Posted on 11/23/2005 8:09:17 AM PST by Mia T
|
The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this proxy scheme to even more outrageous extremes. The latest: an actual hillary clinton proxy presidency, populated on both sides of the camera by assorted rodham and clinton ex-staffers, sycophants and should-be felons, witness the latest hire.
'Commander-in-Chief,' a show that sets out to crown a 'queen,' instead exposes the kitschy simplemindedness of Hollywood fantasy and the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego.
Mia T, 10.27.05
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)Having failed to snare the Nobel Peace Prize by ignoring terrorism, clinton has apparently decided to intensify his America-bashing on foreign soil, the method employed by Jimmy Carter to great (if somewhat belated) effect: Carter received his 1978 Peace Prize in 2002.
Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the missus, the other half of the clinton construct, maintains her hawkish pose (though not without bird problems of another sort).
Yet another example of the clinton conflation ploy, (see SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor), this variant allows "clinton, the construct" to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, thereby enabling the missus to avoid in '08 the trap that repeatedly ensnared the ever 'nuanced' Kerry in '04.
Do you now understand how stupid the clintons think you are?
A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA
Mia T, 11.17.05
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
For the most part, missus clinton operates in absentia, by proxy.
You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.)
And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton political machine.
If you stop and think about it, the American voter hasn't ever had the opportunity to see, hear, examine the actual merchandise...much less contemplate the return policy.
There are three principal reasons for this clinton scheme.
Mia T, 10.27.05
G. K. Chesterton
The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.
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 on the battlefield isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte 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, 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
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)
THE PROBLEM
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
COMPLETE ARTICLE
see descriptor morphs
... The Republican National Committee's Tracey Schmitt reacted to Clinton's comments by telling ABC News: "In typical Clintonesque fashion, the senator is trying to have it both ways on a critical issue. There is no room for political calculations when making decisions in the central front of the War on Terror."
.
This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
|
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor by Mia T, 8.03.05 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) MAD hillary series #5 WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS FOR THE CHILDREN FOR AMERICA FOR THE WORLD
|
WRITTEN IN STONE: AN ARCHITECT DEFINES THE CLINTONS
by Mia T, 12-30-02
f mutability of meaning was necessary for the survival of the clintons--their survival hinged ultimately on the deconstruction of words and laws--it is more than a little ironic, and a manifestation of the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego, that clinton's monument to himself will necessarily define the clintons with the permanence of great inviolate places of iconic architecture.
Whereas a huckster removes meaning from institutions--the wife picked up where the husband left off--an architect encodes meaning in buildings. James S. Polshek, the architect with the dubious distinction of having been commissioned to build the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, believes that a successful architectural solution must necessarily be rooted in relevance.
Just as Polshek's buildings have physical layers, so too do they have layers of meaning. His Rose Center for Earth and Space, for example, is informed formally and programmatically by the historic architecture of a designated landmark even as it redefines itself, (often too self-consciously, in my view), in Star-Trekian terms. Reduced to its essence, the building is the nascent universe before the Big Bang, the promise of the undifferentiated cell in its mother's womb.
The "bridge to the 21st century" was, perhaps, clinton's most delusional conceit, so it is not surprising that it would become clinton's self-referential metaphor of choice. His library was to be that bridge, if he had anything to say about it...
The architect is often the master of the inside joke, witness Robert Venturi's postmodern chairs. Venturi exploited--unabashedly and with abandon--the vocabulary of Las Vegas, its stage-set-as-reality and its roadside culture--bright, clashing, ugly and fake. The architect's inside joke is his hedge against the sycophancy that comes with patronage.
The flip side of the encoded meaning of the architect is the terrorist's decoding of it. To bin Laden, the World Trade Center was Jewish capitalism encoded in urban space. If Polshek's vision of clinton's library is a bridge, the inside joke is that, at best, it is a bridge to nowhere.
More likely, it is a bridge to the 7th century...or a doublewide to house clinton double-speak. Take your choice.
copyright Mia T 2002, 2005 |
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.
From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.
That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will which means both in real time and historically.
When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)
Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.
With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.
With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown) and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
|
- JEANINE PIRRO: 30-year career fighting for the abused woman
- HILLARY CLINTON: 30-year career abusing women
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
bump
The same Democrat Party apparatus that in 2004 took front-runner Howard Dean and turned him into a fringe candidate. They will never put up a candidate in an open election who doesn't have a solid chance of winning the election.
Under normal circumstances, what you say is true (notwithstanding the plain fact that Howard Dean is a deranged nobody who made the fatal mistake of revealing his psychoses in real time).
But the clintons OWN the Democrat Party. Chris Matthews alluded precisely to this point: If Pee Wee Herman would give her a race... |
Thanks for raising this excellent issue. I had the same thought initially.... but then I asked myself: who would stop her?
Sorry if I came off angry... I have turkey on my brain today... so much to do, so little time.... (wasn't planning to post today, and then this revolting Thatcher proxy emerges. ;)
have a great T day.
bump
Wow. An eye-wateringly brilliant policy. Right there sittin' on the picket. Hillary the Hawk make that up all by herself?
Typical clinton banality. This is what passes for brilliance. Says something about the Left, doesn't it?
Another well deserved Mia T bump.
You're always on guard to help the rest of us recognize the latest schemes by the Klintoons. I've noticed that Hillary herself is like a night shade--almost invisible. Yet her filthy pawprints are everywhere. You correctly dub this the proxy strategy. I like this bit especially:
For the most part, missus clinton operates in absentia, by proxy.
You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.)
And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton political machine.
If you stop and think about it, the American voter hasn't ever had the opportunity to see, hear, examine the actual merchandise...much less contemplate the return policy.
There are three principal reasons for this clinton scheme.
To conceal the hillary dud factor. (See SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor)2
To shield missus clinton from questions concerning clinton corruption, clinton abuse of women, clinton abuse of power, clinton utter failure to confront terrorism, etc.
To allow missus clinton to pose as a moderate without overly enraging her radical leftist comrades (Cindy Sheehan excepted).
The clintons are such mediocrities. Surely someone on the Left must be smart enough to see this....
BTTT
HOW DARE THIS TRASH SL-T THINK SHE IS ANYWHERE NEAR MRS. THATCHER.
Mrs. Thatcher is a lady, smart, kind, devoted. Absolutly NOTHING this clinton slime is...
HOW DARE SHE!!!!
thx Cautor. :)
Once more to the top.
I know who Hillary Klintoon is, and she's no Margaret Thatcher.
The ones who are smart enough don't care. She is their tool. Bought and paid for. Since she's raising so much cash, I'd like to see a list of her big-time donors, so we know their agendas and what she owes them.
Just think, for the next three years the mediots will be pounding it home that Hillary! is the Second Coming, our god and saviour, while undermining anything and anyone conservative. I remind myself what awful candidates Gore and Kerry were, and how close they came. Can Hillary! deceive enough people? I don't know. But I don't think it's a given that she can't.
bump
thx again :)
bump
But the Clintons OWN the Democratic Party.
To call missus clinton 'polarizing' is, at best, an act of compassion. 'Polarizing' implies support by one's side, but, as we know, many on the Left do NOT support missus clinton. A more accurate description: missus clinton is despised universally on the Right and not insignificantly across the ideological spectrum. Many on the Left resent her cutting in, resent her sense of entitlement, resent her manifest lack of qualifications, resent her corruption, resent her unconcern about damaging the party. Missus clinton will be the instument of her own defeat because she will mobilize the GOP like nothing we've ever seen before and mobilize many on the Left either to field an alternative who is qualified, uncorrupt and likeable... or to stay home. Moreover, what we see now is likely hillary's apogee. With 100% name recognition and virtually 0% abuse-of-power/abuse-of-women/terrorism-failure recognition, clinton support can only go in one direction... and it isn't up. |
over here
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.