How to Beat Hillary in 2008

Intellectual Conservative ^ | February 13, 2006 | Rachel Alexander

[az4vlad]

Republicans are looking toward 2008 with increasing unease. Hillary Clinton’s name recognition gives her a towering edge over any other Republican or Democrat candidate. Americans are ready for a female president, and Hillary is a logical choice, having more visibility than even any potential male candidate.

Nevertheless, Hillary’s ascendancy can be overcome. She is assured to win the Democratic primary, but will have problems winning the general election. Her principal weakness? She is conspicuously lacking in charisma. As we have learned progressively since the arrival of television, personality counts considerably in national elections. How else would little-known Bill Clinton have emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in 1992, beating out better-known Democrats like Bob Kerrey and Richard Gephardt? The Republicans learned their lesson and nominated George W. Bush next, whose folksy demeanor was arguably the determining factor in his races against Al Gore and John Kerry. Undecided voters and independents decide elections. Many do not follow politics closely, acquiring their information from news sound bites. A few television clips of Hillary Clinton droning in her monotone, school-marm voice about “the children” or government healthcare will tune out all but her most allegiant supporters.

It is puzzling why Hillary has not corrected this weakness. She must realize her husband’s charm was responsible for his career advancement – and hers. One would think she would take classes on how to improve her appeal. She no longer has Bill’s coattails to ride on; he can be little more than a shadow in the background when she runs for President. The reality is Hillary probably cannot change her disposition. She has a bitterness to her, an angriness, that she does not want to set aside. It is such a deep part of who she is that she is unwilling or incapable of suppressing it. It is part feminist resentment and part anger toward her husband for his infidelity and apparent ease obtaining success. She begrudges the fact that her advancement in politics is mostly a result of her connection to him. She cannot leave him, because he still opens doors for her that wouldn’t otherwise be opened (he will secure the Democratic presidential nomination for her), and she cannot be sure her popularity will remain as high if she abandons him.

Hillary is predisposed to releasing her bitterness in careless remarks like “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” describing the House of Representatives as “run like a plantation,” criticizing women who stay at home “baking cookies” instead of pursuing a career like her, and praising the “white suburbs” of her youth. These offensive remarks only exacerbate voters’ negative perception of her.

Hillary is generally a dislikable person. One never hears people exclaim, “I just love Hillary Clinton!” There is something disturbing about her that most people can’t put their finger on. Those who observe Hillary regularly know what it is. As Carl Cannon in Washington Monthly put it, perhaps voters will realize that “her marriage is a sham, and…she’s an opportunist.” For Hillary, holding public office is not about principles – it is about status and power.

New York Times best-selling author Edward Klein quotes a Hillary insider, a former campaign staffer, in his book, The Truth About Hillary, “She has this unbelievable ability to be a liar. She is soulless.” Dick Morris describes some of these lies in his book, “Rewriting History.” Hillary has lied about how she got her name, how she met Bill, and about Chelsea Clinton jogging near the World Trade Center Towers on 9-11. These weren’t just exaggerations, or suspected mistruths, they were lies that have since been distinctly exposed. Hillary told reporters that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Mount Everest – but he didn’t climb Mt. Everest until 1953, five and a half years after Hillary was born. Prior to that, he was an unknown beekeeper. Hillary has a problem telling the truth. This may not bother the consciences of her friends on the left, but it will disturb the swing voters in middle America, who want honest leaders and the best for America.

There are other weaknesses of Hillary’s that can be exploited as well. Hillary has tried to position herself toward the middle since becoming a Senator. Or has she? The liberal group Americans for Democratic Action gave her a 95% rating in 2004, the same score as Barbara Boxer and socialist Representatives Jim McDermott and Bernie Sanders. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gave her a 100% rating in 2003. Her 2004 rating from the American Conservative Union? 0. She was one of only 10 Senators to receive a score of 0. Other Senators receiving 0 included Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman. Hillary’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 9%. This is lower than Diane Feinstein’s lifetime score of 11%. It is only slightly higher than John Kerry’s lifetime score of 5% and socialist Bernie Sanders’ lifetime score of 6%.

Hillary received an 8% rating in 2004 from Citizens Against Government Waste, the same rating as socialist Bernie Sanders’, and lower than Ted Kennedy’s and John Kerry’s 25%, as well as Barbara Boxer’s 29%. Hillary received a 10% rating in 2005 from Americans for Tax Reform – the same score as Ted Kennedy. She received a score of 0 from the Christian Coalition in 2003, and a 14% from the Family Research Council – the same score as Robert Byrd and Washington state’s liberal feminist Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Hillary’s 2003 score from the Eagle Forum was 13%, just one point higher than socialist Bernie Sanders’ 12%, and the same as Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and Maria Cantwell.

Hillary favors universal healthcare, and when she was put in charge of it at the Clinton White House, failed miserably. She has received a 100% rating from the American Public Health Association (APHA) for her pro-government health record in the Senate.

Hillary is not a moderate, she comes from the liberal wing of the Democrat party. Media reports that she has been trying to position herself more to the middle are simply incorrect. The only issue she has moved to the right on is Iraq, reflected in a few of her votes, which isn’t saying much, since Democrats in Congress are divided on the presence of troops in Iraq. Other than Iraq, her record on foreign policy and defense is really quite liberal. The Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy (SANE) gave Hillary a 100% score in 2003 for a pro-peace voting record. She has voted for an international nuclear test ban treaty.

Her record on Israel is troubling. Although she has tried to pull back from her pro-Palestinian positions, because she is lacking in principles her maneuvering is seen as pandering for votes. It is hard to forget that Hillary was on the forefront of calling for the creation of a Palestinian state in 1998 - even before the Clinton White House had announced its support for one. As White House First Lady, she chose to attend a meeting of the Palestine National Council and praise Arafat. It is difficult to trust someone whose opinion on such a problematic issue swings from one extreme to the other.

A recent Fox News poll found that 44% of registered voters expressed that “under no conditions” would they vote for Hillary. Only half as many voters said the same thing about Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. This leaves a lot of undecided voters that Hillary must pick up in order to win. Considering there are usually less than 10% undecided voters in presidential elections, Hillary will not only have to pick up more than half of them, but 100% of her Democratic base. In hypothetical matches polled, Giuliani beats Hillary by 11 percentage points, and McCain beats her by 13 percentage points. It is critical that Republicans put forth a candidate in 2008 with charisma. This is the decisive area in which they can beat Hillary. She can lie about her record, but she can’t hide her sullen disposition in a sound bite.

[HHKrepublican_2]

With Hillary as the headliner for the entire Democratic Slate, not only could\would we beat her easily, but Democrats would be slaughtered in the Congress\Senate Elections. Her campaign would be a debacle

RUN HILLARY RUN!

[Durus]

She is a strong supporter of the second amendment as written. That is a better indicator then your assumptions.

[MNJohnnie]

Guess they have not looked at Hillys negatives.

[MNJohnnie]

Curious why Condi's name keeps being thown out there. What part of "no" do the talking heads not understand?

[1Old Pro]

Let her run?

agreed

[US_MilitaryRules]

I get a mental picture of the photo with pelossi holding that whip!

[LilDarlin]

How to beat hitler-y in '08?

Simple?

Use a big stick....or a brick....either will do

[KarlInOhio]

A non-achieving political opportunist can attain great heights is today's dumbed-down culture. She or he can (through shrewdness) actually project the image of "brilliance", without ever having to demonstrate or prove it. The trick is to get others to do it. It requires a large malcontent body, an adoring, obsequious press, along with dysfunctional political sycophants who have abandonded any measure of self-respect in order to curry favor of someone who displays a ruthlessness that both frightens and fascinates them (a psychological aberration that can only bring harm to others, if it helps bring the charlatan to power).

Except for the ruthlessness we had that in 1992 and 1996. Fortunately for the nation, XXX-42 was more interested in getting some tail than in changing the nation. If he had been a leftist ideologue with a real desire to rule (like Hillary) he could have been a vastly greater danger to us as a free country than he was.

As for Bill Clinton's political beliefs, if Clinton had thought that Goldwater and Nixon supporters got more college girls in the sack that liberals, he would be a Republican to this day. His political "beliefs" were chosen to support his vanity and physical urges, rather than having his political beliefs as the core.

[DelphiUser]

I am so disappointed, I thought this would be a photo thread!!!

[WayneS]

All the "photo-shop" guys and gals must still be asleep.

[WayneS]

Yes, but what do we do in the event of a "Hitlery Clinton vs John McInsane" election. I might have to actually vote for Hitlery since I know what she stands for and I can just spend the next 4 years opposing everything she tries to do.

If McInsane becomes President there's no telling what might happen. HE doesn't even know what he stands for. I think he might have gotten Syphilis (sp?) in Thailand during the Vietnam conflict or something, and that he is entering its final stages.

When it comes down to it, though, I just don't think I could make my hand pull the lever for Hitlery even if there was a gun to my head. So, if it's a Clinton the Terrible vs. McCain race in 2008 I'll probably just "waste my vote" and go with whomever the Libertarians or Constitution Party put on the ballot.

[ncountylee]

The person in the United States who needs to be most afraid of Hillary running is....Bill.

Because the only way to guarantee a Hillary victory is if she runs as the "grieving" widow.

BINGO!

[DelphiUser]

>> All the "photo-shop" guys and gals must still be asleep.


You'd think they'd wake up for this...

< Grin >

[yoe]

There is something disturbing about her that most people can’t put their finger on. Those who observe Hillary regularly know what it is. As Carl Cannon in Washington Monthly put it, perhaps voters will realize that “her marriage is a sham, and…she’s an opportunist.” For Hillary, holding public office is not about principles – it is about status and power.

If you know anyone who can't define or put their finger on Hillary, send them this:

(the complete Hillary by Mia T)

[Mia T]

This woman is all wrong.

ON NAME RECOGNITION:

 

KORNBLUT:  And I would add to that.  It's 51 percent say definitely not.  Remember the margin that's we've been talking about in the last few presidential races, 51 percent is terrible, but all she would have to do is bump it by a few numbers, a few percentage points and be OK. 

[I can see why Pinch hired you, Anne. Your Alice-in-Wonderland illogic is quintessential New York Times.

With 100% name recognition and roughly 10% corruption recognition (thanks in no small measure to your rag), missus clinton has only one way to go. And it isn't up.]

HILLARY'S EXPOSED LEFT FLANK 'SCARES THE HORSES' (VIDEO)
(MISSUS CLINTON SUPPORTS ALITO FILIBUSTER)
by Mia T, 01.31.06

 

 

ON A WOMAN PRESIDENT:

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

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

'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART TWO~}
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF) ^{~PART ONE~}


'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?


for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


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


HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)

 

[RipSawyer]

So, the only difference between Hillary and her husband is that he has charisma? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For me Bill's charisma is like the aids virus, I can't actually see it myself but I can witness the devastation in the lives of the victims.

[RipSawyer]

A non-achieving political opportunist can attain great heights is today's dumbed-down culture. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

With great reluctance I am forced to agree! Dumbed-down is a fact, when I listen to some of the opinions expressed by those under forty today I cringe. The ignorance of all things historical is amazing.

[pabianice]

When she speaks all I can think of is the teacher's pet, standing in class to exclaim, "Teacher! Teacher! Johnny just threw a spitball at Nancy! Punish him!"