July 30, 2015

"Hillary has accomplished nothing substantial in her life. She’s been pushed along, coasting on her husband’s coattails..."

"... and every job she’s been given fizzled out into time-serving or overt disaster.  Hillary constantly strikes attitudes and claims she’s 'passionate' about this or that, but there’s never any sustained follow-through.  She’s just a classic, corporate exec or bureaucrat type who would prefer to be at her desk behind closed doors, imposing her power schemes on the proletariat.  She has no discernible political skills of any kind, which is why she needs a big, shifting army of consultants, advisors, and toadies to whisper in her ear and write her policy statements.  There’s this ridiculous new theme in the media about people needing to learn who the 'real' Hillary Clinton is.  What? Everything they’re saying about what a wonderful person Hillary is in private tells us that she’s not competent or credible as a public figure! A politician, particularly a president, must have a distinct skill or expertise in communicating with the masses... If you don’t have an effective public persona, if you’re not a good speaker, if you don’t like to press the flesh, if you’re not nimble enough to deal with anything that comes along, then you are not a natural politician!  And you sure aren’t going to learn it in your late 60s!  Get off the stage, and let someone else truly electable on!"

Said Camille Paglia.

62 comments:

Big Mike said...

Camille Paglia believes that when the US elects its first woman President, it ought to be someone way better at politics than Hillary.

Anonymous said...

As a Democrat, it must be devastating to lose the elderly lesbian vote.

paminwi said...

Good golly, what has happened to Camile?

Sebastian said...

"If you don’t have an effective public persona, if you’re not a good speaker, if you don’t like to press the flesh, if you’re not nimble enough to deal with anything that comes along, then you are not a natural politician!"

Sorry, Camille, but O proved you don't have to be a "natural politician" to become Pres. Prog credentials + right identity will do. Hillary! is banking on it, though she has to manufacture the cred. She does have a special talent for phoniness, which is is more useful in her case.

Gahrie said...

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Camille will end up voting for her.

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real American said...

having no accomplishments got the last guy elected

commoncents said...

4th Planned Parenthood Video Released - VP agrees fetus may come out intact

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/07/4th-planned-parenthood-video-released.html

Hagar said...

I will say it again: Hillary! has been Secretary-Treasurer and Chief Legal Counsel for Clinton Inc. for 40 years, and much has been accomplished in the way of garnering wealth and power.

And 47% will vote for her, come Hell or high water; her problem is getting those other 3.01%, but that may not be all that difficult, since this is shaping up to be the presidential election with the lowest turnout ever.

pm317 said...

Haha, I read this last night. Paglia is repeating the same thing she has said in a number of the interviews. She sounds crazy when she goes after Hillary like that and I don't even care for Hillary anymore.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

She’s been pushed along, coasting on her husband’s coattails...

If you are on coattails, you are being pulled, not pushed, and you are certainly not coasting. What a hot mixed mess of a metaphor.

pm317 said...

Paglia misses the point totally. To run and become president, the primary requirement is that you want it more than anything else. Hillary wants it. There are no other women (well, there is Fiorina at the bottom of the GoP food chain) right now, who seem to want it. So Paglia can rant and rave all she wants about how Hillary got to this point in her life, but Hillary ran once and she is running again and if she wins, she will be president.

David Begley said...

Hillary is rich. She and her husband cooked up the perfect criminal scheme and got away with it.

That's a big deal.

Michael K said...

Another Clinton book is out and we know what it says. She is the most obvious example of the modern Cruella DeVille we have ever seen close to the White House. Even Michelle has to work to catch up.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary is mad at a certain man and she wants everybody to pay for his serial crimes.her motto is Kill Them All.

J. Farmer said...

Paglia has been making this point about Clinton for close to 20 years now. And I happen to agree wholeheartedly. Clinton's entire career seems to be a tireless effort to pad a CV for the job of president. Her sole achievement at State seems to have been loudly agitating for a war in Libya that's been an unmitigated disaster. If the choice comes down to Clinton and a hawkish Republican, I am going third party.

kcom said...

"I am going third party."

Or go grocery shopping. At least that would accomplish something useful.

AReasonableMan said...

From Woodward's book, a much quoted quote - "without Hillary, (Bill) Clinton would have wound up as merely the most popular professor at the University of Arkansas"

Seems the story changes with the times. Why would that be I wonder.

walter said...

All this makes me miss Phil Hartman.

Static Ping said...

Paglia is wrong. Hillary has accomplishments. They mainly involve graft.

Anonymous said...

From Woodward's book, a much quoted quote - "without Hillary, (Bill) Clinton would have wound up as merely the most popular professor at the University of Arkansas"

Seems the story changes with the times. Why would that be I wonder.


How is that a change of the story? How is something Woodward wrote a change of Ms. Paglia's position?

I fart out smarter stuff than you write. And there are smarter people than me here.
As much as I hate to admit it.

Bay Area Guy said...

I enjoy Camile's rants. She offers refreshing colorful insights from the left - which is rare.

Hillary must and will be defeated. I will gladly vote for Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, even George Pataki, whoever wins the GOP primary, RINOs, Bible Thumpers, Libertarians, Bush Legacy, whoever. It is does not matter. The only thing that does matter preventing that woman from obtaining power.

hawkeyedjb said...

Back in the oughts, I went to a campaign event where John Edwards was speaking. He was his usual empty self, full of sound and slogans, signifying nothing. After his talk, he took questions. The fellow standing next to me raised his hand, then asked "Senator, what are your accomplishments in government?" Edwards got that deer-in-headlights look, then blabbered incoherently about suing people or some such. The questioner just leaned back against the wall and smiled. I figured he was a plant from another candidate, but he asked the perfect question. Hillary would have to lie and bullshit pretty hard to answer the same question.

hawkeyedjb said...

Remember when people were expected to actually accomplish something in the world before they became president of the United States? Franklin Roosevelt held positions of responsibility at various levels. Dwight Eisenhower saved the world (or at least Europe). Ronald Reagan was the successful governor of the largest state. GHW Bush succeeded at private business, diplomacy and spycraft.

And now what do we have? Hillary's best moments were the ones where she did nothing. Every time she's been involved in something significant, she's fucked it up.

And she is considered a serious candidate for president? The advantage of a parliamentary system is that people like Hillary are relegated to the back bench from a useless riding, until someone good comes along to replace her.

Anonymous said...

Paglia's missing the point of modern campaigns, at least on the Dem side of the aisle. All a Dem candidate needs to do is put together a narrative they think will sell to enough of the uninformed middle. It doesn't matter how many lies or embellishments make up the narrative, the press generally won't do any digging on its own initiative, and if a Hillary opponent tries to shoot holes in it, that's when Hillary or the press will use phrases like "vast right wing conspiracy", "Koch Brothers", "Bush", "war on women" or similar to discredit the attacker.

Hillary's biggest danger is that she doesn't seem to be enough in tune with her base, which leaves an opening for someone who checks more ideological boxes and is more in tune with the base to outwork her, just as it happened in 2008. Sanders' biggest drawback in this campaign is that he's both white and male, a combination that I'm not sure is able to win the Democratic nomination given its current coalitions.

Katrina said...

Paglia hasn't liked Hill for a very long time now. I found Paglia's comments about "snark atheism" and Jon Stewart and Letterman to be more interesting. When asked about atheists who have contempt for all believers, she said:

"I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, "Glittering Images", that "Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination." It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents-- they're still sneering at dad in some way....

I’m speaking here as an atheist. I don’t believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system. They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny....


But this sneering thing! I despise snark. Snark is a disease that started with David Letterman and jumped to Jon Stewart and has proliferated since. I think it's horrible for young people! And this kind of snark atheism–let's just invent that term right now–is stupid, and people who act like that are stupid...."

Skeptical Voter said...

I read the lady's piece--and think "You Go Girl!"

sunsong said...

Time for some of the party faithful to coax Joe Biden into the race...

Eric Landgraf said...

I fondly hope that Hillary leads the Democratic party into an electoral defeat so devastating that New Jersey go Libertarian for 75 years.

Levi Starks said...

Strangely I'm moved to pass on the opportunity to hillary bash.
Except to say that when comparing women of a certain age, Ann Althouse is 10 times the woman Hilary is. But I won't vote for either as president.

tim in vermont said...

So ARM figures that the Lady Macbeth angle is what qualifies Hillary to be president.

Well, any rationalization in a storm, I guess. I suppose he also thinks that Michael Jordan's agent could win NBA titles too.

I notice that he has no comment regarding the thousands of drowned refugees in the Mediterranean due to Hillary's war.

james conrad said...

Loves Paglia's stuff, a very gifted writer who cuts to the chase in an entertaining & thoughtful way. A national treasure.

ganderson said...

I'd vote for George Takei before Hillary.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Obama was more or less a blank slate upon which the media could write whatever narrative they wanted. Clinton has a public history, most of which cannot be erased. I don't think Clinton can win just on identity like Obama did, especially following right after Obama.

Paglia doesn't think she will even be the nominee, much less President, and I think that's plausible. She thinks Clinton will "manufacture a health crisis" etc. She may not have to manufacture it, going by the way she looks and gets around. I can't think of another candidate, or potential candidate (Biden, Warren, etc.), on either side who looks as unhealthy as Hillary.

pm317 said...

Accomplishments, what accomplishments?

They are so overrated --
see: "Obama has accomplished nothing substantial in his life (even his wife said so). He’s been pushed along, coasting on (choom and other things)..."

Hagar said...

And neither Clinton has yet spent a night in jail. That is also an accomplishment!

Peter said...

"There has been a history of rampant corruption in the public sector unions, coming from their cozy quid pro quo relationships with politicians. Liberals need to wake up about this!"

And a few have, just not here in Wisconsin. How many state-level elections do Wisconsin Democrats have to lose before they break their bonds of fealty to the public sector unions? Do they ever analyze why they keep losing, or not realize that most voters don't and won't perceive their interests to align with those of these unions?

robother said...

2016 will be Much Ado About Nothing, specifically (as in the bawdy Shakespearian pun) the nothing between Hillary's legs. Her lack of other credentials will be trumped by her undeniable lack of penis and balls. 2016 will be every American's chance to vote for the First Woman President, as 2008 was the year of the First Black President. Identity politics, pure and simple.

Zeb Quinn said...

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Camille will end up voting for her

Althouse likewise.

Kansas City said...

Great comment above by Hawkeyedjd regarding Edwards being asked "what are you accomplishments in government?"

Dying for a journalist honest and smart enough to ask Hillary.

I don't think she gets the nomination, but is she does, Republican opponent should be ready to ask, "You've been in politics for 40 years. During those years, you've made yourself very rich and very famous. During those same 40 years, what are your three biggest accomplishments for the American people?"

Check please.

Kansas City said...

Also, Paglia is great when she provides honest assessments of politicians. I have never seen a better description of Hillary.

Matthew Sablan said...

She has succeeded in a major data security failure.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Time for some of the party faithful to coax Joe Biden into the race.."

First laugh-out-loud moment of the day. Thank you.

AJ Lynch said...

Dems appeal to voters who have resentment over life's unfairness. Those voters tend to resent white men especially if they have money. They resent that society does not YET over-compensate individuals from special interest groups like gays and blacks and illegals and minority high school dropouts and ex-convicts.

Hence they support candidates who will promise to fix their lives and eradicate all history of the mistakes they have made in life. And they vote for inexperienced, uninformed, kinda lazy candidates like Obama and will support non-achivers like Hillary and others like her who have apparently climbed the rigged economic ladder in this country in spite of its alleged unfairness.

The sad part is many intelligent people buy into this BS and many of them work in our universities and edcuational systems.

mikee said...

Hillary! is no Maggie Thatcher.

Nor is she an Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, or Angela Merkel.

Right now she is trying hard just to be someone more impressive than a geriatric TV Golden Girl, someone more than the well-known co-enabler, abused spouse of her serial-adulterer politician husband.

What is amazing is that she will win, because she is owned by the correct interest groups who can run a successful election campaign.

I only hope she doesn't go all Eleanor Iselin on the world 10 minutes after the Inauguration. Maybe she won't because "Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

If we all just keep saying that, I'm sure everything will work out just fine.

gerry said...

Paglia's rant in Salon also included this:

When I was in college–from 1964 to 1968–I saw what real leftists look like, because a lot of people at my college, which was the State University of New York at Binghamton, were radicalized Jews from downstate. They were very avant-garde, doing experimental theater and modern dance, and they knew all about abstract expressionism. Their parents were often Holocaust survivors, so they had a keen sense of history. And they spoke in a very direct and open working-class style. That’s why, in the 1990s, I was saying that the academic leftists were such frauds–sitting around applying Foucault to texts and thinking that was leftism! No it wasn’t! It was a snippy, prim, smug bourgeois armchair leftism. Real ’60s radicals rarely went to grad school and never became big-wheel humanities professors, with their fat salaries and perks. The proof of the vacuity of academic leftism for the past forty years is the complete silence of leftist professors about the rise of the corporate structure of the contemporary university–their total failure to denounce the gross expansion of the administrator class and the obscene rise in tuition costs. The leading academic leftists are such frauds–they’ve played the system and are retiring as millionaires! [Emphasis added]

I like the part "The leading academic leftists are such frauds–they’ve played the system and are retiring as millionaires!" the best.

Mark said...

the primary requirement is that you want it more than anything else. Hillary wants it

I question that. What Hillary wants is validation. Fully aware of her manifold incompetencies, she wants to be told she's good enough, smart enough, and people like her.

As for the job itself -- not only becoming president, but doing president -- not so much.

Hagar said...

What Hillary! wants is a large stone wall and a moat around her treasury vault.

richard mcenroe said...

We're going to HAVE to nominate Trump so Ann can blame us for her "having to" vote for Hillary.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Of course, the same was true of Obama.

walter said...

Similarly, being a part of the hysterical..I mean historical moment will be hard to resist for some...because..vagina.

narciso said...

More like Christina Kirchner or Julia Gillard, the one because of her family tie,

Bay Area Guy said...

@Gerry - citing Pagilia:

"The proof of the vacuity of academic leftism for the past forty years is the complete silence of leftist professors about the rise of the corporate structure of the contemporary university–their total failure to denounce the gross expansion of the administrator class and the obscene rise in tuition costs. The leading academic leftists are such frauds–they’ve played the system and are retiring as millionaires!"

BEST.QUOTE.EVER.

cf said...

It is exciting for me to see Camille Paglia's views ringing out this season, Hallelujah.

You Democrats, can you get outside the Bubble and try to see things as they are? Do you not see that somehow, you are surrounded in relics, old ideas, rancid words? I mean, Joe Biden? you are actually considering Joe Biden?

The BigBlueGovernment Dead-IdeasDemocrats Malaise sure owns the state of Oregon, putting in men because they are democrat -- vigor don't matter.

Where are the young statesmen on your side ready to deliver? Where are your young accomplished Governors and Senators, like Paul Ryan and Scott Walker? Where are your Marcos Rubio? And where are your women?

Camille Paglia is calling y'all out, great for her.

I am looking for a Carly Fiorina bumper sticker myself, now There is a Candidate for President, woman or otherwise.

Godspeed, America


Ambrose said...

She mixing her metaphors. Has Hillary been pushed along or pulled along by her husband's coattails?

Steven Davis said...

She did get a note from her doctor stating that she could be the President!

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Cons who cheer on the idea that the problem with libs is that they support corporate power are interesting.

Rs do this even more, so why support them?

walter said...

You may focus on the word "corporate", others focus on what follows:

"..their total failure to denounce the gross expansion of the administrator class and the obscene rise in tuition costs. The leading academic leftists are such frauds–they’ve played the system and are retiring as millionaires!"

walter said...

Bernie just wants to make it "free"....

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Walter,

I'm equally amused by the con reaction to the part you pulled out.

If libs have become selfish folks working to maximize themselves, no matter the cost to anyone else, then they're good Rand disciples. What more can a con ask for?

walter said...

"selfish folks working to maximize themselves, no matter the cost to anyone else"
Not surprisingly that's your take.
But within your warped interpretation/definition, at least consistent..not blatantly hypocritical as in Paglia's example...

Marc Snyder said...

A lot of working class resentment here between Camile Paglia and HRC.