THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY:Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy

The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly, Susan Estrich, Real Rape | 10.27.05 | Mia T

[Mia T]

THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY:

Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy

by Mia T, 10.27.05

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

the principal being more worthless even than its phantom proxy, both alike unsubstantial, and the former shapeless to boot

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

 

or the most part, missus clinton operates in absentia, by proxy.

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.

1. To conceal the hillary dud factor. (See SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor)
   

2. To shield missus clinton from questions concerning clinton corruption, clinton abuse of women, clinton abuse of power, clinton utter failure to confront terrorism, etc.
   

3. To allow missus clinton to pose as a moderate without overly enraging her radical leftist comrades (Cindy Sheehan excepted).

 

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

And then we have the Susan Estrich 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 the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed "stranger" rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape.

Susan Estrich, Real Rape

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.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy

HANNITY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW: THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK

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:

1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in the Broaddrick rape,

2. the postmodern construction of 'rape,' i.e., the definition of rape is subjective, i.e., what is considered rape by the victim isn't necessarily considered rape by the rapist,

3. the definition of rape has morphed over time, i.e., what is rape today wasn't necessarily rape in the '70s.

 

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:

1. When O'Reilly questioned her pointedly, Estrich was loath to express her support for hillary clinton openly and directly.
   

2. Estrich again inadvertently reveals both missus clinton's stealth scheme and her vulnerability. (I will explain in future posts.)

---

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

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 PROBLEM

While 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

COMPLETE ARTICLE
see descriptor morphs

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)

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.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Is it possible that BJ Clinton is a woman hater who can not have normal sex?
He rapes or has dummies kneel before him.

[phatoldphart]

>Condi Rice is the only one who can unite the conservatives.

Nobody can unite conservatives......

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[rdb3]

A lot of this you spell out in your book, Richard. That was a one-sitting read.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[reformjoy]

You're a blessing Mia T, keep up the GREAT work!

The media is flossing it's teeth reading for President Hillary..

Look at this article, the gushing is so frantic,
that'd you think Hillary has a movie coming out,
or something to sell!

Oh yeah, ..how could we forget,
Hillary's selling herself,
and her minions are helping ready the masses
for her climb-in-power!

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS02/510300318/1026/NEWS10

[swheats]

"And after seeing Condi Rice box it out with Boxer last week, maybe I've seen 'the right woman'. Condi's comments were informational and Boxer's were junk!"

When did this happen and where were they? I'd like to see or hear it.

[demkicker]

A very enlightening clip, Mia, thanks! Wow, Chrissy thinks PeeWee Herman would win if he ran against Hillary! We'll soon see how he runs from those words!

Does anyone else think that Maureen Dowd was trying to act sultry & sexy with Matthews? I did, and it demonstrates how desperate she acts around men with whom she is attracted. But it sure was hard to get passed her lisp (lithp).

[napscoordinator]

I am sorry to disappoint your excitement about having Condi win the Presidency, but if it between Hillary and Condi, Hillary will win because all the conservatives will stay home. They will not have an Abortion rights person in the White House even if it means losing an election. The conservatives think this issue is too important to ignore.

[swheats]

I think my request was on Condi and Boxer's meeting last week. Do you have that?

[malia]

That was a month ago on C-SPAN - you know - where the dems think they have to drill the Republicans. Ms. Rice held her own as she would on any program. That's the best I can do for ya!!

[Mia T]

YOO-HOO Bill O'Reilly / HILLARY CLINTON KNEW PRECISELY WHO SAMI AL-ARIAN WAS_bump

O'Reilly's pandering to hillary clinton almost three years ago....

Looks like O'Reilly has finally, in '05, dispensed with access journalism insofar as missus clinton is concerned.
He's at long last concluded what was manifestly evident from the get-go:
The dud will never visit The Factor in his lifetime....

hillary's head revisited:
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is)

 by Mia T

he smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.

hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind...

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

(More Didion: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.")

^also:

HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


HILLARY IN AVIARY


Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches?
A "handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD


SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE


1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)


New York, New York -- if hillary can't make it there, she can't make it anywhere


the significance of missus clinton's gratuitous gerundial g-droppings

[Mia T]

 

hillary's vaccine shortage, the avian flu, pandemic, terrorism, hillary clinton, bill clinton, bird flu
I am sorry to disappoint your excitement about having Condi win the Presidency, but if it between Hillary and Condi, Hillary will win because all the conservatives will stay home. They will not have an Abortion rights person in the White House even if it means losing an election. The conservatives think this issue is too important to ignore.--napscoordinator

And what would you call hillary clinton? Chopped liver? (BTW: To imply they are equivalent on this issue is to betray your myopia.)

By staying home, you are voting for missus clinton just as surely as if you put an 'x' next to her repulsive name.

You would be playing right into the clintons' hand. To 'win' a national election, they must split the Right. A clinton can 'win' nationally only with a plurality.

By staying home, by placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, the intractable social conservative would effectively become the Ross Perot of 2008.

I suppose one could argue that this protest vote would be legitimate during ordinary times (although the years 1992-2000 argue against even this qualified proposition). But these are not ordinary times. Post-9/11, we no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to survive another clinton. Indeed, we may yet not survive the first one.

We must protect the lives of all children, the born and the unborn, alike. There is no act more anti-life than voting for hillary clinton.

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

[hattend]

Hillary has 100% name recognition. Plus 8 years in the White House exposed her policy stance.

Those who hate/don't like her will not vote for her, those who love her will vote for her. Those who like her may be turned off by her baggage. She won't convince anybody leaning away from her candidacy to change their minds and vote for her.

Without a lot of voter fraud, she is unelectable. I don't even see her making it through the primary unless her opponents start dying or have health/family issues that cause them to drop out.

But, we'll see. With any luck Pirro will take her out next year.

[jla]

By staying home, you are voting for missus clinton just as surely as if you put an 'x' next to her repulsive name.

But if the G.O.P. nominee is indeed a Giulini or Rice-type, wouldn't those who actually gave this nominee their votes be responsible if HRC won the Oval Office?
Just to ensure this scenario doesn't occur, we'd better concentrate on getting folks to vote in the primaries and gen'l election for the true-conservative candidate.

I'll get some signs made up, and Mia, you can bake some sfrattis and honeycakes to give out to potential voters.
Together, we can make a difference! :^)

[Mia T]

Whichever nominee prevails, it is a given that some faction won't be thrilled. What is critical in these perilous times is that we remain united against a clinton candidacy.

So no, I don't blame the primary voters.

[beyond the sea]

So no, I don't blame the primary voters

.--- who is to blame?

[Mia T]

At the risk of sounding like you know who: I don't bake sfrattis and honeycakes. ;)

[holden]

What has she got to lose? She's already an utter failure. They're known as the most prolific fund-raisers in the demon party, and if nothing else, there's oxygen in the room to be sucked up for long-term influence sake.

It's no skin off their nose to use Spielberg or Geffen-type money to keep their machine oiled. They'll keep doing it without losing a night's wink.

Even if she can't win, per se, the both of them intend to make as much of their influence as possible count on the international as well as national stage. They'll claim they weren't able to get their message out for the Republicans' "crazed, corrupt, screaming cacaphony" (referring, if they should ever be forced to, to such output as Mia T's (love ya, keep it coming!)) as they pose for world-reining "two-fer." They seek not so much "her" victory as a reprise of his camp's "style and charm".

They long for the day that UN types will acquiesce to an emotional wave of (corrupt) global representative acclamation to raise BJ to World Emperor.

They have literally billions available to expend and dozens of issues to demagogue toward that goal. Heck, the Bob Shrums on the dim side of the aisle are all lined up.

I predict, however, that the Grim Reaper will exploit trashed, self-inflicted bad health to bring it all to a screeching halt, and show the Kurintong age to have been mostly wasted folly.

HF

[snowrip]

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.

He often does. Hannity has so many chances to absolutely eviscerate his opponents, and he often utterly fails to do so. We need a Mia T. and Coombs show on Fox, and we need it now.

"My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life."

And how. Awesome clip from the O'Reilly show... how anyone like Susan Estrich got to the position she has is totally beyond me. Was she high during the interview? Or is it that she may actually lack certain parts of her brain... does she actually have a cerebrum, or is she able to function using only her hypothalmus?

[Mia T]

Oh my, thanx ;)

Hannity's s.o.p. is to pull back so as not to finish off his guest: Access journalism at its most basic. ;)

It's a balancing act. And it's a shame he has to do it. Hannity has done some groundbreaking stuff.

He was instrumental in debunking in real time the potentially devastating, ruthless exit-poll scheme of the Ds.

And in this interview, he did expose missus clinton's active role in the rape and victimization of Juanita Broaddrick.

If, to borrow from Bull Durham, media build an access-journalism-free field, the politicians will come.

The politicians need the media more than the media need the politicians.