THE PUNDITS AND POLS ARE ASKING THE WRONG HILLARY! QUESTION...

Hardball, Saturday Night Live, hillary clinton | 01.23.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

THE PUNDITS AND POLS ARE ASKING THE WRONG HILLARY! QUESTION...

by Mia T, 01.23.07

atching the Saturday Night Live clip and missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip in succession confirms the obvious: The pundits and pols are asking the wrong hillary! question.

The fundamental question concerning missus clinton's candidacy isn't "Can she win?"... or "Will she win?"... or even "Should she win?"

No. The fundamental question is this: "Can missus clinton be taken seriously? Is missus clinton's candidacy more than simply a bad joke? Is missus clinton's candidacy legitimate? "

By asking the other questions, legitimacy is the presumption, the unasked question, the "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of fallacy.

But the Saturday Night Live clip and missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip taken together belie that presumption.

 

The reason the Saturday Night Live sequence is so devastating is because it is not the usual SNL farce based on fact.

Rather, it is fact based on farce.

And missus clinton's "I'm in!" clip confirms it.

Let down the curtain: the farce is done. (Rabelais)

Somebody stick the fork in that baby, already. Please.

ADDENDUM:

This exchange on Hardball underscores the farcical condition of the hillary clinton candidacy. Pay special attention to Howard Fineman.

 

HILLARY "I'm in" CLINTON'S 'CONVERSATION' WITH HERSELF
(OKAY HILLARY. LET'S TALK.)

DECONSTRUCTING THE ANNOUNCEMENT

~with commentary from Saturday Night Live

 

by Mia T, 01.22.07

 

here is a certain unhip hipness and hypocrisy in hillary clinton's 'I'm in.' This even without considering the "to win" she tacked on the end, a clear acknowledgement of the electability problems plaguing her candidacy.

Add to this 'laughable' and 'hopeless,' witness her video attempt at human. (Not even real human, mind you-- virtual human.) There is no way--none--to make this creature credible.

So forget 'likeable.'

The performance, oozing a cloying, saccharine-coated evil, pulsates to the metronomic swing of stubby appendages that, together with the ample corpus, remind me of parentheses too short to contain the stuff between them. (Gesticulation is a dud's only sign of life... and then only if she has a speech coach to prod her.)

The performance is nothing if not humiliating: A direct measure of hillary clinton's hunger for power. Which reminds me... enough of that red Klingon power jacket already. Please.

"I'M IN"

No she is not.

She is INaccessible. ¹ (INane, too.) ²

The clinton machine understands well the paradox of this peculiar candidate: In order for missus clinton to have any chance of winning elections, she must all but vanish from the public stage. ³

How to do it?

THE PLAN

According to hillary, herself, the plan is to use 'technology,' by which she means 'virtual reality.' It will shield her from the risk of real questions from real people in real time and space while conferring on her an aura of accessibility. Missus clinton cannot afford a Katherine Prudhomme moment, ⁴ you see.

But the clinton machine cannot keep the candidate cosetted in cyberspace and softball venues forever. That is why this early entry, forced by Obama's meteoric rise, is missus clinton's worst nightmare.

That, and the fact that Obama will be the standard against which she will henceforth be measured. Which is not a good thing for missus clinton. Obama's charisma and blank slate are the perfect antidote to clinton's repulsiveness and baggage.

I would call missus clinton's 'I'm in' anticlimactic, but for the fact that an anticlimax requires antecedent impressiveness or consequence.

 

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)

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO AMERICANS

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[Mia T]

Other than because of her megalomania, of course....

[Pagey]

Thank You Mia, BUMP!

[leilani]

Hillary Clinton may be more of a media creation that Osama Obama.

You're so right. The 24/7 Obamarama this country is being treated to at the moment is just window-dressing. The Hillapallooza we are in for after the MSM dispenses with this charade of enthusiasm for other possible nominees will dwarf every media orgy that came before it.

HRC has already been coronated inside every newsroom across the land. They're just using Obama as their straw horse so they can take him down later & crown their preordained princess while preserving the illusion of 'objectivity'.

[Mia T]

thank YOU, Pagey :)

[Rummyfan]

Thanks Mia! That Moribund Loser is in there with the even more Moribund Losers, supposedly 'men', although none have shown the intestinal fortitude of REAL MEN who would take her on and destroy her!

[Mia T]

... and--(excuse me for the oversight)--her entitlement...

[MHGinTN]

And she will be allowed --even enabled-- to avoid any difficult questions because 'she's listening'. She's going to be morphed into Frazier if need be, to avoid exposing her hateful self, her prevading vacuousness, her inadequacies, and her lack of experience or capacity. But then, the media whores want an empress not a president, they want unity under queen hillary, not freedom in representative Republic. What remains to be seen is whether there are democrats with cajones enough to resist her lowness and her goon squad. With so many FBI files in her possession, I doubt there are any, even saint obama.

[IrishMike]

Here is John Roberts of CNN interviewing Senator Clinton this week.

ROBERTS: "On the subject of mistakes, your 2002 vote to authorize the war, was that a mistake? Do you regret it?

CLINTON: I've said that I regret the way the president uses, used the authority that he was given, and certainly, if we knew then what we know now, there would never have been a vote and I wouldn't have voted for it. I take responsibility for that.

ROBERTS: Was it a mistake to vote for it?

CLINTON: I know people are all hung up on the words here. I think it's very clear that, if we had known then what we know now, the president would never have been able to come to the Congress and ask for a vote. I believe that, you know, the case that was made then, which I saw as a way of checking Saddam Hussein, the sanctions regime was falling apart, putting inspectors in made sense. I said at the time I was not in favor of a pre-emptive war, and you know, I don't think you get do-overs in life. I think you take responsibility for the decisions that you make and you try to make the situation better, which is what I've been trying to do consistently."

Wow. Did somebody say Wow? As in Wow: What planet are we on now?

It's not the words we are hung up on. It is the substance. But on planet Clinton, on which the party of the common man morphed into the party of the very, very, very rich, language became a tool that no longer meant anything. It was instead, a kind of theater. What mattered was not what you said, but how you said it and how you looked when you said it, and how the words subtly seemed to surround the questioner instead and accuse him of something. Because the questioner was, in the very act of asking a question, challenging your authority and your natural-born right to govern. He was, after all, the enemy.

Again we enter the realm of Clintonailia. I can almost hear the Senator now: It depends on what you mean by war.

[OKSooner]

Another Mia T bump.

[Mia T]

Howard Wolfson has already made the explicit threat on Hardball last night. Anyone who dares to say anything less than flattering about the woman will face a fate worse than death.

Will be be posting the video later....

[Mia T]

thank you, OKSooner. :)

[Mia T]

excellent. will be posting to this later.

[newcthem]

The MSM will be asking our new president Hillery for her comments every time Bush says anything from here on out.
We will be really sick of this bitch, by the time she really is elected.

[Miss Didi]

Rush played a clip today where she is asked if she had always planned to announce her candidacy before the SOTU address. She lies and says, of course, and then adds that she wanted to point out the differences between herself and W. Lady, you are not qualified to make his photo copies!

And the "I'm gonna win" part? Nobody is commenting on this? She hasn't even got the nomination.

[Lee'sGhost]

Please ping me on that one!

[Mia T]

As the Hardball clip shows, Matthews, Fineman et al did a job on missus clinton and her fantasy world last night.

Tonight, it seems Matthews will be doing a 180 in exchange for access. He is positioning missus clinton opposite Bush to set up an implicit equivalency. He is selling out his soul.

Unless he nails her.

[Mia T]

will do. :)

[Lee'sGhost]

"Unless he nails her."

Don't hold your breath for that, Mia. The thing on Hard Ball was to give CM "street cred." Now when he sucks up to her he can point to that show and say, "see, I'm being balanced."

[Mia T]

fyi

[Mia T]

Matthews does tend to do that, but I think in this case he means it.
He seems truly repulsed by the woman and her sense of entitlement; he believes she is a dud and a sure loser who will take his party down.