Posted on 10/27/2005 9:07:26 AM PDT by Mia T
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:
|
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.
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
|
(the specs, not the pants or the socks) by Mia T, 8.23.05 ![]() (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) |
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
|
Is it possible that BJ Clinton is a woman hater who can not have normal sex?
He rapes or has dummies kneel before him.
>Condi Rice is the only one who can unite the conservatives.
Nobody can unite conservatives......
Thanks for the ping!
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
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
"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.
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.
I think my request was on Condi and Boxer's meeting last week. Do you have that?
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!!
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, 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.")
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is)
he smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.
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
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.
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
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
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! :^)
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.
.--- who is to blame?
At the risk of sounding like you know who: I don't bake sfrattis and honeycakes. ;)
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
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. |
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.