| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why Is Hillary Clinton Even Running? |
| 2015-04-13 |
| h/t Instapundit That is not as stupid a question as it first sounds. Ostensibly we know her four ready answers. I. Who Else? II. Her Turn III. First Woman IV. Money, Money, Money... ...Otherwise, why is Mrs. Clinton running at all? She has no agenda. She is not a former vice president like Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, George H.W. Bush, or Al Gore who ostensibly promises to continue and amplify, for another four to eight years, the party visions of a popular and successful president. Obama is neither successful nor especially popular. The Democratic Party is calcified. We still do not know to what degree the party supports the Obama deal with Iran, the Cuba outreach, or the executive-order mass amnesties. Hillary will not yell out at stadium crowds, "If you liked the last eight years, I promise eight more years just like them!" Will she amplify or ignore her own Obama administration tenure as secretary of State? ...The point is that Mrs. Clinton has neither a past record that she is proud to run on nor support for an Obama administration tenure that she will promise to continue. She is not a good speaker and has a disturbing habit of switching accents [7] in amateurish attempts to mimic regional or racial authenticity. She accentuates her points by screaming in shrill outbursts, and dismisses serious questions by chortling for far too long. She is deaf to human cordiality, has a bad temper, and treats subordinates with haughty disdain. In that sense she is more authentic than her equally callous and narcissistic, but charismatic husband. ...What is then left? Actually one motif. Hillary is both a victim and trailblazer. Her disastrous record of unethical and illegal activities -- shaking down foreigners for donations to her foundation while secretary of State, creating her exclusive server for a private email account, destroying all her emails after admitting that she was judge and jury of what were and were not government records -- is instead proof of right-wing McCarthyism. Those who attack her are afraid of a woman president and what she represents -- an inclusive social agenda that protects gays, women, and minorities from right-wing hooliganism and religious bigotry, fire-and-brimstone anti-abortionists who want entrance into our bedrooms and to erect glass ceilings to thwart feminists, reincarnations of Bull Connors and Lester Maddoxes who would put blacks back in chains, nativists and restrictionists who hide their racism by faux calls for border enforcement, and greedy speculators and stock manipulators who care little for the 99%. That is Hillary Clinton's past, present, and future. There is nothing more [8]. No record -- ever -- of success, no innate charm, eloquence, brilliance, or campaign savviness. And given her iconic female candidacy, her turn, her money -- and the lack of an alternative -- Hillary Clinton needs no agenda, whether a past one to defend or a future one to rally to. The agenda is simply that Americans are not doing well because of all sorts of illiberal enemies who conspire to thwart them due to their class, race, and gender -- and the nation's first woman president will make it all nice. Don't laugh. It may well be a winning formula in the present-day United States. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #7 Tactically, it's a no-brainer. She could (A) win, and power is it's own excuse, or (B) not win, in which case she and Bill get to shake down every lib with any money in their pocket. (How much does Soros have to chip in?) |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2015-04-13 20:52 |
| #6 ACK!! BRAIN BLEACH! STAT! As for why she's running? Because Obama hasn't destroyed America completely and she wants to finish the job. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2015-04-13 19:52 |
| #5 Someone pass me a Brillo pad, I need to scrub that image out of my brain... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2015-04-13 14:18 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: Hupineger Glomomp52169 2015-04-13 13:26 |
| #3 Watch Elizabeth Warren. The agenda requires the nominee have female parts, and she's the next-most prominent. Plus, she has already had her dirty laundry aired, so can dismiss the Fauxchahontas stuff as 'old news.' |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2015-04-13 10:52 |
| #2 Once again, Hillary is a distraction. The Dems (almost) never nominate the heir apparent (only modern exception was Gore). It will be an unknown candidate -- 'someone else.' |
| Posted by: Iblis 2015-04-13 10:32 |
| #1 I have seen pictures of her legs.... She is not running any where or to anything. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2015-04-13 06:39 |