Posted on 01/25/2007 11:54:16 AM PST by Mia T
Now if you'll excuse, I have to rinse with salt water.
She may turn to tech to avoid the public, but a powerful group of folks who use tech will be spreading the truth about this witch throughout the networks. It will work for her, but against her as well.
This woman CAN NOT afford to answer unscripted questions. And Mia, she knows this and so do those who work with her-she is uncontrolled and easily flustered.
To avoid this meeting of unscripted questions in a presidential campaign will undo her...I hope! ( Should she get the nomination. ugh.)
Hillary Rodham Medusa will turn Barack and his buddies (the rest of the candidates) into stone cold smiley faces when she snake-tongues her acceptance speech at the collectivist convention.
Classic
;)
News flash:
Liz Taylor backs Hillary Clinton in presidential race
Can there be any better way to underscore the plain fact that missus clinton is over the hill (pardon the pun)???
Q SCORE With a Q score—a measure of celebrity likability among the hoi polloi—in the toilet, missus clinton can win elections only by running virtually unopposed... and then only with the help of protheses, props, poses, PR machines, scripted appearances, screened audiences, vetted questions, Secret Service barracades, softball settings and sycophantic hosts, fictionalizing, humanizing, digitizing and otherwise hiding the real hillary clinton. And then we have the baggage.... Anyone else but a clinton would have been summarily laughed off the stage. The American people must understand that to get this defective candidate elected, the clintons must pervert the electoral process, turn democracy on its head. That is to say, the best candidate must lose. Hence the threats to the big donors..... by Mia T, 01.25.07 read more |
Of course, for this to work it has to be clear—preferably only to the true target(s)—who ordered the hit. Take, for example, the offing of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko last month from radioactive Polonium-210 poisoning. Like the assassination of Leon Trotsky more than 60 years earlier, the death is uniquely traceable to the Kremlin, and, but for standard-issue cutouts, to its head. The assassination of Litvinenko is the latest in a series of attacks on the outspoken critics of Putin that converge uniformly and precisely on Putin.
OUR PUTIN Missus clinton is our Putin. Bankrolling Obama is verboten. And as with other Stalinists, missus clinton's functional assassination weapons of choice are drummed up charges of tax evasion and character assassination, 9 not necessarily in that order. The Barrett Report, paid for by The People and redacted by the DC mutual protection racket writ large—which is also, we note (and will remember), paid for by The People—documents the clintons' abuse of the IRS and other clinton abuses of power that were—and still are—routinely used to silence clinton critics. A reputation for inflicting bodily harm is another favorite clinton weapon. It is so preferred by the clintons, in fact, that they never miss an opportunity to spread the rumors around themselves. By repeating every allegation of clinton murder and mayhem—while affecting an incredulous air, of course—the clintons accomplish two things:
There is a hunger on the Left for an alternative to hillary clinton. And no wonder. They seem to be stuck with the self-anointed clinton's repulsiveness and baggage and sense of entitlement (to which there could no more perfect antidote than Barak Obama's charisma and blank slate and humility, and hence the clinton panic.) 2 Indeed, missus clinton's video announcement inadvertently makes the case. There 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.3 Add to this 'laughable' and 'hopeless,' witness her 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.) 8 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. 4 (INane, too.) 5 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. 6 How to do it? THE PLAN
Q SCORE With a Q score—a measure of celebrity likability among the hoi polloi—in the toilet, missus clinton can win elections only by running virtually unopposed... and then only with the help of protheses, props, poses, PR machines, scripted appearances, screened audiences, vetted questions, Secret Service barracades, softball settings and sycophantic hosts, fictionalizing, humanizing, digitizing and otherwise hiding the real hillary clinton. And then we have the baggage.... Anyone else but a clinton would have been summarily laughed off the stage. The American people must understand that to get this defective candidate elected, the clintons must pervert the electoral process, turn democracy on its head. That is to say, the best candidate must lose. 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. I would call missus clinton's 'I'm in' anticlimactic, but for the fact that an anticlimax requires antecedent impressiveness or consequence. Watching the Saturday Night Live clip and missus clinton's "I'm in!" video 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!" video 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.
|
bump
thank you. :)
How's the bite?
(((OUCH)))
Try the gargle
You've read my mind!
...don't fret, nurse T, I'm only having two. I work tomorrow and I'm painting right now. (I'm redoing the main rm ceiling a darker color. And now I've decided to also repaint the walls and trim, in copper hues. I just painted it about two weeks ago too!)
Uh-oh. Better do the cutting in for the trim before the 'gargle.' ;)
Oh, by the way, was driving up near the city, in a posh neighborhood, and seen a stone wall surrounding a very expensive looking home. It wasn't as 'rustic' or 'haphazard' as those found in Ireland, (too 'perfect') but it looked very nice.
How do you think the Irish dug up all those stones to build all those walls? They after all needed a bit of 'motivation'.
A brilliant piece, but with one glaring error: |
The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth Gerard Baker
One January evening in 1982, Lenny Skutnik, a government employee, dived into the freezing waters of the Potomac River to rescue a victim of a plane crash. Two weeks later, during his second State of the Union address, with the US mired in recession, Ronald Reagan had Mr Skutnik sit in the gallery and paid a moving tribute to his heroics. This week, for his penultimate State of the Union, Mr Bush had a veritable galaxy of skutniks -- soldiers, military people, a firefighter. Whatever you might feel about the wisdom of Mr Bush's Iraq policy or the feasibility of his plans to wean Americans off petrol, you can't help but stand and cheer the good works of a decent person. But there was something unusual about this year's constellation of ordinary American heroes, beyond the sheer numbers. Usually the skutnik is a presidential privilege. But so intense already is the competition for the 2008 presidential race that others have muscled in. And so Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a skutnik of her own. She arranged for the son of a New York policeman sick with lung cancer to be there. As it happened, the man's father died that day, and the son's grief became a sad and very visible coda to the event. This little incident, the skilfully choreographed exploitation of a human tragedy, the cynically manipulated deployment of public sympathy in service of a personal political end, offered a timely insight into the character of the politician who this week launched the most anticipated presidential election campaign in modern history. There are many reasons people think Mrs Clinton will not be elected president. She lacks warmth; she is too polarising a figure; the American people don't want to relive the psychodrama of the eight years of the Clinton presidency. But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician's trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion. Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as "women who stay home and bake cookies". Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance. To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate. And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly by her husband. After that unsurpassed exercise in cynicism, nothing could be too expedient. Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive surgery. It went from the cosmetic -- the sudden discovery of her Jewish ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you've established a reputation as a friend of Palestinians-- to the radical: her sudden message of tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and everything else she had stood for. Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over their nuclear programme. Now, you might say, hold on. Aren't all politicians veined with an opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T. Barnum approach to the political marketplace. All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego. |
ping
thanx for the heads up. looks promising ;)
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.