THE ABSURDITY OF HILLARY
(What the media and Dick Morris aren't telling us about Obama-clinton numbers.)
- by Mia T, 12.15.06
ick Morris is making a big deal out of an apparent decrease in Barack Obama's Democrat numbers, quick to portray the rising star as a flash in the pan. Morris' arguments are so flawed that I must wonder if the toe-sucker is a stealth clinton suckup.
I had similar suspicions about Dick Morris before, most recently
- when he attempted to use Dubai to explain away the clinton stash, (THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HILLARY CLINTON'S DISCLOSED ASSETS: An Alternative Theory), and
when he gave political advice to Jeanne Pirro (champion of rape victims,5 for goodness sakes!)--"stay positive, focus on hillary clinton's plan to run for president"--advice that all but ensured Pirro's defeat. (IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?)
(Morris' lousy advice was arrogated by clinton's eventual "opponent,"6 John Spencer--and we all know where that got him.)
LINEAR REGRESSION
And now Morris is fixated on a mythic 6-point drop in Obama's numbers, from 18 to 12--mythic because the polls weren't even comparable.
But even if they had been, two points on a curve that has only just begun to generate does not a trend line make.
Additionally, Obama's 12% in the Fox poll comes right off the top of hillary's prior numbers, and in that same poll Obama beats hillary among independents. 1
Worse, Morris seemingly misses the crux of the matter: 40% of democrats don't even know who Barack Obama is. This is in stark contrast to hillary clinton, who has 100% name recognition and at most 10% corruption-failure recognition, which means hillary's numbers have only one way to go, and it isn't up. And guess who will be the beneficiary?
Morris calls Obama a "political infant' and argues, "One thing is sure - in the age of terrorism, we don't need a president who can't find the men's room."2
The obvious response: "One thing is sure - in the age of terrorism, we don't need a president who for eight years couldn't... or wouldn't... see the enemy.3, 4, 7
-
... 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)COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
