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.
#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.'
#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.'
#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 ||
04/13/2015 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
[PJMedia] A battle over American foreign policy is looming such as this country has not seen since the penultimate days of the Vietnam War nearly half a century ago. I can't remember the last time that two distinguished former Secretaries of State co-signed an article denouncing a presidential initiative in terms as harsh as George Shultz and Henry Kissinger applied to Obama's proposed Iran deal. Kissinger was the great conciliator, the architect of the opening to China and the advocate of detente with Russia. Obama's own party is split on the issue, and usually supportive commentators in the press view the outcome of the Lausanne talks with skepticism, if not out right hostility.
What explains the great gulf fixed between Obama's perceptions and those of a large part of the liberal establishment, not to mention the Republicans?
h/t Gates of Vienna
[FrontPageMagazine] Before Global Warming posters hung on the dingy walls of American classrooms, the atomic bomb was the original Great Bogeyman of the left. Nothing quite so demonstrated the madness of our war machine as our willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction to stop Communism in its tracks.
The self-righteous antics over nuclear weapons in literature, art, film, at protests and in papers are far too numerous to document. But you can still spot the occasional clunker with "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day" or "You can't hug a child with nuclear arms" peeling off one lopsided bumper.
Just don't expect its owner to oppose Iran's nuclear program over its day-ruining hug-denying nature.
...Iranian nuclear weapons are good because they weaken America. Like Soviet nuclear weapons, they undermine American power. They force the United States to "negotiate" and submit to international law. The more nuclear weapons spread, the more the "hawks" will have to realize that they have no option but to disarm the United States and put their faith in some international order to achieve peace.
...A stronger Iran means a weaker America. And the left believes that a weaker America means a better world.
#1
Also because they hate Israel and the Jews. The fact that Israel has nukes with which to avenge themselves drives them into frothing at the mouth fury.
Scratch a leftist, find a Nazi who worships human sacrifice.
"I've been thinking about how homosexualists target Christian businesses for destruction. Approach a florist or a bakery or, now, a pizzeria and tell the owner that this is for a homosexual "wedding" and then hammer them with law suits.
Enough already. It's time for everyone to calm down.
We need a new approach.
Think about this.
When some homosexual couple comes to your Christian business for services at their immoral event, don't panic. Go ahead and take their business!
Then explain what is going to happen next.
Tell them that the food and services will be just fine. And then inform them that all of the money that they pay for the services will be donated to a traditional pro-family lobby. If it is something like catering, where your employees have to be there to provide services, tell them that all your people will smile, be professional, and every one of them will be wearing crucifixes and have the Holy Family embroidered on their uniforms. Then show them pictures of your uniforms. When the truck pulls up, speakers will be playing Immaculate Mary. Show them the truck and play the music.
"Oh, you would be offended by that? I'm so sorry. You approached us because we are Christians. Right? We are happy to provide services for you and we are grateful that you chose to come to our Christian catering business. We just want to be of help."
Then tell them that you will take out an ad in the paper to let everyone know what you did with their money, thanking them by name for their business so that you could make the contribution.
I suspect this approach, if adopted far and wide, would put an end to attacks on Christian businesses."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
