"It was like hating a sibling who was more popular, more successful, more beloved by your parents—and always getting away with something. [R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the founder and longtime editor of The American Spectator] felt he knew the Clintons, because he’d gone to college with so many Clinton types: draft dodgers, pot smokers, ’60s 'brats.' They were 'the most self-congratulatory generation in the American republic,' he tells me. 'And it was all based on balderdash! They are weak! The weakest generation in American history!'"
So writes Hanna Rosin in "Among the Hillary Haters/Can a new, professionalized generation of scandalmongers uncover more dirt on the Clintons — without triggering a backlash?"
ADDED: Is "more dirt" needed? It seems to me that the new generation of scandalmongers could just dish up the old dirt, which never seems to have been taken seriously enough — notably Hillary's role in suppressing the voices of Bill's women.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०३ टिप्पण्या:
Why is disagreeing with policy cast as hatred? I know it's always been thus in the US, but why propagate the idea?
Hillary's dirt is worth sifting again, but don't you dare bring up anything about Walker.
Its not like some of his office staff from 5 years ago were found guilty or anything .... lets go through that 80's and 90's retread for the 10th time.
Why can't people just hate Hillary because she's terrible? WHy does there have to be any other inherent built in bias at work?
The most misused word of the last ten years has got to be 'haters.'
@Mark,
Suppose Walker had used his positions of power in government to successfully procure for himself adulterous affairs, coerced sexual gratification, and even alleged rape victims.
Can you honestly imagine Tonette Walker defending such behavior in the pursuit of her own political power?
MadisonMan said...
Why is disagreeing with policy cast as hatred? I know it's always been thus in the US, but why propagate the idea?
I second that. And since when and why in Rosin's mind is disagreeing with Obama policy - even vehemently - rooted in fear?
To my mind, she's one of those irrelevant authors who wrote another "End of ____" books and came up short very early.
signed,
very much not a fan of Hanna Rosin
Hillary Clinton?
The fact that she could be considered for POTUS after doing NOTHING in the Senate, and NOTHING good as Sec. of State, is proof that there is something drastically wrong in America.
The Usurper administration was using Libya as a staging ground and weapons funnel to the anti- Assad Syrians (who became ISIS-- the US created ISIS--- why do you think they have American weapons). The Ambassador (Stevens) knew all about it, that's why he was killed. Yet Hildebeast promoted the "anti-Muslim movie" nonsense, then "hit her head" to avoid testifying--- which was promptly dropped and forgotten by the treasonous Congress, and media.
Also, she alone could have prevented the Usurper from attaning office by challenging Obama's eligibility (as could McCain--- but he was also not eligible). Instead she took a deal to become SOS.
Treasonous Bitch.... Did you forget about Benghazi "law prof"?
The women and Bill are small potatoes, next to killing an ambassador and lying about it.
Pretty much my impression of them:
In some ways, it’s the evolution of the old portrayal of the Clintons as vulgar money-grubbers, Arkansas grifters involved in an assortment of sleazy deals all the way down to trading old underwear for tax breaks. Now, by contrast, they are portrayed as operating on a much grander scale, acquiring their money from universities, charities, and shady international ventures.
The term "hater" is justified to refer to someone who feels a visceral revulsion toward the candidate, but not for someone who coolly assesses the facts and opposes the candidate.
It can be hard to discern the line, and good haters make it harder.
Dirt?
Libya? Honduras? Benghazi?
WhiteWater?
Cattle Futures?
Vincent Foster?
Monica? Paula Jones? Gennifer Flowers?
Kathleen Willey? Juanita Broaddrick?
Elizabeth Ward Gracen?
With so much dirt... no doubt THERE IS MORE!
In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton famously complained about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was out to get her and Bill. But at the time it was really more a small, ragtag band of conspiracy-minded compatriots, albeit very noisy ones. Tyrrell’s Spectator relied largely on a young investigative journalist named David Brock, who in 1997 would recant much of his reporting in an Esquire piece, “Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man,” and a subsequent book, Blinded by the Right. (In one of the many odd twists since that era, Brock now runs a pro-Clinton super PAC.)
Parse those sentences, and you have the reasons why HRC is unfit for the presidency, all of it self-inflicted.
Rosin also fails to mention one of the most important reasons to have a candidate other than HRC: the Presidency is not a family business, a criticism that applies to Jeb Bush, too. Aren't there plenty of worthy presidential candidates in the US who aren't named Clinton or Bush?
"hatred of the other"
What BS. Obama is obviously not loyal to the US or its institutions or its Constitutions. He is a criminal Usurper that no one is allowed to ask questions about. The MSM is proving to be the Useful idiot.
"Mark said...
Hillary's dirt is worth sifting again, but don't you dare bring up anything about Walker.
Its not like some of his office staff from 5 years ago were found guilty or anything .... lets go through that 80's and 90's retread for the 10th time."
And what was Walker found guilty of?
Nothing. So what's your point.
It must be strange to live in a world where it isn't possible to dislike (or even hate) a politician because you simply disagree with their politics. I can't imagine what it must be like to have people with whom you disagree actually only ever be racist, sexist, and/or homophobic. I assume it's pretty easy since you never have to actually come up with valid counterarguments.
"Meade said...
@Mark,
Suppose Walker had used his positions of power in government to successfully procure for himself adulterous affairs, coerced sexual gratification, and even alleged rape victims.
Can you honestly imagine Tonette Walker defending such behavior in the pursuit of her own political power?"
Hillary has worse problems than her covering for Bill.
Obama hatred is contempt for a self-righteous idiot.
Clinton -- at this point -- has not distinguished herself from Obama. So her Presidency can be seen as a seamless continuation of Obama policies. Add in all the Clinton dirt and why would any sane person go for that unless they were purely partisan or they were being tribal and voting for a woman?
Remember that to true-believing members of the "liberal" Hive (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators"), statism = love; therefore resistance to the Hive = hate.
Rooted in a fear of the Other.
Orly. God, I'm tired of the ignorance, bigotry, and snobbishness of what passes for intellectual discourse on the left. Hopeless nutters the lot of them.
There are people out there who have pictures of Hilary and Bill hanging on the wall of their websites, the ideal, loving couple doncha know. No amount of scandal is going to penetrate the bullet proof tinfoil the protects the minds of such people.
Unlike the nastiest Obama hatred—which is typically rooted in a fear of the Other (black, with an Arabic middle name, product of a mixed marriage)
Continuing the bogus meme that opposition to Obama is rooted in racism. 6+ years in I have yet to meet or hear anyone who opposes Obama because of his race. Not one. Ever.
"Hillary has worse problems than her covering for Bill."
Problems with Lib/Dem voters worse than her efforts to cover up her husband's personal war on women? I doubt it.
It's also very lazy to cast an honest disagreement with policy with a dismissive h8ter -- or calling someone stupid.
I don't know if I have Clinton disdain so much as Clinton fatigue.
The same old dirt would suffice if the mainstream media (do we still use that term?) took it seriously. That will not happen. Partly out of habit and bias, and partly from fear of the retaliation that will come if the Clintons regain the Presidency.
Problems with Lib/Dem voters worse than her efforts to cover up her husband's personal war on women? I doubt it.
Most women of my demographic (35 years old, edujamacated, like to believe they are bright and engaged) who would be likely to vote for Hillary largely see Poonhound Bill's war on women as private marital issues which can't be compared to the *real* eeeeevil Republican War on Women.
No, nothing to cite to back that up, but it's my impression.
That's a truly bizarre comparison or juxtaposition that Rosin attempts.
The Clintons, by their actions, have shown themselves to be selfish, conniving, amoral schemers. I fail to see how "hating" them for that is anything like birtherism or the ridiculous belief that Obama is a commie crypto-Muslim.
By and large, most Obama hatred is very similar to most Clinton hatred. He is an arrogant and thoughtless twit who carries water for wealthy Democratic donors, consequences to the economy and nation be damned.
"The term "hater" is justified to refer to someone who feels a visceral revulsion toward the candidate, but not for someone who coolly assesses the facts and opposes the candidate."
So what's the opposite of a "hater" then?
Is it someone that votes based on a visceral fondness for a candidate offering "cruel neutrality" as a flimsy disguise?
I'd say whatever that word is would be justified as well.
In other words, Hillary got a pass for Bill's behavior, because many women don't realize the extent of her vile cooperation in it (the nuts and sluts type stuff) and think it's just an unfortunate marriage that she's soldiered through. Meanwhile she's a stalwart ally against those who *really* want to harm womens' interests, that being Republicans.
@Pants, your points are well-placed and well-taken.
chickelit: I second that. And since when and why in Rosin's mind is disagreeing with Obama policy - even vehemently - rooted in fear?
Anybody these days who uses the phrase "fear of the Other" with a straight face is not doing anything but expressing their own fear of and hostility toward Flyoverians.
Nonapod: I can't imagine what it must be like to have people with whom you disagree actually only ever be racist, sexist, and/or homophobic.
I like to imagine that it's a zen-like state of serenity and certitude, a blissful state of believing you're right about everything, and holier than God to boot. But then I look at the people who actually think like this and a more het-up hysterical pack of insecure control-freaks doesn't exist.
I assume it's pretty easy since you never have to actually come up with valid counterarguments.
On the plus side, you save yourself a lot of time-wasting thinking. Who has time for that these days? Kinda like a "public intellectuals" version of writing scripts to automate procedures, except for the reverse purpose. The administrator writes scripts to take care of mindless, tedious stuff so he can turn his attention to stuff that requires actual thought. The "public intellectual", to the contrary, runs script to automate the production of copy and to avoid thinking.
Ann Althouse said...
The term "hater" is justified to refer to someone who feels a visceral revulsion toward the candidate, but not for someone who coolly assesses the facts and opposes the candidate.
It can be hard to discern the line, and good haters make it harder.
What about someone who develops a visceral revulsion after coolly assessing the facts for several years?
Anyone who is a conservative, small government believer in the Constitution has plenty of good, fact-based reasons to hate what this lying con man has done to this country.
This is a great article.
My fear is that the Hillary oppo industry has inured us to her sins and sleaze. She's everybody's Uncle Gio who seems to be making a huge pile of cash from his garbage hauling business and has strange friends who carry guns, but he's been part of the family forever and sure he can come over for Christmas dinner. Any Republican doing even one-tenth of the shit Hillary has done would be declared unfit for office. But people like Bob Tyrrell Jr. have over time inoculated Hillary from scandal. (Thanks for nothing, you putz.) She is free to make amazing cattle futures investments, benefit from shady land deals, earn monster-sized speaker fees, and retain a personal hitman to bust .22 caps into the head of anyone she doesn't like, and it will never get back to her. She's the new Teflon Don, rich enough to keep her in pants suits forever, and her coronation is inevitable.
Check out the odds here. What could possibly go wrong when someone is favored by that much so early in the game? Walker at 14:1 looks like a buy to me.
Most women of my demographic (35 years old, edujamacated, like to believe they are bright and engaged) who would be likely to vote for Hillary largely see Poonhound Bill's war on women as private marital issues which can't be compared to the *real* eeeeevil Republican War on Women.
I've noticed many of the bright, educated, engaged women older than your demographic have no difficulty compartmentalizing the perceived political gains from the War On Women with their personal interest in dropping their knickers for Bill or any one of the band of lesser Kennedys.
Nobody "otherizes" people like the American Left. Sarah Palin? Otherized. Christians? Otherized. Working-class Americans? Otherized. Military enlistees? Otherized. White men? Otherized.
There is no phenomenon like it on the Right.
I just finished reading the Hanna Rosin article and it occurs to me that the whole thing is meant to be a taunt, begging for the backlash the Clintons have always politically benefited from and thrived on.
Among the Clinton Haters, can a new, professionalized generation of scandalmongers uncover more dirt on the Clintons —AND triggering a backlash? Can you try ? Please? The briar patch once again? It's the Clinton's last best hope.
From all outward views she has been a good wife to him. He chose wisely.
Which is not to say he's been a good husband to her.
Bill and Hillary.
Nicholas and Alexandra.
Bonnie and Clyde.
Julius and Ethel.
Will and Ariel.
Adolf and Eva.
"fear of the Other" What asinine community college horse shit.
Meade, I disagree, The crucial bit is the part where Rosin refers to democratic party operative Kathleen Willey as "one of Bill's alleged mistresses." That's a lie. No one has ever alleged that Willey was his mistress. She said that he sexually assaulted her when she asked him for help getting a job.
SImilarly, Rosin refers to scandals "involving Bill's infidelities with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky." Again, no one has ever said that Paula Jones had an affair with Clinton. She sued him for sexually assaulting her and he settled.
And the giant unmentionable as far as Rosin is concerned -- astonishingly in an article about Clinton scandals -- is Juantia Broderick, democratic party worker who said Clinton raped her.
Willey, Broderick and (I think) Jones have all said that Hillary was involved in trying to intimidate them out of talking. They represent the failures of the Clinton silencing operation.
On the whole it has been very successful. More than 20 other women have at one point or another said that Clinton raped or assaulted them. But the Clinton's got to most of them and got them to change their story.
The whole point of Rosin's article is that when you hear these women's names you think "consensual bimbos" not "rape and assault victims." Hillary's greatest fear is that people realize that Rapist Bill Clinton = Rapist Bill Cosby, and denier and defender Hillary = Camille. Rosin is part of Hillary's silencing and denial posse.
"From all outward views she has been..."
Ha ha! Perfect. Everything anyone says about the Clintons should always begin with similar weasel words:
From all appearances... the Clintons meant well.
From all apparent views... the Clintons respect the dignity of ALL women.
As it seems... the Clintons wanted nothing more than to serve their country...solemnly... faithfully... to the best of their ability...
"Rosin is part of Hillary's silencing and denial posse."
I don't think so. Reread what I Have Misplaced My Pants says in her comments. For those who are right now willing to vote for (Hillary) Clinton, all of that is old news. For them to enthusiastically and effectively recruit new Clinton voters, they need to have a cause: "Hillary is a woman who is being unfairly attacked! We must help her!"
As long as she will keep the spigot open Democrat freeloaders, including the grifters who finance Dem candidates, will vote for her.
I bet if Jeb wins they will never refer to Bush hatred.
It'll be fatigue.
I like to recall the classic Hillary-run operation to remove the long-time White House Travel Office personnel, in order to provide a sinecure for some of her friends.
Rather than just fire the Travel staff, which would look bad in the press, she orchestrated criminal charges against them, which when finally tried resulted in an angry jury that demanded the defendant know they wanted the trial ended well before the case was closed.
The woman should be allowed no power, of any sort. She is a dangerously tyrannical totalitarian and needs to be contained, not exalted, and definitely not elected to anything ever.
Most voters in presidential elections are women, and most women vote Democratic. But the majority of white women have voted Republican in the past four presidential elections. The most obvious battle in 2016 will be for married white women, who have been drifting Republican but may, by virtue of shared life experiences, lean toward Clinton.
One criticism of Clinton that Burning Glass has found to resonate with women is an attack Obama used successfully against her in 2008: that she is “more politically motivated” than the average politician. In general, people tend to view women as political outsiders. They assume that their motives are more pure than those of their male counterparts, and that they are in it not just for themselves but for some greater good. In its focus groups, however, Burning Glass has found strategies that, over time, can take this asset away from Clinton, and convince women that she is more political than the average candidate. One is to suggest inappropriate overlap between her work at the State Department and at the Clinton Foundation. The firm points out that one of Secretary Clinton’s aides was also consulting at the foundation, which might have created a conflict of interest. The aim is not to uncover a scandal, but rather to show that Clinton operates just like the boys: she works the system and stacks it with cronies, making them all rich in the process. It’s an approach that Burning Glass has found can make respondents “significantly less likely to support” Clinton in 2016.
Between “plutocrat” and “too political,” a useful caricature of Clinton emerges. She’s not the hardworking secretary of state, dutiful, experienced, and breaking glass ceilings. She’s a jet-setter, hobnobbing all over the world, making herself and her friends rich, and using her career as a public servant to build her personal brand.
Do not forget Tyson Foods and the manila envelopes stuffed full of 100-dollar bills.
“Conservatives will recycle old scandals, and it will hurt them, just like it did in the ’90s,” says Christopher Ruddy, who is rueful about the excesses of his reporting at the time. “People like me constantly firing at her made a lot of other people rally to her support.”
There's this...though most Republicans would likely find this Hillary's most appealing aspect, (as probably do many commenters here).
What you take as "weasel" words was just me being polite in a Southern kind of way and lost no doubt in the translation to north of the Mason-Dixon Line. To be unpleasantly direct in the South could get you killed in the past and we have taken that into account in our patterns of speech. Northern mid westerners we are not.
I can't say I "hate" Hillary or Obama so much as have profound dislike and disgust with them. For Obama, it has to do with his incompetence, arrogance and related willingness to cut corners but I don't think he's a bad human being--just a bad president. Hillary though is profoundly corrupt, with no core, just shameless ambition with no moral compass. She and her husband are dangerous people.
I get those who don't like the idea of Hillary getting away with something--somehow so-called feminists rally around her for no apparent reason--she's done nothing for women as a whole, and helped destroy many individually if they got in her or Bill's way. They get credit from the dumbest on the Left (though in fairness, not all the Left. Many support the Clintons the same way as Righties supported Romney) despite their crony capitalist policies, and other idiots actually think the boom of the '90s was thanks to the Clintons.
But the real problem with the Clintons is that they're bad, nasty people who should not be in power.
But it's all hate! Any anyone who dislikes the Clintons is a hater and you don't have to engage haters.
I recommend doing a word search on "Matthew Continetti" in Rosin's article and reading from there.
Sternhammer said 'The crucial bit is the part where Rosin refers to democratic party operative Kathleen Willey as "one of Bill's alleged mistresses." That's a lie. No one has ever alleged that Willey was his mistress. She said that he sexually assaulted her when she asked him for help getting a job...[and] no one has ever said that Paula Jones had an affair with Clinton. She sued him for sexually assaulting her and he settled.'
Thus is history rewritten. Rosin's work is done. This is how people have come to think that Lee Harvey Oswald was a right winger, that Lincoln was a Democrat, that Sarah Palin saw Russia from her house, and that George Bush -- not Ted Kennedy and a nearly unanimous Democratic Senate vote -- passed the "No Child Left Behind" law.
All battlespace prep, of course.
But the "fear of the Other" bit reflects the usual Prog projection.
Prof., let me state here. Believe me later.
GOP will crash-and-burn, just like H. Rosnin says in this article.
HRC is the 45th POTUS.
How can this happen?
1. GOP does not respect women in leadership or as independent bread winners.
2. GOP hates science, especially by American scientists.
3. GOP wants to deport all legal immigrants who are actually contribute to the economy. GOP has total and complete dislike of immigrants. (GOP of course do not realize: They themselves are immigrants. The only natives are American Indians, who very soon might lodge a million people march requesting all non-native Americans to leave the country asap.)
My view is that there is NO WAY. I cannot IMAGINE under any circumstance that HRC will not be the next POTUS.
I am a consultant; I have successful track record. I use fast computers to run polling.
Everything I know says the same thing over and over again: GOP CANNOT DEFEAT HRC under any circumstances.
GOP: You are wasting your money, energy, and time. HRC will have your candidate for breakfast.
Bush derangement syndrome was raw hatred for no good reason, but with respect to Barack Hussein Obama, to the extent that there's "fear of the Other," it's due to the fact that so little he does makes common sense or suggests that he has the best interests of the United States at heart.
Look, if you are Bill Clinton, it is never rape-rape. You don't get fired for having sex with 20 year old interns in your office. You are popular even though you are unmistakably a liar. You expect people to cover for you, and they do. You get credit for prosperity during your term when you helped to create a damaging economic bubble. You get a pass for being out to lunch while the threat of terrorism grew. You are not tarnished by your sleazy associates. Your avarice is charming.
What you should be credited for is having the audacity and political skill to seek and win the Presidency when all the supposed front runners in your party were bailing out because they thought G.H.W. Bush was unbeatable. You had the balls to just waltz in and take it. Hillary could have scuttled that effort with a few quick phone calls. You know that and so does she. You will repay that immense favor. Who says you are not loyal to your wife?
Big Mike said...
Bush derangement syndrome was raw hatred for no good reason, but with respect to Barack Hussein Obama, to the extent that there's "fear of the Other," it's due to the fact that so little he does makes common sense or suggests that he has the best interests of the United States at heart.
Yet Gallup has him at 50% approval rating today. He's the comeback kid. The golf and the selfies are charming the populace. Go figure.
I'm afraid America's Politico is exactly right. Republicans (along with Robert Cook) are determined to shoot themselves in the foot.
Get Ready For Hillary. It's inevitable. Might as well try to relax and enjoy it.
Anyone who claims that dislike of Obama is rooted in his "otherness" gets filed under "ignorant asshole" in my mental filing cabinet.
The problem with Obama isn't that he's "other", it is that he's all-too-typical. He's a differently-colored Ted Kennedy.
I am going to cede that being Bill's wife rates her some points as a candidate for the sake of an argument. Beyond that.. Rose Law Firm (_____), senator from NY (_______), SOS 2009-2013 (_______). We know what happens when you get a relative unknown but obviously under qualified person to fill an EEO slot. Are we going that route again?
No! In spite of all the reasons for her not to be president, the media and partisans are all in because democrat. Its no more complicated than that.
It is not a given that she will run.
It is Bill that is the daredevil in the family; Hillary! is risk averse, and she cannot be sure that someone out there somewhere has incontrovertible proof of one or more of her past misdeeds that may cause her to lose everything she has worked so hard for.
Ann Althouse shows hate towards haters. Oh, the irony.
Meade - what did AP say that was factually incorrect? I think if the GOP doesn't jettison the right-wing fundies, it will continue to be irrelevant at the national level. Most young people these days are pro-science and anti-creationism.
The evidence is that he is in the process of a "Jihad" against the USA and a violation of Article-III, Section-3 of our Constitution.
"what did AP say that was factually incorrect?"
Nothing. We are doomed.
They are stuck on stupid like we all hate dark skinned peoplelike the players in the NBA and the NFL.
In truth Obama is hated only because he is a Marxist that has persistently done all he can get away with to destroy the USA's Military, its Alliances, its Dollar, its electrical energy generation system, the integrity of the news media, and the rule of law. And then he made the USA into Israel's enemy to please Iran.
Other than that he has a great smile and true leader's personality.
howe about just disliking both because they lie brazenly, and we don't like their policies
The electorate is dirt-tired. Dirt-exhausted. What's the term?
We have grown to expect politicians to be dirty jerks. This is not new; the founding fathers wrote about it. Mark Twain wrote about it.
Between about 1940 and 2000, though, we grew to think that politicians could actually be nice folks who aimed for the betterment of society.
Now we've learned otherwise, and we're dirt-tired. We expect no better, so we elect no better.
AA: "could just dish up the old dirt, which never seems to have been taken seriously enough"
Dirt doesn't stick to some people. Look at all the negative stuff about President John F. Kennedy. Yet Gallup said on December 3, 2013, that John F. Kennedy was the "highest rated president of the past 60 years."
Dirt didn't stick to Ronald Reagan. And it didn't stick to Bill Clinton.
It was easy to like Kennedy, Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Hillary is not nearly as likable. She can be beaten. Barack Obama proved it.
- DEC (Jungle Trader)
The problem with a republican presidential candidate is the inability to get the votes in the entire country.
Will any republican candidate get more states than Romney, ever again?
Althouse, I am sorry I called you Walker's spokesman and said you were suckng his cock.
tits.
"1. GOP does not respect women in leadership or as independent bread winners.
2. GOP hates science, especially by American scientists.
3. GOP wants to deport all legal immigrants who are actually contribute to the economy. GOP has total and complete dislike of immigrants. (GOP of course do not realize: They themselves are immigrants. The only natives are American Indians, who very soon might lodge a million people march requesting all non-native Americans to leave the country asap.)"
Three big lies.
It's depressing that anyone's moral compass would be so utterly fucked up that they would hire you for a consulting gig.
I am not a fan of Hil's either.
Why does corporate america pay her for speeches?
Meade, actually, there is a way out of the mess for GOP. Here are the things to do.
1. Get rid of (i.e., ignore) Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Christie, Jindal, etc. Beck's "Loser" is their theme song. Hillary can breathe and these guys will fall down like a ton of bricks.
2. Make sure that a VP nominee is a smart, intelligent, accomplished - independently - woman. That is, NOT SARAH PALIN. Think of the GOP Senator from NH or the GOP Governor from NM.
3. Target support from all minorities, esp. immigrants.
4. Fall in love with science. I mean, really in love.
5. Have a optimistic vision. Be risky. Let the GOP ticket have regular, weekly press conferences. Work the press. Not be against it. HRC will be against press. So, go with the press. Be open. Be concerned about American - all Americans. Show genuine respect for all Americans.
Etc. Etc.
But, the most critical is: #2 above.
Oh. Parody. Ya got me. ;-)
"what did AP say that was factually incorrect?"
Nothing. We are doomed.
Hillary was the "inevitable front runner" in 2008, too. Remember that? Just like the NYT said that Guiliani was the Republican front runner?
Left out of Rosin's piece, because she was dealing with the right wing, is that the Left loathes Hillary, too. In 2008, the Left got together and found a dark horse candidate who had very little political experience, and threw their weight behind him. Obama then ran a campaign built on a strategy of using the Democratic Party's rules of assigning delegates to defeat HRC. If the Democratic Party assigned delegates like the Republicans do (& the D's used to), HRC would have been the candidate in 2008. The Democrats now assign delegates in such a way as to favor "strong shows out of the gate" insurgent candidates. It crushed HRC once, and can do so again.
Meade said:
"Rosin is part of Hillary's silencing and denial posse."
I don't think so.
Do you have some other explanation for why Rosin refers to Willey and Jones as though they had consensual relations with Clinton? Do you think that was a coincidence?
As far as many women thinking that Bill's scandals are old news, that's mostly true. But they think the scandal was lying and cheating. They never read about the raping and assaulting. That's not old news, that was buried, and they are trying hard to keep it buried.
Just like Clinton, Cosby got away with it for years. Until he didn't. What it would require is a Hannibal Buress type who can go against type and denounce her own. You or I couldn't. I don't think your wife could either. No one would listen.
But Rosin could do it, if she wasn't a corrupt hack. Michelle Goldberg or Jessica Valenti or Melissa McEwan could do it, if only any of them actually cared about rape as opposed to stoking tribal hatred of the other.
I grant you, 99 out of 100 leftist journalists wouldn't do it. But it only takes one who actually believes the ideology.
People will choose an alternate faith (e.g. variable value of human life) and fairytale (e.g. spontaneous conception) because it is accompanied by a pro-choice or selective religion, including premeditated murder of an unwanted, innocent human life, when it prevents them from following their profits of wealth, pleasure, and leisure.
People will corrupt science with principles of uniformity and independence when it increases their profits and as leverage to marginalize their competing interests. They will conflate their philosophy and unacknowledged faith with science in order to comfort their egos.
People will consume the opiates (e.g. dissociation of risk, promises of instant or immediate gratification) offered by their mortal gods when they are accompanied by promises of a material return.
People will vote for selective exclusion, rather than principled tolerance, because their mortal gods demand and impose it of anyone who seeks their favors. And besides, they have what they want now. So much for the principled stand for "equality".
They will invite illegal aliens to fulfill the secular policy of Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax. The only natives of America are the people who were citizens at the time of America's founding, or natural or naturalized citizens thereafter. They will ignore the cause which motivate millions of people annually to emigrate from second and third-world nations.
So, an alternative faith posing as science; a pro-choice religion posing as a moral philosophy; ignore social, economic, and environmental disruption in other places; and human sacrifice to their mortal gods in exchange for promises to fondle their ego, pad their wallet, and fill their stomach. Extraordinary progress which is characteristically regressive.
I don't see Hillary being a strong nominee.
I think that view is shared by many within her party.
But fear will keep them quiet likely until it's too late.
You don't have to be strong if you're inevitable.
Perhaps.
But if some media outlet picks up on something on a slow newsday, it could be like Fibber McGee's closet.
Look what happened to Brian Williams.
Untouchable - until he wasn't.
NBC and Williams still do not know what hit them.
If you were almost 70 and a grandmother, would you risk it?
Don't forget: She killed Vince Foster.
And she detonated the secret explosives in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
And she's shorting Monsanto stock.
Hillary's real name is Hagbard Celine.
It's the fnords.
There's a Clinton version of Godwin's law: every discussion the Clintons has materially devolved when Kathleen Willey's name is raised, and the person who raises her name to assail the Clintons loses their argument.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-ICREPORT-LEWINSKY/pdf/GPO-ICREPORT-LEWINSKY-12.pdf
All Hillary needs to do is be named as a Pragmatist and Althouse will come running.
As far as AM and his points: complete and utter bullshit. McCain and Romney were pathetic candidates. They Wanted To Lose! If the R's pick Bush they will lose. If they pick Walker or someone like him, they will win. The Lefty press has shown who they are afraid of and who they are not.
@Ann,
It's not worth my energy to hate Hillary. I simply hold her in utter contempt. Her primary accomplishments are taking Bill's used underwear donations off their taxes, tamping down bimbo eruptions and being totally unaware and uninvolved in every Clinton scandal, because she's not so much into the details. LOL!
I don't like talking about Hillary because it's never clear if we are talking about the woman or the myth..
"The term 'hater' is justified to refer to someone who feels a visceral revulsion toward the candidate, but not for someone who coolly assesses the facts and opposes the candidate."
Well, that may be what lying hacks like Hanna Rosin say, but the reality is that garbage like her throw the term around with abandon.
...and as for hate, what's wrong with having a visceral hatred for leftism and leftists? Nothing, of course: Hatred of totalitarian ideologies is entirely laudable.
I'm not sure that more dirt is necessary, but it sure sounds like there won't be a lack of new dirt to find.
Unlike the nastiest Obama hatred — which is typically rooted in a fear of the Other (black, with an Arabic middle name, product of a mixed marriage) — Clinton disdain had a strange kind of intimacy.
Factually speaking, Obama wasn't the "product of a marriage" -- he was the product of a coupling. Unless BHO was born premature, his mother was well along when that bigamous and ill-fated marriage took place.
But I'm sure Rosin was among the denizens who cheered the "courage" of that brave young woman, Stanley Ann Dunham.
If Hillary runs and wins, she'll end up being the second oldest President after Ronald Reagan. Her likely opponent in the general election will be in his or her 50s (Unless it's Jeb Bush, who will be 63).
More power to her if she runs and wins. But she better be ready for the tsunami of crap she's going to get for her age. I was only a teenager during the Reagan years, but I still remember doddering old man mockery directed at him. (Which is why Phil Hartman's "President Reagan Mastermind" skit was so funny.)
Note to self - Never jump into the middle of a Clinton discussion on Althouse when there is blood in the water. Read all the comments and count all the sharks circling the prey before paddling into the middle of it.
"Bush derangement syndrome was raw hatred for no good reason, but with respect to Barack Hussein Obama, to the extent that there's 'fear of the Other,' it's due to the fact that so little he does makes common sense or suggests that he has the best interests of the United States at heart."
Hmmm...and yet, style and presentation aside, how is Obama so different from Bush?
"Bush Derangement Syndrome," so-called, was well-founded, as is scorn for Obama, (though not scorn deriving from delusions such as this: "In truth Obama is hated only because he is a Marxist....")
"Hillary's real name is Hagbard Celine."
"It's the fnords.
I doubt most commenters here have read Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson's masterful opus, Scott.
new bumper sticker:
"expect no better, elect no better"
Robert Cook said...
"Bush Derangement Syndrome," so-called, was well-founded...
2/18/15, 8:38 AM
Not sure if that is "just too funny", satire, un-hinged, or some combination of all of the above.
Most young people these days are pro-science and anti-creationism.
Most conservatives are.
It is not a significant leap from laughably insane conspiracy theorist to Bush Derangement Syndrome apologist.
"Not sure if that is 'just too funny,' satire, un-hinged, or some combination of all of the above."
Neither. No brag, just fact, as the man said.
That word does not mean what you think it does. The word you meant to use is "opinion". You are welcome...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा