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

Skip to comments.

Delusions of Grandeur
Townhall.com ^ | February 21, 2008 | Emmett Tyrrell

Posted on 02/21/2008 8:06:19 AM PST by fweingart

WASHINGTON -- There always has been something delusional about the Clintons' project to make Hillary this country's next commander in chief. Start with the balderdash so frequently exuded through the media that she is, along with her husband, a "rock star." Well, they left the White House like rock stars. They trashed the place.

Yet Hillary, a physically unprepossessing lady on the far side of middle age, is not a rock star. Agreed, when she and her bodyguards enter a room, she turns a lot of heads, but so does a roadside automobile accident or the clumsy waitress who just spilled a warm plate of fettuccine alfredo on a customer. Why have members of the press insisted on claiming that Hillary is a rock star and, more preposterous still, that she possesses "charisma," notwithstanding that she is a pedestrian campaigner with a tin ear for politics?

For that matter, why have members of the press insisted on claiming that the former Boy President is a political genius? The Democratic Party went into decline almost everywhere throughout the republic while he was bemanuring the White House. Truth be known, when Boy Clinton began campaigning for her, her prospects darkened. The stubborn minority of journalists who have remained undeluded by the Clinton legends and aware of the Clinton record recognized the impending danger. All through the spring and summer, I was asked on talk radio and television whether I thought Bill would be active in Hillary's campaign and, if so, whether he would be an asset. Usually, I expressed doubt on both counts. As I point out in my book about his retirement and his attendant designs to return to the White House, "The Clinton Crack-Up," Hillary's staff always has been uneasy about the presence of her big loveable lug on the campaign trail. Anyone who might bother to contemplate his record as a campaigner would recognize that he is poison when he campaigns for others. In 2004, of the 14 fated Democrats he campaigned for, 12 lost.

Delusional, too, are Hillary's boasts that her "experience" is superior to that of Sen. Barack Obama. Actually, the less said about Hillary's experience the better for her. Now, after this week's primary defeats, she is introducing her "experience" theme again by boasting that as president, she will be "ready from Day One." She capitalizes "Day One." Is she telling us that upon entering the White House, she will again fire the apolitical employees at the travel office? Or is she promising a "Filegate" hullabaloo with her opponents' FBI files turning up in White House offices? Will there be billing records appearing and disappearing? Will she preside, as she did in the early 1990s, over a "War Room" to handle Whitewater? Whitewater is old news, Hillary. Get over it!

For Hillary to stress her political experience is about as reckless as it was for the most recent Democratic presidential candidate to stress his war record, knowing that it included easily accessed film of his appearance before Congress denouncing the Vietnam War and blatantly lying about his comrades' combat behavior. Candidate Jean-Francois Kerry fallaciously charged his comrades with committing atrocities, and three decades later, he expected to be elected president. Regarding Hillary's experience, I suspect that the electorate is well-aware of its luridities. As I noted in "The Clinton Crack-Up," when her campaign for the presidency drew near, anywhere between 40 and 50 percent of the electorate were polled saying that they would not vote for her.

I noted those statistics to a mainstream journalist a few months back, and he thought I was exaggerating. All he had to do was consult the polls.

The explanation for Hillary's collapse as a front-runner with a 25 to 35 percent (chose your poll) lead over Sen. Barack Obama is that a small cloud far back in the memories of many Democrats has come forward in their minds with every one of her campaign's blunders. After the early bullying of Obama, the arrival of shady Asian money, the planted questions at an Obama rally, implausible complaints about Obama's kindergarten essay, the racist rhetoric in South Carolina, and now evidence of voting fraud in the New York primary, those little clouds have become thunderclouds. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats do not want to go back to the 1990s.

Perhaps historians will note what I noted not long ago. Obama began to cut into Hillary's lead in late November. That was when he deftly reminded voters of the "1990s" and of the quarrels of "the baby boomers." He wanted to move on, and that meant leaving the Clintons and their episodic apologists in the media forlorn among the vapors of their delusions.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billygoatswife; craiglivingstone; hillary; hitlery; kosovo; lesbianlover; muslimsleepin; pilesofbodies; trailertrash; whoshotvince
Tyrrell forgot to mention how void of content and interest is the meanderings of her sick, marxist mind when put into speech.
1 posted on 02/21/2008 8:06:20 AM PST by fweingart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fweingart

“The Democratic Party went into decline almost everywhere throughout the republic while he was bemanuring the White House.”
_______________________________________________________________________________

That’s the most important deal. The Clintons rode the dem party into the gutter during their reign. It was only through fear of their attack machine that the dams continued to cleave to her these past few years. The more Obama became a realistic prospect, the happier the dem power brokers were to dump Hillary.

Nobody hates the Clintons more than a democrat.


2 posted on 02/21/2008 8:13:09 AM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
The image I have of the Clintons will NEVER change. If they were photographed with their drooling tongues hanging out of their mouths (the very way that wolves salivate over a kill)... that would be about consistent with how I view their campaign for the WH.
3 posted on 02/21/2008 8:14:15 AM PST by SMARTY ('At some point you get tired of swatting flies, and you have to go for the manure heap' Gen. LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
how void of content and interest is the meanderings of her sick, marxist mind when put into speech

Same for Obama ... he's just not so obviously a creep that he drives away even Marxist voters.

4 posted on 02/21/2008 8:14:43 AM PST by Tax-chick (If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't shoot! It might be a lemur!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
Well, they left the White House like rock stars. They trashed the place.

BULLSEYE!

5 posted on 02/21/2008 8:17:39 AM PST by capt. norm (Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
Anyone who might bother to contemplate his record as a campaigner would recognize that he is poison when he campaigns for others. In 2004, of the 14 fated Democrats he campaigned for, 12 lost.

Nor did he ever win an electoral majority in a national campaign.

6 posted on 02/21/2008 8:26:36 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
Tyrrell can cheer Hillary’s decline for about 5 min, and then he will see that the Clinton “war room” was/is a myth.

Their true power came from the entire and worldwide MSM, Hollywood, and Academia.

This was their War Room.

And that EXACT SAME War Room will be fighting for Oprah’s Kid.

It matters not who is the nominee of the UnAmerican Democrat Party.

7 posted on 02/21/2008 8:26:51 AM PST by roses of sharon (Who will be McCain's maverick?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart

I ABOMINATE THE CLINTONS. But, I still want Hill to win the Dem nod. That’s the only hope we have. Osama-Obama will beat the old white boy in the GE in McGovern and Mondale proportions.


8 posted on 02/21/2008 8:29:05 AM PST by no dems (Global Warming advocates have the IQ of a can of Spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

As I’ve said before (but usually in reference to Britney Spears), you can take the trash out of the trailer, but you can’t take the trailer out of the trash.

Kinda applies to the Clintoons as well, doesn’t it?


9 posted on 02/21/2008 8:34:59 AM PST by fredhead (4-cylinder, air cooled, horizontally opposed......THE REAL VW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: no dems
As much as I fear McCain, the election of the Africa First, Muslim, Marxist Obama would be our death knell. This country would slide into Third World status much quicker than the slide rate currently.

He is repulsive, his wife is repulsive and they are both living proof that if one sits in class every scheduled day he can obtain a degree.

That should be applied to the infamous Klinton Duo as well.

10 posted on 02/21/2008 8:35:49 AM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fweingart
why have members of the press insisted on claiming that the former Boy President is a political genius? The Democratic Party went into decline almost everywhere throughout the republic while he was bemanuring the White House

The "political" genius and the democratic party machine would also like for the people to forget that Clinton was elected with 43% of the votes in 1992. A genius would've gotten a majority vote. Thus, if it hadn't been for Perot in 1992 who drew 19% of the vote while taking most of those votes from Bush 41, Clinton would never have been "elected". Not in 1992 and not in 1996. A political genius doesn't win by "default". That is unless the genius part of the 1992 campaign was that the Clinton machine and the democratic party were in cahoots with Perot. Now, that would've been a "genius" move.
11 posted on 02/21/2008 8:36:11 AM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart

R. Emmett Tyrrell bump!

12 posted on 02/21/2008 12:37:06 PM PST by Albion Wilde ("How [Obama] stumbled onto Walter Mondale's political philosophy is beyond me." —Tony Blankley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fweingart

Wow! You go boy! Tell us what you really think.


13 posted on 02/21/2008 1:50:41 PM PST by no dems (Global Warming advocates have the IQ of a can of Spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Tell us what you really think.

That would use up too much bandwidth.

I'll write a book and let you know when it's published.

14 posted on 02/22/2008 5:30:23 AM PST by fweingart (Obama-Clinton (A ticket that will change our lives forever!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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