You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.)
And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton political machine.
If you stop and think about it, the American voter hasn't ever had the opportunity to see, hear, examine the actual merchandise...much less contemplate the return policy.
There are three principal reasons for this clinton scheme.
PROXY SQUARED
The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this proxy scheme to even more outrageous extremes. The latest: an actual hillary clinton proxy presidency, populated on both sides of the camera by assorted rodham and clinton ex-staffers, sycophants and would-be felons, witness the latest hire.
'Commander-in-Chief,' a show that sets out to crown a 'queen,' instead exposes the kitschy simplemindedness of Hollywood fantasy and the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego.
REAL RAPE BY PROXY
Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House. Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes the other night, her book, The Case for Hillary Clinton went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)
Ms. Estrich also wrote Real Rape, a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.
'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.
In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.
This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick. (To be expanded upon in future posts.)
Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.
This is the usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity (of which this interview tonight is but another example).
The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.
Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons just as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.
Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the typical opportunistic, dishonest feminist reaction. (See article, Salon.com.)
While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.
One recurring false premise (a premise that Estrich relies on): although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).
Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?
Shame on them.
"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.
Richard Poe
While Sean Hannity correctly zeroed in on the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, one of the issues that should automatically disqualify missus clinton for any position of power, he sabotaged his own line of attack.
Hannity's setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As Sean Hannity knows well, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other clinton rapes and predations.
Hannity of all people should know this. He interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to him in shocking detail the meeting with hillary clinton that occurred several weeks after the rape. missus clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)
In Hannity's original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, he was honest about the real issue. But even then he ultimately failed because he neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:
On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?
The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."
And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)
And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.
Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.
This book should be required reading... for Susan Estrich.
ADDENDUM:
Ignoring the facts of the case, ignoring the 'real rape' paradigm, indeed, ignoring her own writings on 'real rape,' Susan Estrich, on Hannity and Colmes, pimping for yet another rapist presidency, dismissed out of hand Juanita Broaddrick's credible charge, that she was raped by the clintons.
In response, Juanita Broaddrick has offered to meet with Susan Estrich to discuss the matter. Estrich turned her down flat. (SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested")
SPECIAL NOTE ON THE O'REILLY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW
Susan Estrich is not nearly as dumb as she appeared in this interview. She was tentative by design. (Hers.) I will post a separate analysis of the interview.
For now, note the following:
|
And then we have the Susan Estrich proxy.
- 1.
- When the Left assesses clintoncorruption (treason, rape, or whatever), a clown-like character of the crime or the criminal is the reliable default mitigating factor, with the magnitude of the mitigation directly proportional to both the intensity of clownlike affect and the seriousness of the crime and inversely related to the distance to an election in which a clinton is running. We used to execute rapists and traitors. Today we elect them president?
- 2.
- It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
-
G. K. Chesterton
- It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
- Reviews of "Commander-in-Chief" mislead; they suggest that this new ABC offering, this electuary of suds and psychologizing, is optional for missus clinton, that Rod Lurie's latest clinton agitprop is nothing more than the icing on missus clinton's inaugural cake.
The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.
THE PROBLEMWhile America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.
Defeating the enemy on the battlefield isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(viewing requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
STEP 1
- 3.
sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)
by Mia T, 8.23.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) - When the Left assesses clintoncorruption (treason, rape, or whatever), a clown-like character of the crime or the criminal is the reliable default mitigating factor, with the magnitude of the mitigation directly proportional to both the intensity of clownlike affect and the seriousness of the crime and inversely related to the distance to an election in which a clinton is running. We used to execute rapists and traitors. Today we elect them president?
|
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
|
