Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS: HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08 (video clip)
Hardball | 2.17.06 | Mia T

Posted on 02/17/2006 8:01:45 PM PST by Mia T

BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS:
HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08



First of all, she will never win the presidency. The people who are worrying about that should stop worrying. She will never be elected president of this country. The democrats should buddy up to that concept before they walk over the cliff with her in 2008.

Bill Maher
Hardball with Chris Matthews
February 14, 2006



'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?

by Mia T, 02.02.06



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)



unning vicariously, as we have argued, has its risks.

What was supposed to be Hollywood propaganda to make a hillary presidency marginally palatable has instead become a parable about missus clinton's own dystopian future.

ABC announced the other day that it is pulling "Commander-in-Chief" off the air "until spring." Missus clinton's proxy presidency, you see, has been in a ratings free fall ever since "American Idol" took it on.

In a perverse life-mirrors-art moment, support for the real-life missus clinton's presidency has plummeted, too. This even sans Rudy, her real-life "American Idol" opponent.

'Ars artia gratis.' Please!

Samuel Goldwyn must be turning over in his grave....


 

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)



January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)


CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

Munich -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies, is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical (Munich) allusion is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument:
By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE
HERE

My New York Times Review of Munich

 


ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT

by Chris Matthews, Anne Kornblut + Dana Milbank

(with annotations by Mia T), 01.26.06



EXCERPT:

This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[NOTE: My comments in blue.]

MATTHEWS:  We're back with Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times" and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post."  Let's talk about Gotham's candidates for president.

First, Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, former mayor spent today, or the day in Orlando speaking to a conference of Evangelicals. 

Dana, he's up to it, isn't he?  This is below the radar.  This is Rudy campaigning for president in the south. 

MILBANK:  This is about as convincing as Jerry Falwell at the gay pride parade. 

MATTHEWS:  You don't buy this? 

MILBANK:  Well, he can try to do it.  But, look, he faces an awful uphill battle in winning over the typical Republican voter in a primary.  Now, if the election was fought on national security, he is fine.  But he's never going to convince them that he is one of them, that he is a religious conservative. 

KORNBLUT:  Right and not only that, but he's going to be in a death struggle with John McCain for the exact same constituency. 

MATTHEWS:  Let me tell you something.  I'll say it here a thousand time.  Watch Rudolph Giuliani.  Watch him.  Security is the issue in this country.  Whoever is the next president is going to be seen as more on the ball than even this president on security and terrorism.  This country is not going sort on terrorism.  We are going to get smarter on it is my hunch.

And Rudy is the guy to do it.  And he can be an SOB in many ways.  But this country may really want an SOB, a really tough cop as the next president.  So watch Rudy, I'm saying it.


Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series.  A new Gallup poll just came out.  "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her. 

But here's the dagger in the back.  Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun. 

KORNBLUT:  I mean, this is exactly what Democrats are worried about is that already people have made up their minds.  I would argue, I guess, that it is awfully early.  We all know how early it is to be talking about this. 

MATTHEWS:  Definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  Definitely?  What does definitely mean?  [Definitely means DEFINITELY.] You know, you would have to see how is the question exactly phrased, all that stuff.  It is early. [Actually Anne, it is late. In fact, it is too late. The country knows exactly who this woman is, Anne.]

MATTHEWS:  But there's lot of tooth behind that.  If somebody tells a pollster, I've already made up my mind definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  And, look, I know more Democrats who believe this though than Republicans.  A lot of Republicans say that this is a deceptive number, that once she gets out there with all of her money running against who, Giuliani or McCain, the numbers may not be that weak.  [She has 100% name recognition, Anne. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Even when the sow isn't hillary.]

MATTHEWS:  How much of that is don't throw me in that briar patch, Dana?  We're so afraid of Hillary.  Please don't run her against us.  She'll kill us. 

MILBANK:  Anne is right that these polls are completely useless because you don't know what the alternative is.  But the fact is that she...  [Earth to Dana: 51% would vote for their mother-in-law before they would vote for HER.]

MATTHEWS:  OK.  McCain against Hillary.  Who wins? 

 

MILBANK:  Well, that's fine.  If you can tell me that's how it is going to turn out.  But we don't know. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, let me ask you about these definite numbers in a poll.  Do you believe the definite?  Do you believe somebody right in 2006 knows how they are going to vote in 2008?

MILBANK:  I think they definitely think that's what they are going to do right now, but they have no idea what they are going to be doing in a couple years.  And Hillary is going to have the opposite problem of Rudy.  And that is she's absolutely fine with her base if she decides to run.  But she is seemingly incapable of crossing over. 

MATTHEWS:  The poll was taken over the week right through Sunday, the Gallup poll.  And the Gallup poll is, of course, the most prestigious poll there is right now and has been for years. 

Dana, do you think she's paying the price for her plantation remark last week? 

MILBANK:  Probably not.  Because, once again, plays very well the base.  The people who were objecting to it were never going to support her in the first case.  And I really think the only thing that this is right now is do people recognize her name.  [What is it you don't understand, here? We recognize her name, yes. And we abhor the person attached to that name. Get it?]

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.]

... Anyway, thank you Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times," Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." 

Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL.  Right now it is time for "THE ABRAM'S REPORT" with Dan.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
January 25, 2006


December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

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
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton



'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?


IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?


HILLARY'S EXPOSED LEFT FLANK 'SCARES THE HORSES' (VIDEO)
(MISSUS CLINTON SUPPORTS ALITO FILIBUSTER)


ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT



CLINTON 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'


SEE VIDEO: "HILLARY IS 'DOOMED'" (more 'plantation' fallout)


GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.


IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)



WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


ROCKEFELLER SEDITION: WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS?


THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


THE 'BOARD,' BEFUDDLED POLITICS OF JOHN KERRY RETURNS
CALLS FOR ALITO FILIBUSTER FROM 'SKI SLOPES'



IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2008election; 2016election; bill; billmaher; chrismatthews; clinton; dud; election2008; election2016; hardball; hillary; hillaryclinton; hitlery; loser; matthews; miatpsycho; missusclinton; mrsbillclinton; nosupport; repetitive; terror; terrorism; toomanygraphics; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 last
To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Undeniable are Rudy's pugilistic tendencies...
and pencil-neck lawyer Lincoln's obvious limitations as a hat model,
be it Stetson or stovepipe. ;)


161 posted on 02/20/2006 8:23:52 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: jla

I've always held that believing one could--or should--be president should be an automatic disqualifier.


162 posted on 02/20/2006 8:50:54 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem - - - G. K. Chesterton
Physician heal thyself - - - Luke
163 posted on 02/20/2006 9:19:37 AM PST by jla (Urge Mike Pence to run for POTUS in '08: www.house.gov/formpence/IMA/contact.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: jla

Are you saying that you disagree that the overriding problem is electability?


164 posted on 02/20/2006 9:56:34 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
...disagree that the overriding problem is electability?

Of this I can strongly affirm to. As I am of the utmost confidence that Giuliani would never survive the Republican primaries and that a candidate Pence, or Allen, would soundly thrash any Democrat opponent, especially Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But it's not why I posted the quote from Luke.
This was in response to your haughty presumption that we conservatives aren't aware of the pernicious climate in the world today and the threat to America.
Not only are we keenly aware of it, we possess also the confidence that America can defend herself without shedding our responsibility to other components, (economical, social, cultural, and moral), that make up our nation.
If you require evidence of this, look no further back than the 1980s, when the conservative of that era threw down the gauntlet to the world's leading 'terrorist' of that time, the USSR.
America faired pretty well in that decade. She stood tall among the nations of the world - morally, economically and as a guarantor of peace.

If the denizens of NYC are so enthralled with Giuliani, then reelect him as your mayor and allow the less sophisticated to focus on the war on terror along with attending to those other elements ascribed in our Constitution.

165 posted on 02/20/2006 11:16:26 AM PST by jla (Urge Mike Pence to run for POTUS in '08: www.house.gov/formpence/IMA/contact.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jla
world's leading 'terrorist' of that time, the USSR.

Your erroneous implications about my political leanings and your ad hominem characterization aside, you misuse the term.

'Terrorism' implies asymmetric warfare and the absence of both a nation-state and the deterrent of MAD. The cold war, OTOH, was contained and containable -- and ultimately winnable -- precisely because the actors were rational and could be counted on to act rationally, power varied directly with weapons stock... and any attack would necessarily come with a return address.

The '80s is not a template for 2008.

My argument centers not on your lack of awareness of our perilous state, but rather on your priorities. You have told me you would place a de facto vote for hillary clinton, i.e., sit out the election, before voting for someone not conservative enough for you.

To my mind, that is beyond naive. It is even beyond confused. It is plainly dangerous. By placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, you would be helping to empower precisely what you profess to revile, what you must know would be lethally dangerous for our country.

166 posted on 02/20/2006 12:16:21 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You have told me you would place a de facto vote for hillary clinton, i.e., sit out the election, before voting for someone not conservative enough for you.

This is an utter fabrication.
"de facto vote for Hillary" is the phrase you use to describe anyone who refuses to abandon their consciences, ideals and even personal or religious beliefs if they won't capitulate to your wishes of the nation voting en masse for any (R) opposing Hillary Clinton.

I've never said I'd "sit out" an election. I did say that I'd vote only for the true conservative candidate. If no such candidate were on the ballot for POTUS, (hypothetically, as there will be), I would then pass on voting for that particular office.

And you throw that term "ad hominem" around quite leisurely.
If the Chesterton fits...

167 posted on 02/20/2006 12:39:12 PM PST by jla (Urge Mike Pence to run for POTUS in '08: www.house.gov/formpence/IMA/contact.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: jla

I don't do fabrication, jla. I was speaking shorthand. It is a distinction without a difference. Either sitting out the election or voting for Perot redux is placing a de facto vote for hillary. You confirm my account.


168 posted on 02/20/2006 1:56:49 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: de Buillion

Indiana. Dunno why it says KY there.


169 posted on 02/20/2006 1:58:07 PM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jla

And btw, no semantic games. We are talking president, here. In this context, not voting for president is 'sitting out the election,' whether or not you vote for any of the offices down the line.


170 posted on 02/20/2006 2:21:47 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Pagey

thanx pagey :)


171 posted on 02/20/2006 2:38:41 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson