Hillary Reveals Her Inner Self

OpinionJournal.com ^ | November 2, 2007 | Peggy Noonan

[gpapa]

The story isn't that the Democrats finally took on Hillary Clinton. Nor is it that they were gentlemanly to the point of gingerly and tentative. There was an air of "Please, somebody kill her for me so I can jump in and show high minded compassion at her plight!"

Barack Obama, with his elegance and verbal fluency really did seem like that great and famous political figure from his home state of Illinois--Adlai Sevenson, who was not at all hungry, not at all mean, and operated at a step removed from the grubby game. Mr. Obama is like someone who would write in his diaries, "I shall point out Estes Kefauver's manifold inconsistencies, then to luncheon with Arthur and Marietta."

The odd thing is it's easier to be a killer when you know exactly what you stand for, when you have a real philosophy. The philosophy becomes a platform from which you can strike without ambivalence. Mr. Obama seems born to be mild. But still, that's not the story.

Nor is it that John Edwards seems like a furry animal on a wheel, trying so hard, to the point he's getting a facial tic, and getting nowhere, failing to get his little furry paws on his prey, not knowing you have to get off the wheel to get to the prey. You have to stop the rounded, rote, bromidic phrases, and use a normal language that cannot be ignored.

[nathanbedford]

Dennis Prager, Charles Krauthammer, Victor David Hanson, and Peggy Noonan are usually worthy of our time to read, consider, and reply to. Lately, Noonan has fired wide of the mark but that might be because she is often firing blanks. She's too airy fairy for my reactionary tastes. But her job is not to write for me, her job is to write for the vast female middle who will decide the next election.

When she writes something like this about Hillary, and it appears in a widely read newspaper, one that is highly respected, and her column is thereafter syndicated throughout the nation, and reverberated on the Internet, she gains a wide hearing. If Hillary is to be taken down, she must be taken down by other females. When men do it, the Clintons simply deploy their surrogates to slander the truth teller. Of course they try the same thing against female critics, but that raises problems for them and it is not nearly as effective. The Clinton war room can dismiss Rush Limbaugh as a hatemonger and sell that lie but it cannot effectively smear Peggy Noonan that way.

It is just possible that the tide is turning against Bitch Clinton. I consider the reaction to her performance in the last debate to be fascinating because she has done the same thing countless times before and generated no such reaction. Why now? Are the stories about the Chinese money laundering having effect? Often the media are motivated to attack a public figure for reasons which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the attack. Could it be that even the media are beginning to understand the implications for America of the Clinton presidency? Could it be these rumors of lesbian connection are generating the same reaction and for the same reason? Are the drive-by media worried that this rumor will be confirmed only after Hillary is nominated, or worse, as an October surprise before the election? Do the media really want to get rid of her now and clear the decks for Obama in time to save the election for a Democrat? Are the media finding some vestigial righteousness and trying to destroy Hillary because she is a lesbian but they are too politically correct to admit it?

Before one dismisses this soap opera analysis out of hand, it is well to consider that when the Hillary put on her pink suit and damned the vast right wing conspiracy, there was another dynamic at work. We men reacted to the ill logic of the conspiracy charge but the women of America were empathizing with Hillary as the martyred spouse. They were watching a different soap opera.

Hillary cannot be a martyr, she cannot be the figure of the wronged woman, if she's a lesbian in a marriage of convenience with Slick. The whole dynamic changes, it will not be Hillary who was betrayed but the women of America who were betrayed by Hillary. They must either reject Hillary or except their own gullibility and foolishness.

As a foaming at the mouth, flopping on the floor conservative, I am unmoved by Peggy Noonan's conclusion that the problem with Hillary is, "policy." We conservatives have known about Hillary's policy deficiencies from the beginning. Why the Epiphany now? Why should middle America, the women of America who will decide this next election, only now after this debate conclude that Hillary is on the wrong side of "policy"?

Are we reading and airy -fairy proxy for the lesbian charge?

[Darkwolf377]

Before one dismisses this soap opera analysis out of hand, it is well to consider that when the Hillary put on her pink suit and damned the vast right wing conspiracy, there was another dynamic at work.

Terrific analysis--and good to read you again.

You're dead-on when pointing out that if Hillary's going to fail it has to be at the hands of women, and men have their blinders on when they laugh at her "touchy-feely" approach (remember how many people laughed at her "listening tour"?).

The reason HRC is so hard to defeat is because as politically incorrect as it is to say, women ARE different from men in terms of their thinking, not just their physical anatomy. When women hear men laughing at things like "listening," they think that men don't get it, and that maybe someone like HRC IS what they need in office.

Many women are going to vote for her because she is a woman. If that solid core can be cracked, HRC has no "up" she can reach through other means--men, conservatives, minorities--she's already nailed down all the hardcore support she can from the "edges" so now she needs to get more from the mushy middle. Those women who aren't wedded to ideology will look at her, and if they don't find too many objections they'll say "Why not?" If they look at her and see an incompetent who will be calling the shots in the post-9/11 world where their children might be getting blown up by suicide bombs in the USA, she's done.

[Nick Thimmesch]

“It is just possible that the tide is turning against Bitch Clinton”

No, no, no: then we must hope that “the tide” subsides.

As aforementioned by yours truly here at Freep:

“Please, oh Lord, please, please, please, oh pretty please, please oh Lord: let the Dems make Hillary Klintoon their POTUS nominee in 2008.

Pretty please with a cherry on top.”

[beaversmom]

Yep, that’s her.

[nathanbedford]

“Please, oh Lord, please, please, please, oh pretty please, please oh Lord: let the Dems make Hillary Klintoon their POTUS nominee in 2008.

Amen.

I have long ago posted that our best and perhaps only chance of winning this next election is if we can run against Hillary.

[right wing]

If the dem candidates want to truly bury Hillary, all they have to do is bring up her illegal fund raising. Hammering her on that topic will force the media to report it.

[samtheman]

I don’t know if I accept your premise that lesbianism trumps policy with the average liberal (and semi-liberal) woman voter in America.

I think that the average woman voter who is inclined to vote for Hillary (and that leaves out most conservative women) wouldn’t change their vote simply because Hillary turned out to be a lesbian.

I think one issue and one issue alone will move those women: fear for the security of this country and their families. Which gets back to policy.

If the average liberal or semi-liberal woman begins to think that Hillary’s policy will lead to more terrorist attacks on America, they will vote against Hillary.

That’s the issue. Not lesbianism. In my opinion.

[Cincinna]

I think Peggy has written a terrific article.

Her Heinous is running a 1992 campaign, War Room, Intimidation, Threats and all in 2007.

She is totally out of touch. IMHO part of the reason that Slick was so successful with double talk, parsing, and flat out lying, is that people didn’t quite get the pattern and the evil intent behind it.

Hillary is so predictable...you know she is gonna scream “foul”, go after Russert, and want to have everything all ways. It is getting old and stale, and everyone feels it.

[samtheman]

I have long ago posted that our best and perhaps only chance of winning this next election is if we can run against Hillary.

I don't know. Are you saying Obama would be strong in the general election? Or Edwards?

I agree that Hillary will be easy to beat, if we have a viable candidate of our own.

But so will Obama, who is an ardent leftist. And so will Edwards, who is a flaming lawyer.

Look at it this way: 90% of the black vote is going to the D side of the ballot no matter what. Along with 80% of the Latino vote. White males are already split and probably not changing much one way or the other. The only demographic up for grabs is the Soccer Mom. I think she is more inclined to vote for Hillary than she is for Obama or Edwards.

[RichInOC]

Edwards as the perky little hamster. Oh, I LIKE that.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


NathanBedford,


Great post ... especially about "it'll take the vast female middle" to take Hillary down.



Why the sudden media surge (concern) about Hillary's performance ?

I suggest that Hillary's real problems began a couple of days before the debate ... when Tim Russert's "handlers" instructed Russert to filet Hillary with his debate questions.

Anyone who thinks Russert (et al) write their own debate "scripts" is naive and delusional.

Specialists (professional consultants and the George Soros gang) spend more time writing these "debate moderator scripts" than NASA does on planning a Space Shuttle launch.



So why has George Soros contemplated this "turn against Hillary" ?

MONEY and POWER ...



Soros and his Billionare Leftist Pals ... fear that they'll lose their "seat at the table" if Clinton Inc. raises enough Red Chinese Money ... and it's a Given that Soros G2 Sources know "exactly" how much money (and from whom) Clinton Inc. has raised so far ...

Plus ... Soros wants RESULTS ... he might be a financial crook, but he's an INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL one ... and he's absolutely a Bottom-Line kinda guy (doncha know) ...



Soros is DEMANDING a White House WIN in 2008 ...

Not another second-rate "Pelosi-Reid" fiasco ... or else another (worn-out) media orgasism to celebrate Hillary as the "smartest woman in the world" ...




Soros is (also) beginning to realize that the Republican "Religious Right" will secure Mitt Romney's White House campaign ... with a Zero (0.00000) Third Party threat ...

Epecially after that "political moron" James Dobson got politically "bitch-slapped" down by the Bob Jones University of the "mormon apostate" Mitt Romney ...

So ... no Christian Third Party to (easily) win the Election for Hillary ...

And George Soros "left behind" from Hillary's potential "White House Inauguration Tea Party" ...

Drove Tim Russert's "harsh" questions towards Hillary ...



The Crack in the Cosmic Egg has begun ...



Patton-at-Bastogne



.

[nathanbedford]

I suppose that the Republicans and well-managed campaigns like Romney's are already slicing and dicing the demographics of the female vote in America and laying that on a state-by-state grid. No doubt they have already concluded that there is a huge difference between a married women who tends to vote Republican and single women who tend to vote Democrat. There is also about the same dichotomy between older women and younger women. Then I suppose there are women who vote and those who are not likely to vote.

But after these distinctions are drawn, there must be a residue of this demographic group which can be treated and considered as women . And these must be approached on an issue by issue basis being mindful that womens' reactions to issues are different from mens' and, as you point out, the manner of delivery is far more important to women than to men. At the foot of your note you suggest that women should be alerted that the war on terror threatens their children. You are exactly right. Every issue must be tied to such considerations.

For example, healthcare is being driven by the Democrats because they know how potent an issue this can be with with women. We Republicans and conservatives respond by saying that the idea that the federal government should be usurping healthcare is unconstitutional and unwise because it would cycle one out of every seven dollars spent on our economy through the exchequer. It would convert health delivery into something akin to the efficiencies we experience in the post office, as opposed to Federal Express.

Many women simply do not hear these arguments. They will let someone else worry about the Constitution, they are worried about who has to change their mother's diaper because their mothers have Alzheimers. Virtually every issue has to be seen in this light.

I consider that there must be a vulnerability in the womens' demographic to wedge issues just as there is within the general voting demographic. These issues must be exploited ruthlessly-but the manner of doing so is everything.

Apologies for the misrecognition of the word "except" when I dictated into my Dragon Naturally Speaking software "accept" in my post to you. software saves me from looking foolish for spelling errors but leaves me vulnerable to those kinds of sound errors which I sometimes fail to catch in proofreading.

[Caipirabob]

I'll say she was "revealing"...

Democrat Debate: Hillary promises to take 10 BILLION AWAY from PRIVATE INDUSTRY

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

[caver]

This article of hers is awful hard to read. With all the extra verbage taking up space, the message is lost.

[giotto]

She turns every dance into the polka. And it is that amazing thing, a grim polka.

Less of a two step, more of a goose step.

[SaltyJoe]

American conservatives still hold back on exposing sin for what it really is. We still censor what happens for those who chose homosexuality and what happened to Germans because of sexual tyranny. We don't review everything of what jihadists do to other Muslims they consider too mild for Islam and our MSM treats it as nothing serious. We don't have glossy photos of abortion on big billboards reminding us how horrible it is. Nor do we publicized the effects of abortion to mothers who've killed their babies. We don't broadcast the victimized patients of hospitals cycling addicts through prescription meds and playing money games with our insurance.

Truth is underreported purposefully in the way the banality of evil gains total control--in degrees.

If women are the instrument to resoundingly reject Hillary Clinton, then women must be reminded of what it means to be under Hillary's base. Likewise, men must communicate, ("Honey, if this is what you bring upon us, then I cannot protect you or the children. I love you, I fight for you, I die for you. But, you'll be on your own after I'm dead.") very clearly what it means to sacrifice family security to be under the rule of sin, and all of its expensive complications (venereal disease, mental psychosis and violent jealousies, loss of beauty, rampant drug abuse, suicidal). This isn't because sin is "rejected by society". Sin is NOT rejected by our society. The horrors mentioned are the very characteristics of sin. Perhaps this is why Russians had to experience Atheism and all of the Communist's acceptance of a living Hell because a mere explanation and warning just wasn't enough.

[Caipirabob]

Barack Obama, with his elegance and verbal fluency really did seem like that great and famous political figure from his home state of Illinois--Adlai Sevenson

Riiiight...Obama came off as a waste of Carbon Credits. The man made President Bush look like a toast-master for all of the meaning and significance his words carried. Who cares if you can speak for 90 minutes when you don't say anything?

It was a sad waste of oxygen for all participants.

[Caipirabob]

Terrific analysis--and good to read you again.

As much as I enjoyed the original post, I always enjoy your follow-ups. Just getting in a "me too..."

[johnny7]

I like that!