's first black President.


21 posted on 05/12/2006 9:19:01 AM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Sadly, true.


22 posted on 05/12/2006 9:21:26 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Many don't seem to be practicing avoidance ping


23 posted on 05/12/2006 9:23:15 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

ping


24 posted on 05/12/2006 9:24:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

ping


25 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:28 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: malia

ping


26 posted on 05/12/2006 9:28:16 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

ping


27 posted on 05/12/2006 9:28:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
Hillary may be lily white but she may have the race card covered because she is married to a criminal who was anointed America's first black President.

True, but matters only as long as our candidate is also lily white. I'm just remembering the reaction of Lieberman as running mate for Gore. You can't under estimate the significance of a first -- a real first. It would be such a disgrace to the race-baiting Dems if Republicans gave us the first black candidate to emerge from the primaries as their party's pick.

28 posted on 05/12/2006 9:29:00 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Keeping Beelzebubba "quiet and in the background"? Ha! Good luck with THAT....Hitlary's as good as stopped right there!;)


29 posted on 05/12/2006 9:47:44 AM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama

ping


30 posted on 05/12/2006 9:54:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner

ping


31 posted on 05/12/2006 9:57:10 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

ping


32 posted on 05/12/2006 9:58:23 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Is Podhoretz one of these "neo-cons" everyone seems to be talking about?


33 posted on 05/12/2006 10:14:06 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Is Podhoretz one of these "neo-cons" everyone seems to be talking about?

Not sure...don't like to pigeonhole people...

34 posted on 05/12/2006 10:17:14 AM PDT by pookie18 ([Hillary Rotten] Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JustPiper

ping


35 posted on 05/12/2006 10:23:00 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Iheard him hawking his book on Fox yesterday. Now I know pot-ah--gritz is a stupid man. He has revealed himself as such many times, but he out did himself during the interview. He said that the beast was safe from attack because everything that could be said about her was already said, already brought out. I was embarrassed for him.

Let me break this to you gently Mr. pot-ah-gritz: Hilary Clinton has been in the Senate for five years plus. She has made hundreds of votes. There are potentially hundreds of angles of attack to be garnered from examining her voting records and public utterances. I know you'll say ANYTHING to sell your book, but please think before you speak.


36 posted on 05/12/2006 10:58:36 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer: Fighting to save America from Hilllary Clinton..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Would love to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation, Mia!


37 posted on 05/12/2006 11:07:42 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

;)


38 posted on 05/12/2006 11:21:51 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

hillary as a presidential candidate ......... no never!!

My history of hillary goes way back ... to teacher testing!
That is when I first became away of Arkansas Gov. clinton's wife.

Remember when that was THE issue. Teacher testing.

Hillary's Solution: Screw the Children--- by David Horowitz ...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3208

I have faith the Republican Party will come up with a candidate and it will be up to us to show hillary's true colors. Forget the DBM


39 posted on 05/12/2006 11:42:25 AM PDT by malia (FLIGHT 93 HAS DONE MORE TO FIGHT TERRORISM THAN THE WHOLE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: malia

thx. bump :)


40 posted on 05/12/2006 1:56:41 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks for the ping.

Run Hillary Run!


41 posted on 05/12/2006 3:00:58 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Well, then you're a little different than some of our fellow "conservatives."


42 posted on 05/12/2006 3:06:17 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

thanx :)


43 posted on 05/12/2006 3:09:56 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37; Mia T
He said that the beast was safe from attack because everything that could be said about her was already said, already brought out. I was embarrassed for him.

Many folks, in the back of their minds, know that Hillary and Bill had all the following Chinese agents in the White House, along with other cronies - all of whom, including Hillary - gave Commnunist China - - all of our nuclear secrets, ie. chinagate

Ng Lap Seng, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie; Manlin Foung, Wang Mei Trie, John Huang, Jane Huang, Johnny Chung, Col. Lui, Jing Wei Li, Irene Wu, Liu Tai-ying, Bin Liu, Irene Wu, Nora Lum, Shi JinYu, Shi-Zeng Chen, Xiao Yang, Liu Chao-Ying, Wang Jun, Wah Lim, General Ding Henggao, General Chi HaoTian, General Fu Quanyou, Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Lt. Gen. Huai Guomo, General Kui Fulin, "Col. Xu", Gen. Liu Huaquing, William Peh, PRC Defense Minister Chi Haotian, China Resources chairman Shen Jueren, Lt. General Xiong Guangkai, Wang Liheng, vice-president of China Aerospace Corp, Gen. Ji Shengde, Bao Peide, 5th Vice Minister of the PRC, Zou Jia Hua, Vice Minister National Technology Planning, Lt. General Xu Qiliang, Chief of Staff of the PLA Air Force, Lt. General Wu Quanxu, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Zhu Roug-ji, Vice Premier of National Finance, Liu Ju-Yuan, Minister of China Aerospace Corporation (made both satellite orbiter version of Long March and the nuclear tippled missile version for the PLA), Keshi Zhan, Yue Chu, Xiping Wang, Nan Nan Xu, Chun-Fat Leung, Chang-Lin Tien, Liao Minglong, Tian Yi, Chen Qingchang, Pan Yongming, Shao Xingsheng, Jiangsu Yongli, Tongsun Park, David Chang and Sister Ping. Bernard Schwartz/Loral, Marvin Rosen, Keshi Zhan, Ken Hsui, Ms Melinda Yee, Hoyt Zia, Ira Sockowitz, Leon A. Panetta, Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes, William Meddoff, Alexis Herman, Jamie Gorelick, Hazel O'Leary, Mark Middleton, Nancy Hernreich, Craig Livingstone, Lynn Cutler, Neal Ainley, Maria Hsia, Robert Meyerhoff, Roger Tamraz, Joseph Landon, David Wang, Indonesian Arief Wiriadinata and his wife Soraya and convicted Miami drug trafficker Jose Cabrera; and also her ongoing association with China Poly Group Corporation / "Polytechnologies Incorporated," along with Hillary's ongoing ties with Ted Sioeng, Mochtar and James Riady and the Lippo Bank-Lippo Group & Lippo Pacific in Indonesia.

44 posted on 05/12/2006 4:22:18 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
U S Congressional Record/Senate
106th Congress
June 23, 1999
pgs. S7483-S7486
The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
Senator James Inhofe
(right column/top)
45 posted on 05/12/2006 4:23:37 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pookie18

Alamo-girl.com / chinagate!


46 posted on 05/12/2006 4:24:20 PM PDT by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sic Luceat Lux

please put your post in as many post as appropriate - the following for example - it is about "if Bush doesn't do things my way - well, then I will just vote for the dems" against "remember Ross Perot group" (which I belong in).

"The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!"
May 10, 2006 | Jim Robinson (and it is still active today)

I know you will post it here!!!!!!

A.......hillary is known for saying 'that's already been said' and the DBM walks!!!!!...........bump


47 posted on 05/12/2006 6:09:05 PM PDT by malia (FLIGHT 93 HAS DONE MORE TO FIGHT TERRORISM THAN THE WHOLE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: malia

You read my mind! ;)


48 posted on 05/13/2006 4:09:19 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: malia; Jim Robinson; All

[T]hey're using the same divide and conquer techniques. They infiltrate our political parties and organizations. They plant disinformation bombs and sow the seeds of political discontent. They are masters in the use of propaganda and rabble rousing.

Recognize the enemy for what he is and do not allow them to use divisive issues to destroy our conservative movement. We are winning. We must not be sidetracked by an issue that will be solved in due time as we elect more conservative members to our government and continue replacing liberal activist judges with constitutionalists.

The goal is the same as it's always been. We must hold the line and advance our cause. Never willingly give ground to the liberal/socialists! Never retreat! Never surrender!

The Beast must be destroyed!--

The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!
May 10, 2006 | Jim Robinson

Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?

Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.

Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead?

Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing.

Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side?

Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book....

Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary?

Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.

Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.


STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]
Mia T, 5.12.06



STOPPING HILLARY
[
JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]


THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE

NOTE: Podhoretz is absolutely right about one thing--
even hillary clinton can win if the Right FRACTURES over its pet issues.
We must not, in this Age of Terror, allow another Perot or Perot-surrogate issue
elect a defective and dangerous clinton by a plurality.



THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


America's Real Two-Front War


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


ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.


DEBUNKING CINDY SHEEHAN
(HEAR ABE LINCOLN/JOHNNY CASH + PBS' NEIL CONAN)


CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT (hear them all here)


CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES
5


HILLARY CLINTON VOTES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BEFORE SHE VOTES AGAINST THEM
HEAR HER NOW


"HAIR" THEY GO AGAIN: CYNTHIA McKINNEY PLAYS THE RACE CARD


BILLY + CYNTHIA McKINNEY vs. BILL + HILLARY CLINTON
a distinction without a difference



HILLARY DOES JESUS
"FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIANS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW"


HILLARY VOTE FRAUD
missus clinton uses Jesus


WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right


THE VOUCHER RANT OF MISS HILLARY:
WHY THE WHIFF OF RACISM EXCEEDS THE WORDS



HILLARY CLINTON, DANGEROUS DEMAGOGUE
WHAT IS HER VOUCHER RANT REALLY ABOUT ANYWAY?



GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's '
plantation' blunder)


THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000



49 posted on 05/13/2006 4:15:28 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: All
CORRECTIONS TO LINKS IN THE TITLE:



STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]
Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.

May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.
Stopping Hillary
John Podhoretz stands athwart history yelling, 'stop her!'

An NRO Q&A

CAN SHE BE STOPPED? That’s the title of John Podhoretz’s new book. “She” is Hillary Clinton and she is on her way to the White House. For Republicans, John writes, Hillary’s election should be concentrating the minds of Republicans and conservatives wonderfully. But it isn’t yet. And if we’re not careful, the disappointment many of you feel with the state of your party will translate into an exhilarating but potentially suicidal journey as the primary season gets under way in earnest in 2007. The road you should travel, the path you should take, is the one marked “Danger: Hillary Approaching.”

Today is publication day for John, so he took some questions from NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez.

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez: How bad would a President Hillary be?

John Podhoretz: We should start from this simple fact: Despite all the talk of her emergence as a "moderate," as a senator, Hillary has a 95-percent liberal voting record, according to National Journal. Let's go down the domestic list. Tax cuts? In June 2004, she told an audience in San Francisco: "For America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that [tax cut] short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She will feed the bottomless the Democratic-liberal appetite for ever more regulations at the federal level. And I haven't even mentioned foreign policy, where the Democratic party's lesson from Iraq will be to act with a degree of caution approaching total paralysis.

Lopez: What will her husband do as First Gentleman?

Podhoretz: I have no idea. I do know that managing him—keeping him quiet and in the background—will be a key element of a successful presidential bid in 2008.

Lopez: Why is it harder for a liberal to win the presidency than a conservative?

Podhoretz: Two reasons: First, it's still the case that twice as many Americans describe themselves as "conservative" rather than "liberal." That's why Democratic politicians don't embrace the "liberal" label. Second, conservatives know what they stand for—in brief, a strong America, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and traditional values. It's much harder for liberals to describe their positive beliefs, since they no longer subscribe to the view that we are on a relentless march forward to a glorious future.

Lopez: Why won’t Clinton fatigue be a significant obstacle in keeping Hillary from returning 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Podhoretz: When she runs for office in 2008, it will have been a decade since the revelation of Monica Lewinsky's name and almost 15 years since the word "Whitewater" entered the vocabulary. That's a long, long, long time.

Lopez: Besides name recognition and cash, what’s Hillary Clinton’s greatest advantage on the road to the White House?

Podhoretz: A 25-point lead in every poll among Democratic voters about whom they want to be their nominee.

Lopez: And disadvantage?

Podhoretz: The need to stroke and becalm the party's Deaniac wing, which can cause her a lot of unnecessary trouble almost solely due to her vote in favor of the Iraq war.

Lopez: Can we expect a pre-election announcement that Lindsey Graham will be in her Cabinet.

Podhoretz: Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the authors of the cliché that Hillary is uncommonly hard-working as a senator, which is alternately patronizing—as though she might otherwise be spending time in the beauty parlor—and an example of grade inflation—because, let's face it, what senator actually works hard?

Lopez: You call Hillary “cold,” “flat,” and “unwomanly.” Are you sexist?

Podhoretz: Considering that I say flatly Hillary will be the next president of the United States barring concerted Republican action to stop her and that she is an uncommonly intelligent and skilled political actor, I think "sexist" isn't the right description of my view of her. I argue that these hard and unattractive qualities help make her a very plausible first woman president—because America has to believe she can plausibly stand up to Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and Osama Bin Laden. She needs to seem tough, and whatever Hillary's weaknesses, tough is a pretty good word to describe her.

Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy?

Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP. He remains wildly popular despite having made almost no public appearances in the past two years. His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible.

Lopez: Why not John McCain? Why not an Allen or Romney?

Podhoretz: John McCain has too complicated a history with the social conservatives and activist groups, and is such a gadfly that it seems inevitable he will act in ways to divide the GOP coalition. Unlike Rudy, he seems to prefer making friends with liberals and attacking conservatives, and that's not a good stance for a party leader. I guess George Allen is a plausible candidate, but why is he at three percent in polls of likely primary voters while McCain and Giuliani are nearly 30 points higher? As for Mitt Romney, I just don't think the nation is ready for a Mormon president (and by the way, I say that as an observant Jew who doesn't think the nation is ready for a Jewish president either).

Lopez: You’ve previously talked up Jeb Bush. But not in the book. Why no dynasty vs. dynasty fight?

Podhoretz: I take Jeb at his word. He's not running.

Lopez: Why not woman vs. woman? Why wouldn’t Condi pull it off? Just more of your sexism?

Podhoretz: The presidency is not an entry-level electoral job. Condi Rice hasn't ever been elected for anything. She should run for senator or governor of California and take it from there. I would be thrilled to vote for her in 2016.


Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?

Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.

Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead?

Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing.

Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side?

Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book, which is one of the many, many reasons they and hundreds of thousands of other people should buy it immediately!

Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary?

Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.









THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE

by Mia T, 5.07.06



This is why many believe nominating a woman - nominating Hillary - will play into the GOP's hands. If the public is looking for a tough guy, won't the public want a guy?

Maybe. On the other hand, if there were ever an American woman politician who could pass for a tough guy, it's Hillary Clinton.

Start with the purely cosmetic. The fact that she never quite figured out what to do with her hair or her clothes, the fact that she's not a raving beauty, and the fact that she has a manner that is almost pathologically unsexy all work in her favor - just as they worked against her as a traditional First Lady.

Those qualities have created an image of Hillary Clinton as unfeminine. This connects her to the successful female chief executives in other countries. Golda Meir was a hard-edged old broad, Indira Gandhi a dominatrix, Margaret Thatcher a battleaxe....

She possesses a hard-to-describe style that may be the perfect blend for the first woman president.

Hillary possesses a very complex mien. She is almost always calm and composed, but radiates an icy hauteur....

The qualities that make Hillary Clinton a not especially likable, even a dislikable, public figure are pretty good ones for the first serious female candidate for president. For here's the bitter truth:

The first woman president must not seem over-emotional, or flighty, or guided by intuition rather than reason. She must not seem demure or delicate, nor can she seem brassy and sassy. She must not appear to be in a girlish quest of a strong man to help make things right. Above all, she must not seek to excuse any flaws in her conduct by suggesting that they are due to her being a woman - from the natural excuse, like a hormone rush jangling her emotions, to a political excuse, like an unjust society that won't give the XX chromosome an even break.

Just for vulgarity's sake, let me put it this way: She's got to be a bitch. And Hillary is a bitch. Her challenge will be to play up her anti-feminine qualities without being completely without charm and appeal.

Republicans and conservatives are sure she has neither charm nor appeal. And indeed, she doesn't have much. But she probably has enough.

TOUGH ENOUGH
By JOHN PODHORETZ
May 7, 2006

Adapted for The Post by John Podhoretz from his new book, "Can She Be Stopped?"



f the notion that hillary clinton's repulsive "bitch" affect renders her electable is silly, the assumption that the only real swing voter will elect another clinton in this Age of Terror is downright absurd. And yet, John Podhoretz, normally an intelligent, seemingly sane fellow, is trying to sell us the former by assuming the latter.

False premises, non sequiturs and Oedipal issues--not necessarily in descending order of importance--infect his argument. I examine the first two here; the last I leave for him and his mother (or shrink) to resolve.

THE ERRORS:

  1. Sang-froid is hardly hillary clinton's strong suit. Missus clinton's reputation for out-of-control rage precedes her. 1

  2. Missus clinton is the quintessential coattails-riding-- zipper-hoisted in her case--wife.

  3. Missus clinton's viability depends on her arrogating her husband's 'achievements' and personna as her own, i.e., depends on the clinton 'twofer" construct, the clinton conflation ploy,2

  4. hillary clinton is weak. She is historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

  5. hillary-the-bitch isn't running. hillary-the-contrivance is, a constantly-adapting-to-the-polls fake that is put forth on a daily basis by all manner of proxy, from simple spinner to elaborate Hollywood production.3

  6. Indeed, if hillary-the-bitch would make such a perfect commander in chief, why did hillary clinton's people fashion "Commander in Chief" after Condi Rice?4

  7. When was the last time you observed hillary clinton 5 partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. hillary clinton answers to no one.6 hillary clinton doesn't play in Peoria.

  8. Positive numbers for hillary (such as they are) are inversely related to appearance frequency, and, more specifically, inversely related to the following mouth variables: magnitude of agape, amplitude and frequency of effluvia.7

    The bottom line is this paradox: In order for hillary clinton to have any chance of winning elections, hillary clinton, in all her "bitchy" manifestations, must all but vanish from the public stage.8

    (Which she has.

    'Hiding Hillary' is the overriding clinton strategy. All manner of proxy, from clinton operative to elaborate Hollywood production, create the illusion of presence while the Right lacks the courage to force the real hillary clinton onto the public stage.)
  9. The Bush 41-43 analogy doesn't apply. What we have here is not generic 'clinton fatigue.' It's specific 'hillary hatred.'

    Men despise hillary clinton. She is their worst nightmare: their mother-in-law, their nagging first wife and the Nazi commandant in Seven Beauties all rolled into one low-center-of-gravity package.

  10. Women--specifically white women, the only real swing voter--will not vote for a Democrat9--and most definitely will not vote for a clinton--in this Age of Terror.10

    Especially after they learn about the rapes.



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

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 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--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), 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
(see descriptor morphs)


FOOTNOTES

READ MORE



50 posted on 05/13/2006 5:05:35 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson