Hillary, schmillary
The Anchoress thinks that Hillary is positioning herself to run against Obama in 2012. I wouldn’t doubt it; in fact, back in September of 2009 I made the following speculative prediction:
If Obama weakens more and more, and his unpopularity rises even with Democrats, quitting at that point could make [Hillary Clinton] a heroine and position her for a primary challenge against him in 2012, as well as allowing her to claim experience in foreign affairs from her stint as Secretary. But if that’s her intent, before that moment comes she will have to swallow more and more pride and do more and more of Obama’s distasteful bidding, which will further weaken her.
I beg to differ with those who wax enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy, however. She might be a marginally better president than Obama (particular in the foreign realm, where I think she’d show more toughness and do less bowing), but only marginally. Otherwise, same old same old, although she might also have the smarts to go more slowly in moving to the left, so that the frog in the pot (the American public, that is) wouldn’t feel it so much as the water surrounding it inexorably rises to the boiling point.
One point the Anchoress makes in her piece is that Hillary has been waiting all her life to become president, having been told since her college years that she’s got the chops to become the first female POTUS. It strikes me that the same could be said of Barack Obama, with the substitution of the words “first black” for “first female.” And it also strikes me that this is a personal history of which to beware as a qualification for a president. In fact, it is a contraindication, and a very bad sign in a candidate.
If it weren’t for Obama, Hillary might indeed be able to move slowly to the left. However, after the sharp left turn that Obama has given people I doubt there interested in any more leftward movement, even if it is slight and slow.
In other words, Obama has pretty much ruined it for left-leaning democrats for quite some time, particularly at the presidential level.
Hillary has proven to be an empty pantsuit as Secretary of State. Honduras was a prime example of her failure to stand up for freedom and the rule of law. Her remarks in Pakistan when she admonished the government for not following the approach of the US Government where the Congress taxes everything that moves and does not move was another telling moment. As you say, she might be better than Obama, but that is not saying much. Hopefully she will just be another also ran.
Bingo, Neo.
As far as I can tell, Sec’y Clinton has been rather ham-handed in her attempts to fulfill her duties as part of this administration. From the “reset” button to the amazing hostility she revealed last year in Africa when a questioner accidentally asked what she thought “President Clinton” thought about a matter, when he had apparently intended to say “President Obama.” If I remember correctly, that came on the heels of Bill’s successful trip to N. Korea, and her indignation and jealousy was too great to contain.
Any enthusiasm for a Clinton candidacy is, I would think, confined to those who enthusiastically supported her during Campaign 2008. At least I would hope so, for the reasons you have outlined before and above.
I fail to see how Two L can sell herself as tougher or smarter on foreign policy than O. After all she has been the international representative of his disastrous “policy.”
If she wants to put daylight between herself and O, she’ll have to do it soon. Even so, she’ll have a lot to answer for.
My understanding is that Hillary is an Alinsky fan, and that George Soros bragged during Bill Clinton’s presidency that he had great access to that administration. Anybody thinking she won’t be as radical as Obama may indeed be in for a surprise…
Pingback:The Anchoress | A First Things Blog
1. From Bush to Obama was from the frying pan into the fire. From Obama to Clinton would be from one fire into another. I don’t care which fire is hotter.
2. If Hillary is such a wizbang superduper mastermind (mistressmind?), why isn’t she President? The 2008 nomination was hers to lose and she lost it with her complacency and arrogance. By the end of the primaries she had taken Obama’s measure, but it was a few votes and delegates too late.
3. A primary challenge to a sitting President would leave the Democratic Party divided going into the general election.
4. I conjecture that, to prevent a challenge that would mortally wound both of them, Obama may give Hillary the VP slot in 2012. That would position her for 2016, when she’ll turn an acceptable 69 shortly before the election.
5. Her chronological age would be acceptable in 2012/2016, but her charter membership in the Worst Generation might be turned to disadvantage by a skillful opponent.
Anyone employed by this administration is by definition lacking in sound judgement. If Hillary is still a viable presidential candidate after ties to this debacle then our republic is practically doomed.
contraindication – yes indeed. If you think that the presidency, or any office, is about you instead of about the job, you have misunderstood an enormous portion of what you will need to know to perform it.
Hillary consistently beat Obama in primaries – it was caucuses that did her in. Demagoguery is even more powerful in caucuses than it is in elections. These folks play at a level of style rather than substances, and when things go wrong, adjust their presentation instead of their policies. She will adjust to that part of campaigning. She already artfully plays the balance between “I am my own woman” and “Weren’t things wonderful when my husband was president.” I have to wonder if there are already Democrats moving in to key Iowa districts to establish residency for caucus debates – there were only a few last time, but it might move to a larger scale.
The Democrats will again be better than Republicans in style (and conservatives at a further disadvantage). Our best – indeed our only -defense is enough dominance on substance that the 10+% media/social snobbery/hipness disadvantage is overcome.
Hilary = Obama = Dope
Should she run in 2012, she will run to the right of the Republican candidate and the MSM will go along. But, by this time I am hoping that that game is up. In my opinion she is a natural dictator (her (and Bill’s) subordinates in the White House were admonished NOT to look her in the eye) with very poor political instincts. She may listen to Bill but who knows? She almost single-handedly (she had some help from Bill) sank the Democrat Congressional majority in 1994 with her obnoxious handling of her health care mandate from Bill, in which she refused to confer with her own party’s Congress people. As noted by others above, her complicit actions in forwarding the Dope’s foreign policy agenda make her appear less than competent and, worse, mean spirited. She will not be forgiven for her 45 minute harangue of Netanyahu nor of her mishandling of the attempted coup in Honduras. She laughed when in China when she PROUDLY announced that we don’t do human rights any more, like that Bush guy. Shameful. Best of all, depending on how the break occurs and if there is a contested nomination, she might lose a goodly proportion of the black vote.
On the other hand, she is so politically inept and unprincipled that, even were she elected and lucky enough to have a majority in Congress, she would not be able to put through her agenda, which is most likely nothing more than more of the Dope’s push for greater government control over all aspects of our lives.
She is nothing more than a scold and a harridan. Bill deserves her. They make a wonderful power couple.
I’m wondering exactly how disastrous a situation a divided democrat party would find itself in come 2012 if Obama implodes as spectacularly as I suspect he will in the second half of his term.
They could decide that an all out internal political slug fest is no worse than a second a$$whupping at the polls would be if Obama is still at the head of the ticket come November 2012.
He could be seen more as a boat anchor around their neck than coattails they can ride.
If that’s the case, expect challengers to be crawling out of the woodwork no later than mid-2011 as they smell a weakened president of their own party ripe for replacement.
If they think they are going to lose anyway with Obama on the ticket, and if they think it will further deteriorate their chances of regaining the House (and possibly the Senate depending on what happens in a few months), what more do they have to lose by internal bickering and possibly replacing him?
Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario for them……
I think she makes a go of it. If only because she has nothing to lose; she’s in her late 60’s and very rich. She’ll tact to and “own” the center before anyone else does, catering to a lot of estranged independents. She’ll quietly lay it out to O that resistance will only cause them both to lose, and because he is so young and is the sitting president, he has way more to lose. His public opposition to her — the “center” — will only alienate him more and push him further to the left (if that is possible). No one will buy O’s “I’m a centrist, I’m bipartisan” shtick anymore. How does he rebut her? Tacting farther left?
She’ll find the right time to step down from S.O.S., stay quiet while her people write positive stories saying how she was a good and loyal soldier but she had all she could take; she tried to work from the inside but it proved too impossible with this radical.
Don’t underestimate her and Bill’s savvy and skills, nor the momentum for the 1st woman president. Again, she’ll have nothing to lose and by the time decision time arrives she’ll have already stepped down as S.O.S., because, regardless, O’s ship is sinking and why would she hang around much longer.
I recently read Game Change, Heilemann’s and Halperin’s book about the 2008 campaign. One thing I learned from the book that a number of high-up Democrats, such as Harry Reid, urged Obama to run early on. There was a lot of Clinton fatigue among the higher-ups.
I concur with AVI that Oilbama’s advantage over Hillary came from the caucuses. Here is an account in Ann Althouse’s blog about the differences between primary and caucus results, including first-hand information from her son in TX.
Given how Hillary has operated as Secretary of State, I doubt she would be a great improvement over Oilbama. She really messed up in Honduras. OTOH, I imagine she would not be as afraid as Oilbama and Holder are of uttering the M(-uslim) word or the T (-errorist) word. But of seeing Big Government at the solution for it all, I doubt there would be a lot of difference between Hillary and Oilbama.
As Rush pointed out, it’s unfair but the public doesn’t really want to see a woman age in office, and hillary has aged as Sec State (not from overwork, just the years). She is also an uninspiring speaker and has really not distinguished herself in the public eye as Sec State. Obama is having is special envoys and surrogates do his ham handed foreign policy.
Hillary is no longer “the smartest woman” or credible as the first woman in the company of the younger generation of GOP women.
What about Obama calling in Bill and Warren Buffet for advice on the economy? Is that another move to ward off a Clinton attack? Hillary has done zilch as SOS; in fact, Gates seems to have 2 jobs. I just don’t see how she can generate enthusiasm. Pelosi has taken over (and screwed up) the health care and feminist issues. To younger voters, Hillary will have the appeal of week-old leftovers. She should retire and take over some charitable foundation.
My liberal friends (the NPR crowd) are probably shopping for bumper stickers saying, “Don’t blame me – I backed Hillary”
She’d drag out the old “3 AM” commercial to show she was right all along. We can only hope that she will do to Obama what Kennedy did to Carter in 1980. One analysis says that voters at that time were simply “anxious, angry and desperate for leadership of any kind”.
[This was from a favorable review of a book titled ‘Kennedy vs. Carter: The 1980 Battle for the Democratic Party’s Soul’ by Timothy Stanley – itself seemingly favorable to Teddy. Available on Amazon via the convenient gadget, up and to the right.]
Now I think voters are anxious, angry and desperate for anybody that can grab the steering wheel and turn us away from the cliff.
When I saw James Carville trashing Obama over the oil spill, it occurred to me that he might be doing preliminary spadework for a Hillary run. I couldn’t think of any other reason for it.
Hillary?
No chance in hell. There is no way she’d want to inherit this fiscal nightmare! Unless she committed political suicide and helped repeal or ‘adjust’ Obamacare, this new Financial ‘reform’ law, and all the cruel and insane new regulations from this increasingly deranged President. She gets nothing from her consitituents for sensible choices and endless grief from us for continuing the ruinous course of the O Dums.
It would be the most thankless job. A mafia matriarch presiding over a decaying dynasty. I sincerely doubt she suffers Last Empress Syndrome.
I couldn’t agree more. My default position now is to want a white male as President. I wouldn’t even consider anyone else until and unless he’s had a Sister Soldjah moment with his ethnic/sexual/whatever demographic. I want a President who will represent all Americans, not just his demographic cohort. Anyone running as “the first” is grievously flawed right out of the chute in my book, because it suggests that 1) he won’t do this, and 2) his demographic allegiance is the most compelling reason to vote for him. I don’t want anyone to get a tailwind into the White House by virtue of identity politics. The only group that doesn’t get such a tailwind? White males.
(Btw, I’m using male pronouns above because I’m a purist, and dislike the current fashion of referring to singular pronouns (e.g., “anyone”) with plural pronouns (e.g., “their”) later in the same sentence. That grates on me as much as someone saying, “We was.” And, of course, consonant with traditional usage, default to male gender when the subject’s gender is unspecified.)
The only good thing about Hillary is that she couldn’t mobilize the same degree of leftist support that Buraq can. Allegations of “sexism” just don’t pack the punch that of “racism” used to, until the Dems started handing them out like Green Stamps.
The EU is not happy with its relations with the US. Did Hillary give Obama bad advice, was she ineffective in getting him to listen, or has she just been SOS to give him cover?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/europe-warns-obama-relationship-working/
God help us if voters are stupid enough to vote for Hillary after the mess O has made. She’s a female version of Obama. She believes the same marxist/alinsky garbage he does.; she was just too timid to try to ram it down our throats.She’d be just as dopey. I say this as a former admirer.
“When I saw James Carville trashing Obama over the oil spill, it occurred to me that he might be doing preliminary spadework for a Hillary run. I couldn’t think of any other reason for it.”
Not even obvious politicization and stupefying incompetence?
“”In fact, it is a contraindication, and a very bad sign in a candidate.””
Exactly. Just go to any gathering and ask who the best singer in the room might be. The best one is most likely hesitant but may be inclined to raise is hand. But not before he is drowned out by the “look at me” mediocre.
I think Hilary and Obama both lack executive experience and both are too far to the left. On the other hand, Hilary’s cynical opportunism strikes me as far more normal than Obama’s say whatever sounds good approach. I suspect Hilary knows what she is doing when she tells Petraeus she thinks he is lying, that she is just playing the slime card for calculated political advantage. When Obama says such things I have no sense that there is any connection to a reality beyond the words, it is like the words are reality. Hilary is normal abnormal, Obama is abnormal abnormal.
It may just be a hopeful fantasy, but if the GOP takes back both Houses, or comes very close to doing so in November, I think it will be viewed as a repudiation of Obama. That will put Obama on notice. Should his approval ratings be under 45% by March, I think the Democrat machine will view his potential for re-election as weak. And after a route in November, they will want to do everything they can to hold the presidency. They’ll put alot of pressure on Obama not to run for re-election. And if he announces he won’t run, then that will give the Democrat machine over a year and a half to run primary campaigns and showcase more moderate candidates. Maybe Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, or the Tennessee governor many people here seem to respect.
And given how much we’ve come to hate one party rule of all three Houses, whoever wins the Democrat primary will probably stand a good chance against any Republican.
But if the Republicans bomb in November, and/or if Obama’s approval rating gets above 50% by March, then my fantasy is just a fantasy. Heck, it might be a fantasy under any circumstance, but I think it makes some sense.
If the Democrats are so badly damaged that Hillary thinks she has a shot at taking the nomination from Obama or if he announces he won’t run for a second term, then no Democrat can win in 2012.
Hillary’s only chance is if she steps down no later than 2011, Obama’s defeated in 2012 by a RINO and the country elects her in 2016, a long shot at best.
I’d vote for Palin in 2012 in a heartbeat and her gender doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it. She’s got the ‘right stuff’ and in my book, that counts for far more than any other factor.
There is no way the Democrats will ever counsel Obama to not run. He’s black, in case you didn’t notice. He has that funny name. They were thrilled to vote for a clean, articulate African American. Billary may still challenge, but nobody would have the cojones to tell him not to run…that would make them racists. Oh, never mind.
If she runs, I may do what I can to sow discord her in NH rather than plump for a Republican.
Nah, I take it back. It might be a more effective strategy, but it goes against my nature.
I still hope Judd Gregg runs as a favorite son from NH and gathers enough momentum and credibility to carry a state or four in the primaries. Or more.
Great tag, chuck: Hillary is normal abnormal, Obama is abnormal abnormal. That was Hill as she usta be; I think she’s shifted to the Obama side of abnormal squared.
Neither has any qualms about presiding over US decline. They’re in it for themselves, not for national salvage (except in their own minds, maybe). Both are viciously mean-spirited.
This is a prediction I have been making since Obama was elected, although a year or more ago it came with the qualification “if the opportunity arose”. I think we can say the opportunity has arisen.
My belief is Clinton should try to resign before the mid-terms, to avoid looking like a rat deserting the sinking ship. She would certainly need to do it by early 2011, unless she believes Obama will not run for a second term, in which case she could wait it out. I actually don’t think he will, but that won’t be decided until much closer to the election (ie when he decides whether or not he has a chance).
I don’t think Clinton will have a chance though. Her stint as Secretary of State has been damaging. Utterly inept is the best why I would describe it, but whether or not it was that bad, the main point is she simply hasn’t scored any points from it. Her performance has done nothing to improve her standing, and has almost certainly tarnished it. That won’t de-rail her, but it doesn’t help.
Having Bill to campaign will be a mixed blessing. He needs to balance helping her and overshadowing her.
But the biggest problem I see, for both Clinton and Obama, is the reaction of their respective support bases. I think Hillary’s base will find it harder to support Obama again, and will either not vote or lean more Republican. Obama’s vote amongst Clinton supporters is sure to fall if he is the candidate, more so if Clinton runs against him and fails.
But if Clinton is the candidate, its hard to see any significant portion of the Obama base supporting her. Clinton will only be the candidate if she beats Obama, either in the primaries or edging him into not running, and either way, its hard to see his base forgiving her any time this millennia. Whether they just stay home, or whether they support her opponent is hard to say, but they won’t be helping Clinton. It could even cause a schism in the Democratic Party.
Obama had a very powerful wave of support coming from “its time for the first black president sentiment”. Thats gone now: been there, done that. Clinton may benefit from an “its time for the first female president”, but if Sarah Palin runs, she will too.
This time last cycle I though the candidates would be Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, with Clinton for a win. This time I’m tipping Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, with Palin for a win.
I don’t believe Hillary would be an improvement over Obama. Could she mount a serious primary challenge to an unpopular Obama by APPEARING to be more centrist than Obama? I think, maybe, if she has the guts and if Obama is unpopular enough when the primary season for 2012 rolls around. Certainly the Clintons learned well how to triangulate from the machiavellian Dick Morris. But she would have to overcome the MSM’s pro-Obama bias and concurrent anti-Hillary bias. Being the Secretary of State is a prestigious job, not to be thrown away lightly, what with all the perks and aggrandizement opportunities.
Some of the above scenarios about dumping Obama are intriguing.
Suppose he were offered a SCOTUS nomination in exchange for resigning or not running. (William Howard Taft became Chief Justice after losing reelection.)
Obama is much better at lecturing others how things should be than he is at being accountable for results. He’d be as happy at SCOTUS as a (metaphor of your choice).
If his SCOTUS nomination were defeated, he could spend the rest of his life getting paid big bucks to play the race and victim cards. I bet he’d enjoy being the world’s highest paid perpetual martyr.
I don’t consider the foregoing likely, but it’s a thought.
How quickly people forget! Remember when we were repelled by Hillary because she was too radical? The original attempt to take over Healthcare was all hers, and she made a mess of it. She is looking good only through hindsight, thinking that Bill moved somewhat to the center, but Hillary was always more radical than Bill.
But who else do the Democrats have? 2nd in line for the presidency is Joe Biden, then Pelosi, and who has moved into Robert Byrd’s spot? What outstanding Democrat will be the Democrat’s next candidate?
The far left is furious with Obama for not being leftist enough. Conservative and moderate Democrats are furious that he’s roped them in to programs hugely unpopular with the American people. Is there a good Democrat governor out there?
“”I’d vote for Palin in 2012 in a heartbeat””
Geoffrey Britain
I would too. But if this is a 12 round fight i’d rather save her till later rounds in hopes theres a real sea change coming in the media in this country.
I am SO over the re-plays, re-runs, and re-treads. If there are any remaining smoke-filled rooms, I hope they are crawling with anonymous, powerful Wise Guys (and that may be where Palin belongs) who will tell everyone who has ever run before to hang it up, to go home and play with the kids, grand-kids, and pets. Tend the garden. Write tell-all memoirs.
The difference between Obama and Hillary is the difference between the express and the milk run. They’re both bent on the same destination, although the motives may differ. I still think he’s a self-styled, albeit stealth, avenging angel who knows that the Leftism in his blood will destroy anything upon which it drips. She thinks it is a species of salvation. But they both want to, and will, impose it.
The differences among Romney, Gingrich, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, and the minor others are like the differences among the recyclables of aluminum, paper, and plastics. Ho-hum, and shudder.
Mitch Daniels! That’s the ticket. Pawlenty too, maybe.
For the rest, get the hook, or perhaps quicksand. Yeah, quicksand would be good. May they sink from sight.
All political analyses aside, look at Hillary’s hair. She has been growing it out for the last year. That’s the signal. She’s running. Check out her hair length and her and Bill’s political success. He won elections when she had long hair.
For everyone upthread who’s pointed out Hillary’s dismal track record as SecState, her leftist connections, her failure to promote freedom and the rule of law, and her similarity to Obama — with all of which points I heartily concur — for our leftist friends these are features, not bugs. If Buraq is hopelessly damaged goods by 2012, as he looks he will be, Hillary may represent the only chance they have to retain the White House.
If you think , when it’s Hillary vs. a Republican, that the MSM will nevertheless point out her plethora of flaws and her lousy performance, consider two words: Robert Byrd. The MSM buried Klan membership in the interests of advancing socialism. Buried it deeper than whale crap. If Buraq declines to seek the nomination — which I expect – Hillary could fall into a septic tank and come out smelling like rosebuds, to hear the MSM tell it. So her miserable performance is basically irrelevant. It’ll be back to “the most brilliant woman in the world.” Reality be damned.
Our salvation: blacks won’t vote for her, even if Buraq exits the race and pleads with them to do so. That alone should keep her out of the White House. Thank God.
Agree. Off to the glue factory with all of them.
Chris Christie, come on down!
Has anyone considered that Obama could resign the office in 2011? Rather than stay where his only power will be the veto.
OB,
Oh yeah, I forgot Christie (not, I assure you, because he’s forgettable). The obstacle to his seeking the Big Prize strikes me as being a blend of his not wanting it and his being committed to the task he has set himself in Jersey. I wish him the very best, and I have confidence in his tenacity. I just don’t think he’s going to be available for the national slot any time soon. Maybe I’m wrong. If I’m not, so much the better for Jersey. If I am, so much the better for the rest of the country.
But–I still like Daniels.
Hey, and by-the-way, OB–I’m totally with you on using the masculine singular pronoun as the neutral. It’s what I was taught, it’s what I do to this day (never mind those raised eye-brows), and it’s the only thing that makes sense in true syntax.
I suspect he could be induced to run. He strikes me as a shrewd man, and thus may well appreciate that his position is much more powerful if he’s importuned to run, rather than thrusting himself forward as every two bit ward heeler (*cough*Obama*cough*) does.
Betsy, thanks also for the love re syntax.
I don’t intrinsically care what gender is the default, but please don’t: a) wobble between singular and plural within a sentence to avoid making a choice, b) wobble between masculine and feminine to be PC, c) use he/she or any other cutesy neologisms, or d) basically do anything other than use the masculine singular when gender is unspecified.
Oh, and please do not generate cute neologisms to appear PC, e.g., “humankind” in place of “mankind.” “Mankind” no more refers to men specifically than “manure” or “manual” does. /rant
Now “huperson” for “human,” that I could see.
But wait – “huperson” includes “son.” Maybe it should be “huperdaughter.” /g
Well, and what do you think of “womyn”? It gets so convoluted. Language should not be so convoluted.
Another of my pet peeves is “chair.” People are not chairs.
I’ve always liked a simple scene in one of the Star Trek movies, I think it’s The Wrath of Khan, where Kirk refers to Saavik (Kirstie Alley’s character) as “Mistuh Saavik.” Perfect.
Betsy, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve made a point of calling departmental chairmen “chairmen” instead of that vapid and moron “chair.” I park my butt on a chair.
Come to think of it, I’ve parked my butt (figuratively) on chairmen too. But that’s another story.
Back in the day at Berkeley I mentioned to a feminist that soccer was growing in popularity. She replied, “Yes, even women of six and seven are playing soccer now.” Women?? Try little girls.
Consistent with my persona as a contrary and difficult a-hole (as regular readers will appreciate), I’ve publicly mocked liberal usage on more than one occasion (“Cockpit? Can we even say that any more?”) just to highlight the irrationality of their perspective (and, in candor, to watch their discomfiture).
The whole thing is ridiculous. It’s important to push back, methinks, because liberal-speak operates much like a ratchet and pawl, constantly tightening at the first sign of any slack. Periodically we need to release the pawl.
Yes. Well. It grows difficult when you have children defined, by federal fiat, as being 21 years of age. Or 26. Who can keep track of the infantilization? Pawls to the contrary notwithstanding. . . .
betsy and occams,
Here in Germany, they have come out with a Bible in gerechtem Sprache (just language). In the few excerpts I’ve read in the media, it seems that God has become a rather uncertain transgender because the pronouns change within a single sentence. I’ve never felt diminished by describing God as He, but it is rather unsettling to have such a powerful being not know who or what “It” is.
I am slowly adding circles to Dante’s description of hell. My first addition was for designers and engineers who make Oh-so-clever items that are a bitch to clean or require that you reorganize your storage to accomodate a totally unecessary shape change.
There definitely must be a separate circle for the PC language destroyers. The possibility of confusing God with Occams is tolerable, but when you have to throw a Rosie O’Donnell into the infinite realm, the PCers have gone too far.
With regard to 6-year-old women, I think the problem is having too many 66-year-old children. Narcissism has become the standard for defining the world. My fantasies override your reality. Time for a time out for the whole crew. Take them back to earth and let the scrub floors, dig weeds, etc.
M. L. Johnson has it nailed, I believe. Carville protests too much. Grim situations act as a moth to a candle for would-be leaders because they all know that if they’d been there, it wouldn’t have turned out this way.
Besides, Hillary is Soros back-up #1 just waiting in the wings. She’s the second half of bad cop-good cop scheme in charge of totalitarianism implementation.
OB and betsy,
Despite the other thread on the World Cup, one thing that happens in soccer is when the person with the ball has a defender coming on from behind, the teamates yell out “Man on!” to warn the dribbler that they have a challenge from the rear.
BOTH genders use the phrase in their games and no one seems to mind. Well… I haven’t seen any of my Women Studies colleagues at a game, so they might become the exception 🙂
OB: “the most brilliant woman in the world”???
She is far from it — and, after hearing similar phrases beaten to death with respect to our current President, I doubt people will be in the mood to hear it.
(If Barack Obama is the cleverest man in the world, he’s been covering it up so brilliantly that nobody could tell from his actions. It must take a very smart man to do that.)
Another point, that’s been touched on but not mentioned explicitly — Americans hardly ever elect legislators (as opposed to executives) for President. We elected Senator Obama; before him was Senator Kennedy, fifty years ago. Before that, when was the most recent President with no executive or military-command experience? Anybody?
We elected a Senator this time because we didn’t have a choice — Sen. McCain vs. Sen. Obama. But given a choice between Hillary — who has never really run anything — and a governor, or former governor, I think I know what people will choose.
In re Hillary as a person: she may be more qualified than Obama to make good decisions at 3AM. (We don’t know; we have only her word for it.) But she would still be a terrible President.
Imagine Bill Clinton’s ambition, magnified, with none of his charm. Imagine him without the sexual scandals to slow him down. Imagine his egotism, magnified, with a score to settle. There you have Hillary Clinton.
Let me add: she has been in the public eye, as First Lady and then as Senator and now as Secretary of State, since 1992. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting pretty tired of looking at her.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Hillary as President would be a show in out-Obamaing Obama. She has always kept some gloves on. They have slipped a bit from time to time: vast right wing conspiracy, it takes a village, etc. But as POTUS her bottled-up anger, her mean streak, her envy will all pop out the bottle. It would be her first orgasm. It would be wow! for her, and she would screw us again and again and again, a veritable rape of the USA.
Hillary would be a disaster. She is a horrible woman AND a horrible person. 😉
Yeah, but the “most brilliant woman in the world” rubbish preceded the “cleverest man in the world” by some years, but people were nevertheless perfectly happy to hear it again. Now I’m depressed again.
(Btw, whenever I hear “cleverest man in the world” I always think, “Stay thirsty, my friends,” and then realize that that’s the “most interesting man in the world.” My bad. Wrong marketing campaign.)
This pretty much puts her in the same category as my golden retriever, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Yep. The only good part would be watching her hammer the media as payback for outing her on the “sniper fire” fiasco. Think she’s forgotten that? I don’t.
I did not need that image in my mind.
“”Hillary would be a disaster. She is a horrible woman AND a horrible person.””
Charles Manson could get elected in this country if he promised enough handouts. Plus he could fit right in as a democrat with his skills at persuasion.