Posted on 10/11/2014 6:29:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s clear now to Democrats that only a Clinton can save them from the progressive extremes of Barack Obama.
There is some precedent for this. But the end, Clinton can't save them.
Bill Clinton made two amazing volte-face turns in his career, from progressive to centrist Democrat, both of which sealed his reputation as a master politician, whatever one thinks of his statesmanship.
While most people are familiar with Clinton’s swing to a more moderate path-- even cooperating with the GOP-- after getting historically bested in the first mid-terms of his presidency, many don’t realize that it was a maneuver that Clinton had perfected over a decade previously.
After being elected governor of Arkansas in 1978, Clinton was defeated for reelection to the governor’s mansion in 1980 by Republican Frank White. The defeat can partially be attributed to Clinton’s swing to the left, a development that was driven by his wife, Hillary Rodham. Rodham, as she preferred to be called back then, has always been the progressive in the family and it was she who brought Bill to the brink of oblivion in his first term as governor.
In 1982, however, Clinton redeemed himself. He swung back to his more moderate roots and defeated White in the Arkansas gubernatorial general election. It was post Clinton would occupy until he became president. He occupied the governor’s mansion, in part, because whatever her private role, Hillary, at least publicly, stayed home and baked cookies for the rest of the term.
Suddenly she became Mrs. Clinton.
But if we know anything about Bill, it’s that while he might learn from his mistakes, it doesn’t mean that he won’t repeat them.
He just can’t help himself where women are concerned, even when that woman is his wife.
So after winning the presidency in 1992, the first co-presidency of Bill Clinton, and now, Hillary RODHAM Clinton, commenced.
It was a disaster. Clinton looked to be all but assured of defeat for reelection by the start of year three after the GOP kicked the snot out him in the 1994 mid-term elections. The Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and a net of 8 in the Senate in the election that became known as the Republican Revolution. Part of that defeat endured by Clinton was due to HillaryCare, which we now know eventually become Obamacare.
So once again, Hillary became Mrs. Clinton-- this time in the White House-- and Bill swung back to his more moderate roots. Whatever her role in private, Hillary largely sat down and shut up for the rest of Willie’s presidency, thus he was reelected in 1996.
Now, jump forward in history as Hillary ran for president against Barack Obama. Obama presented himself as the more moderate alternative to Hillary, with no public option on the table for his version of HillaryObamaRomneyCare healthcare reform.
Obama, in fact, out-Clintoned, Hillary, appearing more moderate in many ways.
So today Hillary-- no more need for last name-- wants you to know that she was more a member of Clinton's administration than she was of Obama’s. She says being the wife of president Bill was kind of a cabinet position in and of itself.
I never would have guessed that a cabinet position could be that gross. Actually I heard the “cabinet position” was Bill's favorite position, making it unlikely Hillary knows anything about it.
But politically, wife or no, cabinet or cookie maker, make no mistake: Hillary’s not a Clinton. She an Obama without the Je ne sais quoi. (Thanks Jeanette).
That won’t stop her running AS a Clinton however.
She just won’t win that way. Thus the Democrats—or at least the progressive version of them-- are doomed.
Hillary, after all the history is written will be best known as the woman who was married to Bill Clinton.
Rather ironic for the first would-be feminist president of the United States.
Ironic, but appropriate too.
It's exactly how she should be remembered.
My sample set is only two, but I don’t trust candidates who run for high office while downplaying their middle names during the campaign phase, only to emphasize them once they achieve their goal.
My two data points: Barack Hussein Obama, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary’s not Bill, for sure. She’s Michelle Obama on steroids.
Watch for her wagging her scolding finger leading up to 2016.
The GOP-e's nomination of Bob Dole also had something to do with this. They have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory , and avoiding messy landslide wins whenever possible.
Hillary is entirely beatable, but a mushy moderate like Romney or Jebbers won't get the job done.
But all of them start with the premise that truth can be created.
So none of them really fall into any category whatsoever.
Bill is liberal when he says or does liberal things, and he’s centrist when he says or does centrist things. So he’s really neither.
They all believe only that their own selfishness is superior to any external reality, so in the end none of them have any real access to reason or truth.
Hillary is an Alinski radical just like Obama. Her college thesis praising Alinski was hidden for years to cover this up. She is about as far left as Madame Mao Tse-tung.
Hillary, like Obama is an Alinskyite through and through. What she is is what she has been and what she will be. Cuidado!
My thoughts exactly.
We’re discussing whether Hillary is a Clinton or an Obama??
Hillary is really an Alinsky.
I am frustrated that we hear virtually nothing in the MSM about both Obama and Hillary’s ties to Saul Alinsky. The only places I hear about Saul Alinsky and his influence is sites such as this one, and some talk radio programs. The MSM pretends that Alinsky never existed and never influenced people such as Hillary.
I get the impression that Bill Clinton’s support of his wife is very half-hearted.
He SAYS all the right things but without that special whatever that got him there.
What exactly would Hillary do differently than 0bama?
Not much, except she doesn’t golf as far as I know.
She Who Must Not Be Named is the most ruthless and incompetent woman ever to stalk the halls of power. Never forget that she is a student and disciple of Saul Alinsky. She has used the Rules for Radicals extensively in clawing her way to the top.
Her ultimate goal has always been the Oval Office. Her boast of being “Co-President” was not idle hubris. When her legal career was thwarted after Watergate, she married into power, using William the Impeached as a stepping stone.
She then used the NY Senate seat as another springboard to power but was foiled again, this time by the Chicago Machine, who had already chosen Odinga to carry the party banner.
Examine her personality. She has the need to dominate. It’s not enough that people obey her commands; they must be forced to obey against their will, or the needed gratification is not derived.
She is a compulsive liar. She is a consummate fraud. She is a lesbian with a deep-seeded hatred of the men who, in her mind, deny her her rightful place in history. Never again must she be allowed to approach the levers of authority, for that day will spell the doom of the Republic.
fixed
Why these two lesser humans continue to be the fulcrum of power in a Nation founded on moral, Christian principles boggles my mind.
Bill Clinton sullied the Office and Hillary has not shown us that she has any more moral character than he.
Their ‘marriage’ was based on a lust for power - which is why it has survived only on paper. They are imposters who have been professional actors all their lives.
We should drop the curtain on this dark drama.
1. It's not like Bill Clinton was ever a liberal, a moderate, or anything in between. The guy was an unprincipled hack who would say and do whatever it takes to get to the top with as little effort as possible. If the Third Reich was a dominant political force in America, he would have been running a death camp. Of course, that wouldn't have stopped him from groveling for a lifetime achievement award from Elie Wiesel's Foundation for Humanity ten years later.
2. The author is way off base when he describes Barack Obama as the more "moderate" of the two candidates in the 2008 Democratic primaries. It was Obama who won on the strength of support from radicals, minorities and malcontents ... while Hillary Clinton got her support from white middle-class Democrats and union workers.
3. The author also overlooks the fact that Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations were derailed by other Democrats, not Republicans. It's fashionable to describe Hillary Clinton as an "Alinskyite" in conservative circles, but I've long said that Marxist Democrats will never trust a candidate who spent six year of her life serving on the board of directors of Wal-Mart (of all companies!).
Bush's (Both) longsighted legacy is horrible
Obama’s longsighted legacy will be horrible
Their shortsighted legacies/strategies are being praised, whoopee
Not buying that BS because following while implementing righteous and thoughtful principles are the only worthy praises that should be bestowed on leaders.
Comparing Obama and Clinton is like comparing bowel movements done on different days.
I remember watching Washington Week in Review after the 1994 election. The moderator & guests each lamented their loss in turn, then sat looked at each other in silence for a long pause. I think they thought the Republicans were outside the door getting ready to kick it in. Later during Lewinsky they would express far more delicate shock at Bubba’ s icky behavior than the average talking head.
Bill Clinton,being the consummate politician he is, did utter the phrase, “The era of Big Government is over” during a state of the Union speech. It signaled his intentions to concentrate on the progressive agenda. It made many left wing supporters angry.
Try getting Hillary to repeat the same phrase before the election.
The Progressives suffer the same disease from the cult of personality. They rally supporters by making them believe in the candidate. Such is always a losing method. They turn out to be mere mortals.
I have noticed recently Obama has been retrained in using rhetoric that tries to persuade his audience to believe in themselves. He doesn’t know his followers very well.
“A good leader gets his followers to believe in him. A great leader persuades his audience to believe in themselves.” A tactile shift for Obama’s legacy, IMHO.
Ah yes, the wife of Mao Tse-tung...
She would pick up where Hussein left off. If'n the marxist utopia has not kicked in yet with him, she would give it the finishing touches.
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.