'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?
- by Mia T, 02.02.06
|
The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this 
took it on.
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 isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous 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--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), 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 |
... 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.|
CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.
To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.
The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day. |
EXCERPT:
MILBANK: Well, that's fine. If you can tell me that's how it is going to turn out. But we don't know. 
MILBANK: Probably not. Because, once again, plays very well the base. The people who were objecting to it were never going to support her in the first case. And I really think the only thing that this is right now is do people recognize her name. [What is it you don't understand, here? We recognize her name, yes. And we abhor the person attached to that name. Get it?]
As the inaugural study in the Washington Post-Political Communication Lab collaboration, we studied attraction to familiar faces. A considerable body of research in social psychology derived from the classic studies of Stanford psychologist Robert Zajonc demonstrates that people evaluate objects they have encountered previously more favorably than novel objects, even when they do not consciously recognize the previously-encountered objects. In other words, "mere exposure" is sufficient to increase an object's likeability.
