Posted on 03/12/2015 9:20:40 PM PDT by TBP
Just a thought: is it possible that the New York Times and the other liberal media outlets are covering the Hillary email and Clinton Foundation scandals now to get them out of the way so they will be "old news" by 2016?
Of course,
So far they are treating her as if she had an (R) behind her name, something I've not seen with any democrat in a very looooong time.
For that reason, I'm thinking they believe she is a loser with too much baggage, and they are hoping for another candidate.
I guess we'll find out soon.
If you see more snarky articles from the Slimes or the Washington Pest, this will confirm it.
Perhaps Hussein’s husband will be pushed forward. Enough straws have been fluttering in front of the fan.
We’ll know if the other shoe drops.
In times past, it would have been wise to conclude that the Clintons were springing a scandal into the news to soften up the public, but this time’s different.
For one, the story was first broken by the New York Times. There is no way in Hades that the Old Grey Lady would roll over on any Democrat of Hillary’s stature, unless there’s been some tectonic shift among the deep political left. That paper doesn’t do anything like this without strict coordination and orders from the top of the Dem politburo.
Now the lesser members of the Ministry of Truth are following suit, and bringing out more details and angles on all this. Something of this magnitude can’t happen unless The Powers That Be will it so.
I think they have, for these reasons:
1. Hillary is old. She’ll be 69 in 2016.
2. Hillary has tons of old baggage Republicans will exploit in a campaign.
3. Hillary is well past her ‘sell-by’ date, in most people’s estimation.
4. Hillary has NO notable accomplishments to sell herself to the voting public.
5. Hillary is fat and ugly. She probably stinks, too.
6. Hillary is gaffe-prone.
7. Hillary has cankles and cackles.
8. Hillary dresses like Chairman Mao.
9. Hillary represents the past - not the future.
10. Hillary’s recent book tour was a complete flop.
11. Hillary can’t draw a crowd.
12. Hillary has a cloud of scandal and impropriety that follows her everywhere she goes.
13. Hillary is downright unlikeable.
14. Hillary is widely suspected of being a lesbian.
15. Hillary is a known lush. Pictures prove it.
16. Hillary doesn’t have an original thought in her head.
17. Hillary is a serial liar, which can be proved with ease.
18. Hillary is a terrible act to try and follow the ‘rock star’, Obama.
19. Hillary has zero charisma, and little ability to connect with most voters.
20. Hillary will lose to any Republican challenger who possesses any level of charisma, professional accomplishments, and perceived honesty.
Too late. This story will still be running when the season starts in earnest.
The fact that the story was written at all suggestive the New York Times (and the leaker) are not friendly to Hillary.
The fact that the story was written now rather than later in the cycle, for example at about the time of the nomination, suggests that the Times and the leaker are not friendly to Republicans.
For Democrats it is more than their quadrennial obsession with winning the election, it is their compulsion to whore after the new Messiah. Hillary simply does not pass any credibility test in that role so the whores in the media and in the party are looking elsewhere.
This game played out in 1968 and it might replay this time. It is encouraging to remember that the Democrats lost in 68.
This story generates nearly endless questions. The questions alone should last until 2016. My hunch she’ll be cancelling her campaign venues and bus/plane rentals if already scheduled.
just trying to remind us all how absolutely disgusting the clintoons really are.
Besides, this is all obammy’s doing to try to get hill out the race.
She isn’t a radical marxist enough to suit him.
It’s not a conspiracy to advance HDR22@clintonemail.com.
It’s a hit.
By whom, and why, are both quite interesting.
O’Malley is the Alex Tsipras of America.
You are quite correct, he’s trouble.
My developing theory is that it is caused by the impending collapse of credit as money in all of its forms.
Credit cards, student "loans", central banks, manipulated interest rates, government "programs" all are surrogates for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Marry this with democracy (voting by idiots), and eventually EVERYONE owes more that they can pay back.
The Standard Model of Western politics has no answer to this problem (Other than Morgen die ganze Welt). The Alex Tsipras phenomenon is the next step.
It’s possible. But unlike Bill Clinton — who seemed to enjoy & thrive while doing a public high-wire act — Hillary is an apparachik whose instincts are to leave nothing to chance. If the email scandal has ‘legs’ then I think she’s done.
The email scandal is being fed from the White House, IMHO. The NYTimes couldn’t follow this story without somebody in the know releasing the details. So at the very least there is some ‘score settling’ going on. At worst, Obama wants her out of the race.
Occasionally the world is blessed with a Margaret Thatcher or a Ronald Reagan but these must be counted as exceptions to the implacable march of statism in all its forms. I think you are quite correct in your description there are several reasons why the nostrums being applied universally in the West are leading inexorably toward a socialist dystopia along the style of the failed Soviet Union or the failing Venezuela are predominating.
It takes a higher culture to postpone gratification and nurture its seed corn. As you point out, democracy is part of the problem because it is so shortsighted. I will never forget being rebuked in a seminar in college for defending property as one of the cardinal indicia of a civil society. Democracy I was told was the ideal. But property and capital are the natural prey of the mob.
I think there's also a psychological factor in addition to primitive greed and that is the human tendency toward collectivism. There is a psychological feeling of well-being to be gained by submitting oneself to the collective whether the cult is the Bloods and the Crips or the Communist Party. Psychologists have identified this phenomenon and the Marine Corps has exploited it, but in the case of the Corps psychological effect is put to a noble service. In the case of the Communist Party or any leftist movement such as the Green movement, the Democrat party or even a university faculty lounge, the individual is subsumed into the mass and his reward is acceptance and a feeling of well-being.
I think this explains a great deal of the tendency of the left toward emotional appeals while they forsake logic and, of course, long-term solutions which postpone gratification. The idea is to trigger endorphins, to keep the feeling of well-being alive, to stroke the emotions rather than challenge the intellect. The effect is conformity.
In the collectivist culture it is natural for of the drone to avoid thinking about unpleasant realities such as $18 trillion national debt or hundreds of trillions of dollars of options floating about in cyberspace and content himself with bread and circuses. To do otherwise is to break away from the collective, to incur the wrath of the cult, to the risk alienation which requires a healthy ego and real courage. It is to invite discord and disharmony and it is to be instinctively avoided. It is much easier to sell one's soul, to worship the golden calf, to conform, and only plead for more.
The Dhimmicraps don’t have a real alternative to Hitlery, and what would happen if this came out, say, a year from now — or later? Best to get it out now so it’s old news when it’s brought up. An old Klintoon strategy.
The Democrats have several alternatives to Hillary, each much more likely to be elected.
She’s their worst possible choice, which is why she’s being pushed out.
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.