Replies

YOUR POINT 1:

Your poll analysis is fallacious. The polls today reflect relative name recognition and not much more.
As one might guess, clinton's name recognition is 100%. This does not bode well for clinton. Any vote she doesn't already have, she will not get. Conversely, many voters know 0% about the clintons' abuses (of women, of power, etc.), know 0% about their utter failures (especially as it concerns terrorism, 9/11 and, indeed, the first WTC bombing, which is, it seems to me, a uniquely pesky issue for New Yorkers).
Pirro's name recognition, OTOH, is only 30%. She has a lot of potential to increase those numbers; and she will.
As I noted elsewhere, if Jeanine's numbers look threatening by Fall, hillary will drop out of the race and do so before her entire (meaningless, 100%-name-recognition) lead evaporates--this according to Dick Morris (O'Reilly 8-8-05).
It is telling that clinton only now has responded to a challenger. clinton obviously regards Pirro as a real threat, as well she should. Pirro is everything clinton pretends to be.

YOUR POINT 2:

Your counterexample is laughable. D'Amato's defeat of incumbent Jacob Javits in the 1980 Senate Republican primary, and his win in the general election, are hardly examples of a highminded ideological victory.
In the primary, D'Amato took advantage not of Javits' RINO leanings -- (the term didn't even exist then) -- but rather of Javits' 1979 diagnosis of generally fatal amytrophic lateral sclerosis. Some victory.
What Javits did next actually reinforces my argument to coalesce. (See post 22.)
Javits went on to run on the Liberal Party ticket, splitting the left-wing vote in liberal New York with Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, thereby enabling D'Amato's 45% plurality victory.

YOUR POINT 3:

Married to the same husband, Jeanine Pirro got elected to office, aggressively fought crime, reduced crime, fought for the vulnerable, the abused, battered, raped. The contrast with missus clinton's zipper-hoisted "career" of corruption and abuse could not be more stark.
We used to execute rapists. Today we elect them president?

YOUR POINT 4:

Either Pirro is 'married to the Mob' or she ain't.
You can fault her ideology, but you cannot fault her toughness. Please.

YOUR POINT 5:

Look, my purpose isn't to knock your man. He sounds like a fine fellow.
Jeanine may not yet be a household name; as I have argued in point 1, that is actually a plus at this stage of the game.
As for star power, most people, I believe, will agree that she undeniably has it.
Conversely, hillary's 'star power' is really name recognition. hillary is a dud. Even the clinton know that. (SCHEMA PINOCCHIO:how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor)

SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

by Mia T, 8.03.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
MAD hillary series #5
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN
FOR AMERICA
FOR THE WORLD

They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back into the 19th century. Back us out of that Republican tunnel, fill it in, go back across the bridge.... We'll have a giant celebration when we come back to Columbus in 2020. There's nothing more wonderful than making dreams come true.

hear hillary clinton
address to the Democratic Leadership Council
Columbus, Ohio
7.31.05

issus clinton is a dud.

I could say she has all of bill clinton's baggage and none of his charm, except I don't find bill clinton charming. What she lacks, in my view, is lubricant. Snake oil. She grates.

It's more than simple dislike. You don't want to see her; and you definitely don't want to hear her.

Missus clinton is everyman's worst nightmare: ex-wife, fishwife, frigid wife, mother-in-law; worse, the abusive Nazi commandant in the Lina Wertmuller masterpiece. When she humiliates, which is always, she dons the military-issue undershirt, she grabs the whip.

The clintons are clearly aware of this problem and are attempting to mitigate it with veneer.

Their first ploy is to pushpoll to artificially jack up missus clinton's numbers; this is a relatively easy task, given a compliant press. This illusion of electability is intended to fool the voters, activate the herd mentality and ultimately fool the smart money of the David Geffen-Harold Ickes stripe.

It won't work. Missus clinton has 100% name recognition. Any vote she doesn't already have, she won't get. Conversely, many voters have 0% information on the clinton abuses of power and utter failures. From this it follows that many votes she has today, she won't have tomorrow.

Their second ploy is to conflate "bill" and "hillary." "The clintons" become a single construct. Missus clinton arrogates bill's "bridge to the 21st century " as "theirs." And, by lifting the lyrics straight from Pinocchio, she becomes "the man from 'hope'."

The danger here for missus clinton is that with the bridge and the hope come the abuses and the utter failures.

AFTERWORD:

Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches? They make her sound like a cross between Pinocchio on Halcyon and a clueless tourist from Park Ridge, Illinois driving into Manhattan during rush hour. Oops.

And the plagiarizing... I mean, the clintons are shameless. And it isn't only Pinocchio.

In 2002, I wrote that the bridge to the 21st century was, arguably, clinton's most delusional conceit, that it overshot the mark by at least 1400 years.

To be fair, missus clinton's 19th-century reference is to that <yawn> retrograde 'retrograde Republicans' cliché, whereas my 7th-century reference is to the retrograde-in-fact islamofascist terrorists, whose jihadi declarations and acts of war against us the clintons willfully ignored for eight long years--allowing al Qaeda to grow exponentially in strength and reach, setting us up--very nicely, thank you--for 9/11 and its cataclysmic aftermath.