Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Sarah Palin, human being

Sarah Palin, human being

Feminists ought to thank Sarah Palin.

She’s going to win the vice presidency, and in doing so she’s going to break the glass ceiling.

The feminists’ favored candidate (Hillary You-Know-Who) has personally kept the glass ceiling intact for years with her obnoxious and condescending attitude, her sense of entitlement, and her smugness, her reputation for calculation…so many people find her so repellent that she could never succeed.  And yet all of America has been watching and waiting for her to achieve the ultimate success, and she’s been sucking up all the oxygen in the upper atmosphere of female politics.

Ironically, their worst nightmare is the woman who is going to succeed where they have failed.  They’re probably feeling that success is a litle bit overrated these days.


It’s been a long time coming, but I’m finally ready to admit that I’ve been wrong.

I’ve been hoping that Hillary Clinton would win the Democrats’ nod for the presidency and run against John McCain for president of the United States.  I thought that she would be easier to defeat than Obama because of her high negatives and because of his ample charisma.

But I’ve come to realize that Obama is an intelligent buffoon, the most transparent kind of elitist, and a poor extemporaneous speaker.  Hillary, by contrast, is a manipulative and unscrupulous competitor.  If she were to come from behind to win the Democrats’ contest, that would be further proof of what we already know about her: she is hard to beat because she’ll do anything to win.

So as a conservative Republican I’m no longer hoping for a Clinton victory.  I’m hoping that the easiest opponent will win, and that’s Barack Obama.

John McCain, if you’re listening, there’s something important that I want to share with you.  I’ve figured out how to beat the Democrats in the presidential election this year.

 I thought you would want to know about it.  Just give me a moment of your time, and I’ll share a plan that will sink either Hillary or Obama, whichever turns out to be the nominee.

This winning strategy can be distilled to one word: Expose.

Expose the Democrats for the elitist snobs that they are.  This shouldn’t be difficult to do.  All you need to do is shine a light on the truth.

Hillary has revealed her stripes many times.  From “Hillarycare” to “Universal Health Care,” she has shown herself to be an eager conductor of the Big Government Orchestra many times.  She tried to appropriate $1 million for a “Woodstock” museum to commemorate what you so aptly described as a great pharmaceutical event.  She thinks that higher taxes are a good thing because they will even things out between Americans.  (read: “redistribute wealth.”)  Hillary’s military-hating past is no secret, either.  Her scornful attitude toward the Secret Service and the military people who have served her over the years is well documented.  It’s an old story with Hillary, but it’s a useful one: She thinks she can run the lives of Americans better than we can run them ourselves, because she thinks we’re too stupid to get out of our own way, too simple-minded to be trusted to live without her supervision..

Where Obama is concerned, the same strategy may have been more difficult to employ…until his “Bitter” speech a couple of weeks ago.  Obama’s contempt for ordinary Americans was well disguised by his handlers and his prepared speeches until he was allowed to open his mouth and speak candidly to a sympathetic audience in San Francisco about what he thinks motivates American conservatism.  What a gift that speech was.  Now, Senator McCain, you have his own words to throw back in his face – and I recommend that you do so, with gusto!  If you should find yourself facing off with Obama in a debate, address him directly.  Repeat his words back to him, demand an explanation, and don’t accept any lame excuses.  Obama has received a lot of praise for his speechifying, but the truth is that without prepared remarks, he hems and haws more than any adult should.  His long and frequent pauses aren’t timed for dramatic effect; he’s just stalling.  If you force Obama to defend himself on the issue with persistence, he will stumble and stammer and hand you the election.  Beat the drum loudly and you’ll beat the bum soundly.

And there you have it.  To borrow a Reaganism, it isn’t an easy strategy, but it is a simple one.  And it’ll work on either Democrat candidate.  Expose them.

If you’re a Republican running for President of the United States, you’re probably feeling pretty good right now.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having a knock-down, drag-out fight for the Democrat nomination.  They’re lying about each other, calling each other names, and misrepresenting one another’s records and policies.

If you think back to this past fall and winter, you’ll recall that the Republicans were having it out too.  Some were more or less honorable, others duked it out.  One in particular engaged in some nasty negative campaigning.

But the Republicans got it out of their collective system in early March, and John McCain has benefitted from the break in hard campaigning.  He’s raising money and defining himself to America while Hill and ‘Bama are spending money and defining each other.

How much longer can this go on?  If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, look for Republican paradise to last into May.

And it’ll still be a good time to be John McCain for at least a little while longer.

From Barack Obama:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

There it is.  That’s the democrats’ view of middle America.  Obama made these remarks while speaking to wealthy donors in (appropriately enough) San Francisco.  Hillary Clinton, naturally, took the Clintonian approach to the situation: she distorted.  Hillary told supporters at a rally in Pennsylvania that Obama was talking about them, that he hates all small town people.  But that doesn’t square with what the Obominator said.

Take another look at his San Francisco remarks and you’ll see that Obama is slamming conservatives, giving the Hollywood Psychology version of what motivates American conservatism: people love guns and God and hate their fellow man because they’re frustrated and bitter about their own futile and miserable lives.

These remarks reflect Hillary’s view of the world, too.  But she’s dishonest and calculated enough to try to use the Obomination’s heartfelt words against him.

The real beneficiary of this episode will be John McCain.  He now has proof positive that the pervasive liberal contempt for ordinary American people is present in his likely opponent.  John McCain, you’re a retired fighter pilot.  You know what to do with an easy target.

This title of this article was written more carefully than you may have guessed.

I could have asked, “Is John McCain conservative?”  But to phrase the question in that way would have given it a different meaning; it would have inquired whether conservatism is one of McCain’s personal attributes.  I think that if the question had been posed that way, one would have to answer “no, John McCain is not by nature a conservative person.”  What I’m saying is that I think that McCain is a person with a generally progressive outlook on life and a radical view of a few issues who has adopted conservative positions on important issues because in most cases his principles supercede his personal proclivities.  I see McCain as something of a mirror image to Bill Clinton in this respect – Clinton of course being a political liberal with very old-fashioned (even backward) personal attitudes about womens’ rights, race relations, and political power.

John McCain

Getting back to the original topic of this article…I consider that by inserting a one-letter word (a) we can change the question from whether conservatism is one of McCain’s attributes to whether McCain is a member of the conservative movement in government, and the answer becomes a resounding “Yes.”  McCain is not only a member of the conservative movement, he’s been an effective and dependable leader.

McCain supports enough conservative causes (pro-life, traditional marriage, strong military, lower taxes, smaller government) that his credentials as “a conservative” are beyond doubt.  His legislative voting record is rated as highly conservative by political organizations at both ends of the spectrum, and his colleagues in the US Senate see him as a strong and consistent leader in the conservative movement.

In view of his history of public service and his credentials as a man of conservative principles, I announce my endorsement of John McCain today.  I’m going to vote for McCain in the general election in November, and I hope that you will, too.

No, there’s nothing cynical about this candidate…

According to CNN, on the day before Super Tuesday Hillary Clinton became emotional while addressing a meeting at the Yale Child Study Center at Yale University.  (there’s a link at the end of this article)

The last time Clinton cried on the campaign trail was on the day before the New Hampshire primary, and as a result (whether direct or indirect) she won a shocking victory over Barack Obama when an enormous number of female voters made a last-minute decision to vote for her.

The CNN article notes – without pointing out the irony, bless their hearts – that following her previous breakdown some people praised Hillary for “finally [baring] her true self.”

Oh no, I promised myself I wouldn't...

I won’t pretend that I don’t have a favorite; if you’ve been reading my bloggerations, you know who I’ve endorsed.  This article is a look at the relevant attributes of the remaining presidential candidates of both parties, as I see them.

Democrats first:

  • Barak Obama has a tendency to be pompous and windy, but people don’t seem to mind…yet.  When properly directed Obama can be a charismatic script reader, but when left to improvise (as in a debate) he inserts long undramatic pauses…and…torturous…moments where…for some reason…he can’t…seem to decide…to determine…to assess…to decide what exactly he wants to express, or convey, or to to tutu communicate.  You get the idea.  Obama’s camp has cultivated the popular image of a genius wonderkid, almost – but not quite – too good to be true.  He appears to be an amazingly bright, worldly, charming, refined, incredibly handsome, absolutely idealistic-and-yet-pragmatic family man (with a beautiful family, to boot).  The image doesn’t hold up all that well under scrutiny, although there doesn’t seem to be much of a compulsion on the part of the press to scrutinize it at this time.  What one can say of Obama with some certainly is that he is smart, he is savvy, and that on the scale of idealistic-to-cynical he is far more idealistic than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton.
  • Hillary Clinton is the old pro, smart and experienced…and cynical.  Hillary is used to the harsh glare of the spotlight, and has long since made peace with the indignity of the profession.  Her attitude is professional, and she shows up prepared for every appearance and every interview.  But all this comes at a price, and that price is the death of idealism.  Hillary doesn’t seem to be the thin-skinned, contemptuous rager that she (allegedly) was back in ’93 when her husband first took office, but she isn’t the same energetic ball of fire, either.  What drives her now?  It must be ambition, otherwise it can only be described as an unexplained compulsion – and that would suggest that some therapy is in order.
  • Mike Gravel?  What can one say about Mike Gravel?  Most of us don’t even know anything about Gravel!  He had a real political career in the ’60s and ’70s, but it ended badly when he lost a re-election campaign for his seat in the US Senate.  After years of retirement, he declared for president on a lark in 2007.  Gravel has a sense of humor (positive), but his experience in politics is mainly on the legislative side (negative).  Gravel is old, and not in the endearing way that Reagan was or in the gritty way that John McCain is; he’s just old.  He looks old, he acts tired, and at this point in his life he doesn’t seem to have much drive or imagination.

And now the Republicans:

  • John McCain is about as unconventional a politician as one can be, and yet he has the establishment backed into a corner.  That’s not an accident; it’s the result of his drive to accomplish and his unexceeded patience.  McCain has a well-earned reputation for being a loose cannon and a bully.  On the positive side, McCain has political capital that can only be earned the hard way, and I’m not just talking about his five and a half years as a tortured and disfigured prisoner of war in North Vietnam.  I’m also talking about seven years of sucking up his disappointment at losing to George W Bush in 2000.  McCain not only put the episide behind him, he campaigned enthusiastically for Bush in 2004, and for other Republicans across America in other years since.  The “straight talker” reputation McCain has among the media isn’t an illusion; he really is a loudmouth, and that can work for him or against him, depending on the circumstance and how much sleep he’s been getting.  McCain is tough, both mentally and by reputation, and the press loves him.
  • Mike Huckabee, the record shows, is a brilliantly intelligent man with great personal charisma and a gift for speaking.  How does this make him different from Jimmy Carter?  Actually, that isn’t my question; it’s Mitt Romney’s, and that question is a simple yet brilliant strategy for defeating a candidate whose single greatest weakness seems to be that the wrong people are supporting him.  It’s true, Huckabee is popular among Evangelical Christians in America.  And it’s also true that Evangelicals are viewed with contempt by much of America.  What’s been surprising is how many of the people who view Evangelicals contemptuously are members of the Republican party.  Back on topic, Huckabee does have one other significant flaw, and that’s his penchant for speaking extempraneously.  Huckabee, unlike most politicians, can speak at length and with great specificity on a variety of subjects, without notes.  Unfortunately, in those circumstances he has so far shown a tendency to say things that reflect poorly on him – only on rare occasions, but often enough for some people to think he’s a half-wit.
  • Mitt Romney is both the beneficiary and the victim of his own background.  The same things that make him a formidable political foe – his looks and his polish and his money – are at least partially a heritage from his famous father George Romney, a three-term governor of Michigan and briefly a candidate for president in 1968.  Romney has a tendency to come off stiff and awkward when speaking extemporaneously, but when properly prepared he makes a very attractive candidate.  Couple his deceptively youthful good looks with some polish and good preparation, and it isn’t difficult to imagine Mitt Romney running successfully, up to a point.  One negative that I cannot fail to mention is his willingness to give his approval to strategies and advertisements that deceive, but Romney isn’t facing any evident scrutiny on the subject, and that makes the issue almost irrelevant.  Romney’s Mormon faith also is a non-issue to most Americans, and it is to me as well.

Hillary Clinton ran virtually unopposed in the Michigan primary, and when push came to shove on Tuesday January 15, she only scraped by, getting 55% of the vote.  In second place was the always popular “Uncommitted” with 40%, followed by Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd (who has withdrawn from the race), and a fossilized Mike Gravel.

Hill, but where's Billy?

If this result seems to underscore just how unpopular the Democrat frontrunner for President is, consider how this situation came to be.

In jockeying to be one of the earliest-voting states this primary season, Michigan’s politicians pushed the envelope just a little too far.  In response, the national Democrat party sanctioned the state by taking away its national convention delegates.  Most of the candidates, consequently, withdrew their names from the ballot.  But for some reason, the Rodham-Clinton campaign chose to leave Hillary’s name on the ballot.

For fear that Hillary would get good press by winning Michigan in mathematically decisive fashion, her rivals encouraged their supporters to visit the polls and cast their votes for the before-mentioned “Uncommitted.”  And here we are.

As a Republican it’s probably best for me to refrain from further comment.  Goodness knows the Republicans are capable of producing a spectacle (the bad kind), so I’ll leave you with this unjudgemental observation: That’s politics.

Lake Superior is enormous and spectacular.  It is touched by three US states and one Canadian province.  On the northwest shore the Sawtooth Mountains are a breathtakingly beautiful sight.  The lake is so big it generates its own weather.  Superior is said to be the site of hundreds of shipwrecks, including the infamous wreck of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, a massive 729 foot long iron ore carrier.  Lake Superior is bigger than the entire state of South Carolina – in fact, it’s the world’s largest freshwater lake by surface area.  And yet Lake Superior wasn’t so named because it’s best of the Great Lakes, but because early explorers recognized that it was the farthest north, (or highest) of the lakes.  This fact teaches us that being highest may give the perception of superiority, but it ain’t always so.  And the same is sometimes true in politics.  Politically speaking, who’s on top right now?  Among Democrats, at the moment of this writing, it’s Hillary Clinton.  But Barack Obama is hot on her heels, especially in the early caucus state of Iowa.  We know how quickly a race like this can turn, too, having seen Mike Huckabee demolish the seemingly insurmountable lead of Rudy Giuliani with a few pithy truths and a couple of well placed quips at the CNN/Youtube debate.

But as Hillary isn’t the Dems’ best candidate just because she’s on top (for now), neither would Obama be. The best Democrat running for president right now, the Democrat of Democrats, is New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.  Let me tell you why.

Richardson is an effective communicator and a true believer in the liberal agenda.  Plus, he has brownish skin.  And just look at the following list of important positions Richardson has taken:

Education:  Bill Richardson wants to increase teachers’ pay like he did in New Mexico.  According to his website, that means $60 billion dollars in cuts to the defense budget in order to increase the federal education budget by the same amount.  That way when the Chinese invade, by golly, our kids are going to be fluent in Mandarin.

Energy:  Richarson likes windmills.  They’re fun to look at and they go whoosh, whoosh, whoosh!

Health Care:  Two words: Universal and Mandatory.

Agriculture:  The governor wants to boost crop production and improve farmers’ livelihoods by conserving more farmland and teaching them to speak Spanish.  That way they’ll be better qualified to join the independent contractors of uncertain ethnic origin picking lettuce on their 25 acre family subsistence farms.

HIV/AIDS:  Richardson has a plan to combat the AIDS epidemic: he will appoint a blue ribbon panel.  Nothing stops AIDS like tying blue ribbons around gay men.  And it’s festive, too.

Abortion:  Governor Richardson is committed to keeping abortion safe and legal, easily accessible, and covered under Universal Health Care.  That way we can cut down on the number of babies born in the US.  You see, babies require lots of expensive care.  So the easiest way to keep health costs down is to abort as many of them as possible.  To that end, Richardson has already promised that when he becomes president, he will impose a Roe v. Wade litmus test on all new judges.

Medicinal Marijuana:  Oooh, Bill isn’t feeling so good.  He needs some medicine!

So if you’re a Democrat who’s puzzling over the many choices on your ballot this year, take it from me, a lifelong Republican.  Bill Richardson is your best bet.

Governor Richardson is homeless.  Let him move in to the White House!