Who is writing missus clinton's speeches? ("handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD)

It's a small thing, really, actually more cathartic than anything else, but jettisoning party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who comes off as the spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Henchmen, would be a tiny step toward restoring a scintilla of dignity to the Democratic cause.

After all, since he...[and the clintons!] presided over a political party's decline rivaling O.J. Simpson's fall from grace, McAuliffe... [and the clintons?!] more than earned... [their] place in political history as the ebola virus of the Electoral College.

Possible replacements?

Well, there's always former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, or perhaps recently unemployed Sen. Tom Daschle, who would seem to have the inside track since the Democrats wouldn't have to pay for moving expenses.

As for potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2008... what very, very few White House aspirants there are would hardly inspire anyone to start whistling the theme to ``Camelot.''

To begin with, can we please, please, please dispense with this Ezra Pound-like delusion that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Eva Peron of Chappaqua, has any remote prospects to get elected to the presidency of the United States?

Really now, with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy, is there a more polarizing figure on the U.S. political scene than the Mary Todd Lincoln of the left?

Or put more simply: Charles Manson will win parole before the Typhoon Mary of managed care ever haunts the West Wing.

Why does Clinton enjoy a certain counterfeit political currency among the chattering class? Well, compared with the current crop of potential presidential candidates, to some the Kitten With a Tax Code looks downright Margaret Thatcheresque.

...[I]t's abundantly obvious as the Democrats sift through the detritus of Tuesday's results that the dearth of leadership makes the PLO look like a pillar of transitional orderliness.

How bad is it? Howard Dean is probably looking to 2008 and practicing his primal scream.

Uh-oh.

Democrats' Shot At 2008 Win Looks Like Dud
The Tampa Tribune ^ | 11/7/04 | Daniel Ruth

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

Mia T
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent ₂

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

by Mia T, 6.04.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.
Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.
To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

its naivete about the War on Terror,
its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.
Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.
My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.
Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.
When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.
Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

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.