So why would clinton advise Edwards, anyway?

CNN INSIDE POLITICS ^ | 01.04.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

As we all know, the clintons view their present fecklessness a temporary setback--an interregnum, if you will. They also understand that hillary clinton is unelectable in 2004.

The clintons are looking to '08; they are pinning their hopes on the fading memories of Americans combined with the application ad nauseam of the clinton Complex-Question Fallacy Scheme.

[Mia T]

Bill Clinton is pinning his hopes on Americans having incomplete memories. He wants us to remember the good times, associating the prosperity of the late 1990s with the handiwork of his Administration. However, the farther we move away from the days that Bill, Hillary and the whole gang of Clintonistas were in the White House, the more apparent the glaring deficiencies in his record become, particularly on national security.

 

It would be nice to think that Bill Clinton has finally come to recognize the true importance of national defense. But the question remains: Why was he AWOL so often on issues involving national defense during his presidency? Maybe it's because he was so busy taking trips at the expense of our armed forces when not fighting to save his own skin from an enraged Congress during his scandal-ridden presidency.

Some legacy, huh?

Negligence: The Clinton Legacy On National Defense

www.aim.org | December 6, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

 

Q ERTY6 utter failure BUMP!

There is a great deal of interest in how history is going to view Bill Clinton...Our first indication from the public does little to suggest that Clinton's image has become more positive in the 14 months since he left office. Just 51% of Americans now say they approve of the job Clinton did while in office, and a substantial 47% say they disapprove (the second-highest disapproval rating, behind only Nixon's). This marks a drop from the higher ratings he was receiving as he left office, and a slight drop even from his overall two-term average.

 

Clinton continues to drop in retrospective poll data. Only Nixon lower.

Gallup News Service

 

A C-SPAN survey of 58 U.S. historians has concluded that Bill Clinton is the president with the lowest 'moral authority' -- beating out Richard Nixon for last place, Monday's NEW YORK TIMES is set report.

----C-SPAN PRESIDENTS POLL: CLINTON JUDGED LOWEST IN MORALS

 

clinton's ranking will likely get worse over time. Economic issues fade in importance over time. Moral issues presist and grow. (paraphrase)

------Douglas Brinkley, history professor, on Washington Journal discussing C-SPAN poll  

 

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath

 

...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally

 

It is not the strength but the duration of great sentiments that makes great men.

-----Nietzsche

 

I suspect that, to spite us all, Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120 just so he can write the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

History Lesson

by Mia T

 

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

 

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

 

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

 

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (NYT)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

 

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

 

 

POSTSCRIPT:

Weekly Standard writer Tucker Carlson has dubbed Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz "loser of the week" for his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week. The New York Times described his testimony as "gratuitously patronizing."

"Why would Wilentz risk his reputation to join the already bulging ranks of Clinton throne-sniffers?" Mr. Carlson asked Marxist historian Eugene Genovese, who guesses that "the pressure of time and the passions of the moment" got to Mr. Wilentz.

"As for why anyone would cite the Framers in defense of Clinton, Genovese seems baffled" Mr. Carlson wrote.

Mr. Genovese told Mr. Carlson: "I come from a rather tough working-class neighborhood where attitudes toward women left a great deal to be desired. ... But if anybody had said in the local pool room" some of the things President Clinton reportedly did to Monica Lewinsky, "the attitude would have been, 'That's degenerate. You don't do that to a girl, not even a whore.' The idea that the United States of America, the supreme world power, would tolerate a man in office who is a palpable moral degenerate -- the Founding Fathers would have choked."

The Washington Times---Inside Politics

 

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

[BuddhaBoy]

I think Clinton and Edwards have a deal to make Hillary his VP nominee. This is the only chance that Hillary can get back into the White House someday.

[anniegetyourgun]

Without constant reminders, it is quite possible for Americans to 'forget' the nightmares of Clinton. The prospect of the she-Clinton in the WH sends cold chills down my spine. And yet, I believe the electorate is still just as capable today of stepping into that wretched, stinking, steaming, pile of dung.....with their eyes wide open.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Mia T]

I thought of that, but discounted it. The co-rapist on the ticket ensures the loss of the South... and with it...the loss of the presidency.

[eureka!]

A thousand kudos Mia. Astute observations, wonderful art. Your work truly belongs in the Counter Clinton Liebrary being constructed. I hope that happens....

[BuddhaBoy]

Imagine the following scenario:

Edwards wins with Graham as his VP. Graham resigns after the election, and Edwards nominates Hillary as his replacement.

If the Democrats won back the Senate, all they would have to do is confirm her for the office. Edwards hires a food taster for the duration of his presidency.

[Mia T]

...unless, that is the idea... Edwards becomes the big loser...and hillary clinton is catapulted from utter failure zipper hoisted wife of ex-ersatz-prez to veep loser and future prez contender.

[dixiechick2000]

Do you happen to know the NY laws pertaining to running for one office while occupying another? For some reason, I think she would not have to resign her Senate seat to run, thus allowing her to remain in the Senate and become the frontrunner in '08. Edwards, not holding any national political office, would be out of the picture. She may be a lot of things, but she's not so stupid as to run for President against Bush.

[dixiechick2000]

That's very true. I had not thought of that. Thanks!

[Cicero]

As usual, splendid visuals and thoughtful assemblage of the data to make your point.

I think Hillary is thinking very strongly of running in 2004 rather than 2008. She would have to go up against Bush, but if she waits until 2008 she risks losing her grip on the levers of power. A lot of Democrats would like to shove her aside, I'm sure, and seize power for themselves. As you imply, Al Gore was meant to hold things together for her, and he failed. And McAuliffe failed again in 2002.

But notice that there has been virtually no blaming of McAuliffe by the liberal press or politicians, although he would seem to be the natural scapegoat. Hillary needs him in place if she is to run. But it's doubtful whether she can keep him there until 2008. And her FBI files will gradually go out of date--though not nearly so quickly as a lot of people seem to believe.

[Mia T]

 

 _{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}

 

WRITTEN IN STONE: AN ARCHITECT DEFINES THE CLINTONS

Democrat Debacle of '02

DESIGNATED DEMOCRAT ATTACK DOG

Q ERTY8

BUMP!

[MeekOneGOP]

It would be nice to think that Bill Clinton has finally come to recognize the true importance of national defense. But the question remains: Why was he AWOL so often on issues involving national defense during his presidency? Maybe it's because he was so busy taking trips at the expense of our armed forces when not fighting to save his own skin from an enraged Congress during his scandal-ridden presidency.

Some legacy, huh?

Yep...

"A presidential executive order issued during the Clinton
administration hamstrung the FBI so badly that bureau
lawyers decided it would be illegal to infiltrate Osama bin
Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a senior
FBI official during the Clinton administration said Saturday."
(June 1, 2002)

____________________

"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.

The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.

[Mia T]

You raise good points...but how do the lovely couple get around her unelectability??

Oh wait. They've done that before...

 

The clintons' refinement of the DNC "drag and drop," a vote fraud technique by which unwitting, unwilling and/or illegal blacks are coerced into voting multiple times, is not merely illegal and exploitive. It is racist.

Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

In the senate race against Rick Lazio, it is widely understood that the "drag and drop," (followed by the OLD ANGLE / NEW SQUARE / OVAL OFFICE SCHEME ) was clinton's vote fraud technique of choice used to overcome her low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures.

 

HILLARY CLINTON, DESIGNATED DEMOCRAT ATTACK DOG, MAKES HER DEBUT

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

 

Mia T

 

Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton Effectively Pleads 5TH in Press Conference by Invoking Spousal Privilege

 

 

SENATORS FOR VOTE FRAUD

By ARNOLD ALHERT

 

October 19, 2002 -- IT'S more than a little ironic. On the same day it was announced that Saddam Hussein has been "unanimously" re-elected, the only two senators preventing a unanimous vote in the Senate on the election-reform bill were New York's own Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

Why? "This would make it more difficult to vote in New York. It's designed to suppress minority voting participation," said Sen. Clinton.

The "this" Sen. Clinton is referring to is the new anti-fraud provisions in the bill. They require that every person wanting to vote show a driver's license, Social Security number or other approved ID in order to cast a ballot.

Clinton and Schumer preferred a system where a potential voter merely had to sign his or her name.

So who is it exactly that this bill is "suppressing"? U.S. citizens have all the requisite ID - no matter what their ethnicity. Could it be that Clinton and Schumer are "sensitive" to some of the leftist fringe groups in this country who are clamoring for the right of illegal aliens to vote?

It is no secret that New York is home to thousands of undocumented "residents" - who would vote overwhelmingly Democratic if they could just get past these darn ID requirements.

New York's dynamic duo have a lot more 'splainin' to do on this one.

E-mail: ahlert@mindspring.com

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

 

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

 

Q ERTY7 BUMP!

clinton-McAuliffe-DNC CORRUPTING ELECTORAL PROCESS/UNDERMINING HOMELAND SECURITY

 

Defining the clintons and clintonism: Nov. 5, 2002 and Q ERTY

NEW!! Election Day Q ERTIES (clintons v. Bush)

 

Torricelli-Lautenberg-DNC Switcheroo Scheme Not 1st Foray into Virtual Reality

[Mia T]

THE LANDRIEU VARIATION

[clintonh8r]

Fratboy taps Shrillery for veep, then suffers attack of arkancide....instant President Hellary.

[Mia T]

PIT-BULL PING!

HILLARY CLINTON, DESIGNATED DEMOCRAT ATTACK DOG, MAKES HER DEBUT

by Mia T

ASHINGTON, Dec. 24-- hillary clinton, designated democrat attack dog, debuted this week. The position, a self-appointment, was seconded exuberantly by her husband, the impeached ex-ersatz president and serial rapist, who puffed, "The assorted contusions about my face and head over the years are a testament to hillary's expertise in this area."

Many have posited that so too are the bodies littering the clinton landscape.

Designated democrat attack dog turns up the heat

 

Within days of the democrat election debacle of '02, it was announced anonymously that clinton would assume this attack-dog role; her charge, ostensibly, was to teach the feckless democrat losers how to attack the GOP. The covert scheme, however, was to sic clinton on the democrats, as well; that is to say, clinton was to mark her territory early.

If the covert scheme was lost on the senators, the irony of the assignment was not. Members from both sides of the aisle were overheard in the cloakroom muttering that the democrat debacle was entirely traceable to the clintons, to their corruption, to their ineptitude, to their tired tactics, ultimately, to their failure to confront the terrorism.

On Monday clinton turned up the heat. She demanded a congressional investigation into what she called "recent incidents of voter suppression and intimidation," fueling the widely held belief that the clintons are attempting to race-bait themselves back into the Oval Office.

An unnamed source close to the democrat leadership revealed that many democrats have concluded that the clintons are destroying the party. He added that if the opposition fails to expose the clintons' real record on race, the democrats will do it themselves.

Racial and ethnic disrespect and exploitation have always been an essential element in the clinton playbook.

• When the clintons ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued the clintons for intimidating black voters at the polls.

 

• According to multiple witnesses, the clintons reflexively use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs..

 

• The clintons' refinement of the DNC "drag and drop," a vote fraud technique by which unwitting, unwilling and/or illegal blacks are coerced into voting multiple times, is not merely illegal and exploitive. It is racist.

  Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist--and arguably more so--than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

In the senate race against Rick Lazio, it is widely understood that the "drag and drop," (followed by the OLD ANGLE / NEW SQUARE / OVAL OFFICE SCHEME ) was clinton's vote fraud technique of choice used to overcome her low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures.

 

• And, then, of course, there is the clinton legacy of lynching...

[Young Rhino]

...unless, that is the idea... Edwards becomes the big loser...and hillary clinton is catapulted from utter failure zipper hoisted wife of ex-ersatz-prez to veep loser and future prez contender.

With a little luck, it will catapult her to the role of Geraldine Ferraro, i.e. the end of her political career.

[Diddle E. Squat]

So why would clinton advise Edwards, anyway?

So in other words, the answer in the original post would be summarized as__________?

[M Kehoe]

Why do some talking heads think that Edwards, or any other socialist/RAT running for president, would need Bob Graham to win? Some of these idiots think if Graham was VP with algore, the dem's would have won.

Memo to the RATs: Graham as the VP on the ticket will NOT guarantee FL's electorial votes this time around either. Schmucks.

5.56mm