THE PUNDITS AND POLS ARE ASKING THE WRONG HILLARY! QUESTION...

Hardball, Saturday Night Live, hillary clinton | 01.23.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

THE PUNDITS AND POLS ARE ASKING THE WRONG HILLARY! QUESTION...

by Mia T, 01.23.07

atching the Saturday Night Live clip and missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip in succession confirms the obvious: The pundits and pols are asking the wrong hillary! question.

The fundamental question concerning missus clinton's candidacy isn't "Can she win?"... or "Will she win?"... or even "Should she win?"

No. The fundamental question is this: "Can missus clinton be taken seriously? Is missus clinton's candidacy more than simply a bad joke? Is missus clinton's candidacy legitimate? "

By asking the other questions, legitimacy is the presumption, the unasked question, the "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of fallacy.

But the Saturday Night Live clip and missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip taken together belie that presumption.

 

The reason the Saturday Night Live sequence is so devastating is because it is not the usual SNL farce based on fact.

Rather, it is fact based on farce.

And missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip confirms it.

Let down the curtain: the farce is done. (Rabelais)

Somebody stick the fork in that baby, already. Please.

ADDENDUM:

This exchange on Hardball underscores the farcical condition of the hillary clinton candidacy. Pay special attention to Howard Fineman.

 

HILLARY "I'm in" CLINTON'S 'CONVERSATION' WITH HERSELF
(OKAY HILLARY. LET'S TALK.)

DECONSTRUCTING THE ANNOUNCEMENT

~with commentary from Saturday Night Live

 

by Mia T, 01.22.07

 

here is a certain unhip hipness and hypocrisy in hillary clinton's 'I'm in.' This even without considering the "to win" she tacked on the end, a clear acknowledgement of the electability problems plaguing her candidacy.

Add to this 'laughable' and 'hopeless,' witness her video attempt at human. (Not even real human, mind you-- virtual human.) There is no way--none--to make this creature credible.

So forget 'likeable.'

The performance, oozing a cloying, saccharine-coated evil, pulsates to the metronomic swing of stubby appendages that, together with the ample corpus, remind me of parentheses too short to contain the stuff between them. (Gesticulation is a dud's only sign of life... and then only if she has a speech coach to prod her.)

The performance is nothing if not humiliating: A direct measure of hillary clinton's hunger for power. Which reminds me... enough of that red Klingon power jacket already. Please.

"I'M IN"

No she is not.

She is INaccessible. ¹ (INane, too.) ²

The clinton machine understands well the paradox of this peculiar candidate: In order for missus clinton to have any chance of winning elections, she must all but vanish from the public stage. ³

How to do it?

THE PLAN

According to hillary, herself, the plan is to use 'technology,' by which she means 'virtual reality.' It will shield her from the risk of real questions from real people in real time and space while conferring on her an aura of accessibility. Missus clinton cannot afford a Katherine Prudhomme moment, ⁴ you see.

But the clinton machine cannot keep the candidate cosetted in cyberspace and softball venues forever. That is why this early entry, forced by Obama's meteoric rise, is missus clinton's worst nightmare.

That, and the fact that Obama will be the standard against which she will henceforth be measured. Which is not a good thing for missus clinton. Obama's charisma and blank slate are the perfect antidote to clinton's repulsiveness and baggage.

I would call missus clinton's 'I'm in' anticlimactic, but for the fact that an anticlimax requires antecedent impressiveness or consequence.

 

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)

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO AMERICANS

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


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[beyond the sea]

excelent..........

[Mia T]

thanks :)

[beyond the sea]

Six seconds....... pretty fast, eh?

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

incredible ;)

[BookaT]

One Word...

GRAVITAS

[Mia T]

ping

[Patrick1]

Hillary Clinton may be more of a media creation that Osama Obama.

[Mia T]

Indeed. That is precisely why they are so blind. They have too much invested in their extravagant, fanciful, and elaborate construction.

[DuncanWaring]

For those of you who, like I, are thinking "Katherine Prudhomme ... Katherine Prudhomme ... where have I heard that name before?":

Al Gore, enabler - Concerning Katherine Prudhomme and Juanita Broaddrick

[Mia T]

ping

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

pong.

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

thonx. ;)

[stylin19a]

Somebody needs to be asking Chillary, the Roger Mudd to Ted Kennedy question:
WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT ?