"[Hillary]’s gone to hell and back trying to be president. She’s paid her dues, to say the least. The old cliché is that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. But now Republicans want a lot of people to run and they want to fall in love. And Democrats don’t want to fight; they just want to get behind Hillary and go on from there."What's with all this love and sex analogizing? I hear in it echoes of Barack Obama's crushing "You're likeable enough, Hillary."
Going back into my own old "likeable enough" posts, I find this 2010 link to Instapundit:
ELIZABETH WURTZEL: “I suppose I should confess: I like Sarah Palin. I like her because she is such a problem for all these political men, Republicans and Democrats alike, with their polls, and their Walter Dean Burnham theories of transformative elections, and their economy this and their values that–and here comes Palin, and logic just doesn’t apply. . . . The Democrats are total morons for not finding their own hot mama before the Republicans did so first, or maybe I should have left off the qualifiers and called it straight: the Democrats are just plain morons, at least where women are concerned.”Politics is like sex, and people want to fall in love, but it gets complicated when it's women in politics. Think about sex/don't think about sex. A paradox. A quandary.
... But the very essence of old-line Democratic feminism is to reject feminine appeal. It’s Bella Abzug and Hillary Clinton as role models.
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
It was Elia Kazan who said he cast his female leads depending on how much he wanted to bang them.
The left's "we idolize and worship our candidates like sacred golden cows and you will worship them too!" obsessive fawning of Hillary Clinton could backfire on the left. Everyone is really sick of her.
Her inevitability isn't so inevitable when you factor in the massive Hillary! fatigue.
Who said it, Hillary or Karl Marx?
Yeah funny that Democrats are all about free love and sex and stuff, except not with women.
Politics is like sex, and people want to fall in love, but it gets complicated when it's women in politics. Think about sex/don't think about sex. A paradox. A quandary.
Lookin' at ole Hillary tnere it's pretty easy not to think about sex.
"Let me tell you some things I find productive. Positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement. Honesty. I'll tell you some thing I find unproductive. Constantly worrying about where you stand based on inscrutible social cues, and then inevitably reframing it all in a reassuring way so that you can get to sleep at night. No, I do not believe in that at all. If I invited you to lunch, I think you're a winner. If I didn't I don't. But I just met you all. Life is long, opinons change. Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong." - Robert California aka Bob Kasazhakis
I was looking for a Robert California quote about sex; didn't find it.
Lot of Democrats are feeling guilty for what they did to Hillary in 2008. They don't know what to do. They don't want to be the ones who go down in history as depriving a woman of her chance at the presidency -- you know what with all their feminism and lady parts politics. More than that they fear Republicans offering and winning with a female candidate -- the feminist hating Republicans getting that glory -- that can never be. But the sad part is there is no other female of her recognition and smarts in the Dem party. If they were smart they would have made her the top of ticket and Obama the bottom in 2008. But you see she foresaw what was coming down the pike in September and was talking about and going to reform the bankers and the financiers (as another blogger calls it) and hold their feet to the fire. They didn't want that. The bankers and the thieves wanted a rubberstamp kind of guy who goes golfing. For 2016, it is the party faithfuls and the big interests again. Maybe the big interests will go after Palin if she sold her soul to them like Obama did.
I don't care that much who's president.
It doesn't make that much difference. The Dems and Repubs are both practicing crony capitalism. Both parties are totally non-responsive. The courts have taken over all effective decision making, which means we're ruled by fiat by lawyers. The power of this blog is just another proof of that.
What's the difference? Nobody's going to represent my self-interest.
If you want a religion, go to church.
Hillary sure distinguished herself as SOS. It's pretty hard to make any "worst ever" shortlist. Yeah, she a sure thing--stick with that meme. This country is fucked--and over--if anyone bites.
Kinda makes me wonder if Obama's remark about Kamala Harris' appearance was calculated, to point out that Democratic female politicians can have sex appeal.
The right wants trust.
The love in "love to" isn't love.
With the Democrats so deep in the "scientific" sex religion of feminism and homosexuality, American politics looks more and more like a religious argument.
On FB, my lefty correspondents are howling in righteous glee over the suicide of a preacher they hate because he opposes the great and glorious wonders of gaydom.
I really understand this on a fundamental level because I live in Woodstock. Woodstock is a wonderful place, a great music town, and a dumping ground for those who have failed in love for one reason or another.
The men and women who have failed in love have united in opposition to the great scapegoats who have tormented them by denying them love and sex, Republicans and the dreaded white hetero men.
Nobody fails in love because of personal failures. It's somebody else's fault.
ST is right about both parties stinking.
Here is a prescription that might actually work from a Obama lapdog source:
And, in a larger sense, the notion of activist government will be in peril — despite the demographics flowing the Democrats’ way — if institutions like the VA and Obamacare don’t deliver the goods. Sooner or later, the Republican Party may come to understand that its best argument isn’t about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.
Sooner or later, the Democrats may come to understand that making it run efficiently is the prerequisite for maintaining power.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/02/obamacare-incompetence/#ixzz2PmkuSiZs
Everything is sex 24/7 with these people.
When was the idea of the public servant/representative replaced with he idea that we should be governed by the sexy? Or that people run for public office because it fulfills their personal needs?
As far back as Thomas Jefferson? Or, more recently like Teddy Roosevelt? Warren Harding?
Maybe I'm missing the bigger point.
The Democrats told us that George H.W. Bush would never live to see 1996 and that Dan Quayle would assume the presidency.
No worries with Hillary's health issues, though. Maybe she'll get Weeble-ized before the primary so that she can't fall down. Ignore the wobble.
Well, I'll agree that this country is fucked, and that's why I think that if Hillary runs for POTUS, she'll win.
Democrats no matter how much they talk about not liking Hillary, will not vote for anyone else.
Unless the Republicans can minimalize the men who are currently running the party, they'll face an impossible task beating the Democratic nominee Hillary. Not to mention the absolutely fawning press touting her and her accomplishments.
What you won't hear from them is how she acquired her first name, her running prowess dodging sniper bullets, etc....
Did I mention that we're fucked?
It will be interesting to see the contortions when the folks who told us that McCain and Palin needed to release all of their medical records (Privacy, schmivacy! The people have a right to know!) start defending Hillary's right to keep the information about her brain injury between herself and her doctors.
Damn, C Stanley, I had already forgotten about the blow to the noggin.
Maybe I'm missing the bigger point.
Yes, you are. See my post above.
The core principle of the Democratic Party is now that the white hetero men are "oppressors" who are denying the "oppressed" the right to love and sex.
All failures of love and sex are attributable to the oppressive nature of white hetero men.
Now, off to play organ for Mass.
I had almost forgotten too until I read Darell's weeble comment .
"What difference does it make?"
"Never waste a good crisis"
"and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire"
"Co-President"
I'm sure there are more.
Hell, I could run a smear campaign using nothing but her gaffes.
I think that nominating Hillary! and giving her her chance would be counter-productive for the Dems. I don't think that she is likely to win, and I think that running her could alienate some of their base.
First things first. The woman is going to be about 70 come next election. Fine for the Senate, but not so fine if one of the big demographics is young adults. She would have last been in the White House when a lot of these younger adults were in lower school, if that. And, may have first moved in there before they were born, or, at least before they went to school. The Republicans are likely to run someone maybe 20 years younger or thereabouts. Who is cooler, someone like Paul Ryan with his brains and body or Hillary!? Sarah Palin with her hoddy husband, good marriage, running, etc. or Hillary!? Or Ted Cruz, his Hispanic background, brains, and ability to debate or Hillary!? Hillary! is like their ugly grandmother. Nice, but old.
Then, there are the scandals that have followed her throughout her public adulthood, ranging through her numerous financial ones in Arkansas, through illegal FBI files in the WH, stealing furniture and china when she moved out, trading freeing Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich for a Senate seat, to a botched foreign relations regime as Secretary of State capped by four Americans under her care dying in Benghazi, and then lying about it before Congress. About the only thing that the Dems could do worse here would be to run someone like Eliott Spitzer or Jon Corzine. And, maybe making this worse, is the gross level of crony capitalism and corruption under Obama. While this may be acceptable for the core Dem groups like unions (and, esp. govt. union members), Blacks, and maybe Hispanics, it isn't going to play well with the middle and the youth. I expect that a lot of voters are going to be looking for cleaning up Washington, D.C., and Hillary! is exactly the wrong person for that.
The people who want to "fall in love" are the ones who end up seduced and abandoned.
Anent Carville, didn't we go through this nonsense 8 years ago, to the point the Hildabeast wasn't just the "inevitable" nominee, but the "inevitable" POTUS until some nothing of an upstart showed what a terrible candidate she really was?
Sooner or later, the Republican Party may come to understand that its best argument isn’t about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.
Of course, those pushing this idea will never concede that this is exactly what most of the Republican Party is all about, and has been for quite a while.
The last presidential candidate ran a campaign of "competence, not ideology." Largely the same with the guy before him.
People have been urging the GOP since ever to adopt the premises of the Dems, but to do a better job. And most Republican officeholders have bought into that. Hence the GOP going down the road to extinction.
People in this country have a right to an authentic choice, and not be forced to contend with Dem Classic and Dem Lite. When that right is not respected, when people are given not a choice but an echo, they will either go with the classic version or simply not play along at all.
That quote shows that if you have to make a choice between Walter Dean Burnham or Elizabeth Wurtzel with regard to political analysis, go with Burnham. Or for that matter, any decent political consultant in your hometown.
Looking forward to 2016!
Yes, the Hillary!/Moochelle dream ticket should be the nightmare of the century.
Wonder how long it will take them to get knocked out this time?
None of this matters. The only thing that will matter for Hilary is whether she can get out in front of Obamacare or not. If she can position herself as never having supported it before it finishes off the economy and starts pushing hilarycare she might be able to pull it off and get single payer through and get elected at the same time.
That would be even worse for the country, but the statist maxim would repeat: the best answer to government failure is a new government program.
I doubt very seriously that Michelle Obama will run for anything. While she's in the spot light, I think she understands what her role is, but I doubt if she wants to be part of a broader picture. Sure, she like the perks, but that's about it. Besides, they won't be hurting for money after Barry leaves. The Democratic PR department will make sure of that.
Sooner or later, the Republican Party may come to understand that its best argument isn’t about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.
So, we reelected the party hack who can do one thing, and one thing alone, effectively, and that is campaign. No record or skill at legislation, and no experience or skill at running a large organization. No training either.
But, I think that this may ultimately come around and bite the Dems. They propose government solutions to pretty much every societal and human problem they can think of, in order to grow their power base. And, when their previous solutions fail miserably, often because of their abject failure to manage, they just propose, and often enact, even more policies and build new programs and agencies.
So, we are now mired in the 5th year of the Obama Recession, and their solution is more government spending, programs, and bureaucracy. Their problem, long term, is that it is becoming every more obvious that they cannot manage the government they have now, or even come close, and so why trust them with even more money and power? Logically, that just means that they will squander even more money, infringe even more liberties, etc., with no end in sight, at least until they take control over the whatever little remains of our once vibrant economy.
That is the thing - Romney would have done a much better job at running the country than Obama ever could. He had the education, the training, the experience, and, yes, the brains, while Obama had none of that. So, the American voters reelected the one who had already shown himself to be grossly incapable of running pretty much anything beyond a campaign. And, you look at his Cabinet, and it is filled by ideologues who mostly don't have any more experience or training in management, and yet are giving many billions to spend to build their own feifdoms.
Millions find the Hillary knave and the Barack knave likable. Millions are schmucks.
I think the right word is marks.
The problem with women in politics is that it sequesters a woman. It requires women to wear suits, which ensures that they are unavailable for sex, among other liberal pursuits. It's a paradox which the Left has yet to resolve.
Hillary is not available for sex. But Bill is! He's unzipped and ready for your service.
It was Elia Kazan who said he cast his female leads depending on how much he wanted to bang them.
Yes, but Hitchcock was the master!
"The chief point I keep in mind when selecting my heroine is that she must be fashioned to please women rather than men, for the reason that women form three quarters of the average cinema audience...no actress can be a good commercial proposition as a film heroine unless she pleases her own sex."
This just underscores how shallow the Dem bench is.
They have no one anywhere in the nation with any significant success, at all.
No governor who has done anything like Perry or Jindal or mcConnell or Walker...or even as well as Haley, who has been mediocre.
No rock star legislators to speak of.
The only ones who get any press or show any leadership at all are Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer.
Bloomberg has ruined his prospects by being a nanny.
Cuomo might have been setting himself up, but what success had New York had as a state? And his screw up with gun legislation would hurt him.
The biggest star of the Democrat Party right now is Booker...a small city mayor.
So while Hillary has some negatives, she is the only possible candidate with any connection to any Democrat success at all.
Yeah, Obama got elected and re-elected. Bt he hasn't been successful at anything since taking office.
Obamacare got passed without his input, and a majority see it as a failure. Anything else? Libya is a failure. He turned against an into a failure. He can't even beat the GOP in budget battles with all the help of the MSM.
So Hillary is the nominee.
Until an upstart with no history (so nothing to derail the candidacy) start gathering steam right before the primary season starts.
Call it the Obama model. It's the only model Dems have right now.
I predict it will be an openly gay white man, so that any criticism can be portrayed as homophobia.
Hillary is the Grandmother of Obamacare.
KMN.
If the Republicans have any brains, they'll run Susana Martinez for pres in 2016.
I predict it will be an openly gay white man, so that any criticism can be portrayed as homophobia.
How about Gavin Newsome? He's not gay, but he is very closely tied to the gay rights movement.
Saint Crox said, quoting Hitchcock...
"The chief point I keep in mind when selecting my heroine is that she must be fashioned to please women rather than men..."
Hitchcock was clearly enamored of ice goddesses. I'm thinking specifically of Tippi Hedren. I doubt many women found her appealing. For one thing she was impossibly attractive and, more damning, aloof. She may very well not have been cold but that was her aura. He used her in The Birds, immensely successful at the box office, and Marnie, less so. Anyway, I'm not doubting the quote you cite. I'm just not sure he followed his own advice.
Baroness Thatcher, anyone?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा