0 comment Thursday, July 17, 2014 | admin
The omens are not looking good for Hillary Clinton's campaign, and in the past, several years ago, I would have found that much more of an occasion to rejoice, as most of those on the mainstream 'right' are doing now. Why do I not feel that way now? Because unlike a few years ago, I now see that there are worse candidates than Hillary.
Does anybody really think her allusion to the RFK assassination was a 'threat' to Obama? I mean, would she be that stupid, even if she were as evil as those who loathe her believe she is?
She denies, (of course), that the comment was intended as a threat or a 'warning', and the Obama campaign (of course) is making what hay it can with the comment, though they may pretend to take the high ground and to be magnanimous about her gaffe.
But really: this woman is being abandoned by everybody that matters in the Democrat Party, it seems; Carter is telling her to give up, she's got the Kennedys incensed about her infelicitous remark.
Things don't look good for her, so where is the invincibility that many conservatives ascribed to her? Much of the semi-hysterical rhetoric about her on the right hinged on her almost superhuman ruthlessness and power. I have thought for some time now that Hillary's enemies on the right were exaggerating her supposedly formidable nature way beyond all reason.
When the Clintons first emerged onto the national stage in 1992, I had an immediate distrust of and antipathy towards Bill Clinton, so much so that it was the beginning of the end of my association with liberalism and the Democrat Party. However, I quickly noticed, early on, that Hillary inspired a much fiercer animus than did Bill among most on the right. Why was this so?
I certainly didn't like her; I still considered myself a feminist and I thought she was a fraud as a feminist; after all, she stupidly defended her husband's adulterous behavior and later on, when it was evident that she had political aspirations of her own, I saw her as riding on his coattails, and not relying on her own achievements.
But why did Hillary evoke such bitter hatred? People on the right coined various derogatory nicknames for Bill, most of them simply ridiculing him and his satyr-like inclinations. By contrast, most of the nicknames for Hillary were based on her supposed inhuman, evil nature: 'Hitlery' or 'Hellary' or 'HillZilla' or 'The Lizard Queen.'
Was the visceral dislike of her based on negative feelings toward domineering females? Did she remind many people of punitive schoolteachers they had as children, or overbearing mothers-in-law? I noticed that a lot of people called her 'Nurse Ratched'. I never saw the movie or read the book that character appeared in, but I understand the antipathy to that stereotype. I suppose there is something primally repellent about a cruel, ruthless, cold-blooded woman, given that the true feminine nature is supposed to have some nurturing, gentle qualities. For whatever reason, Hillary inspires a strong, negative reaction among many people, and she has definitely not won any friends lately.
The belief was she was inevitable as a presidential candidate, and that she had the whole Democrat Party in the palm of her hand, and was fully in command. There was no stopping her, so they said. There was this general idea that she was superhumanly powerful, unstoppable, a force of nature. Few believed that she was just a human being, and that she put her pant(suit) on one leg at a time like anybody else. No; she was the Witch Queen, like a character out of a horror movie. This still seems to be the consensus over at Free Republic and such places, and there seems to be little thought given to the idea that there may be worse than Hillary in store for us, while the Republican faithful are busy celebrating her impending political demise.
Just look at the nature of this latest kerfuffle: she supposedly made a veiled threat against Obama.
I said when Obama first began his campaign that he would be treated with kid gloves, and that any and all criticism of him would be closely scrutinized. I said that it would be all race, all the time, and so far that's not been too far wrong. Did the supposed 'threat' have a racial element to it? Remember that the Obama campaign, and the sympathetic media, have fretted about the possibilities of somebody making an attempt on the candidate's life. Surely that was in the back of such people's minds if not in the forefront when they overreacted to the comments.
Granted, it was a bizarre thing for Hillary to say; she seems to be lacking in tact and she seems to have a tin ear when choosing her words but I am doubtful that she is stupid enough to make threats in public, even those of a very ambiguous nature. If she was consciously doing that, she is evil, but if so, her evil is balanced out by her stupidity.
Evil is always more dangerous when accompanied by intelligence, and charm, the latter of which Hillary completely lacks, unlike her husband.
In that sense, I don't believe she is this menace to us all that she is cracked up to be; she might be a power-hungry woman and an ambitious woman, but she is so transparent that she is just not that good at duping most people. Beware of the charming people; they are much better at camouflaging their intentions.
Does anybody really think her allusion to the RFK assassination was a 'threat' to Obama? I mean, would she be that stupid, even if she were as evil as those who loathe her believe she is?
She denies, (of course), that the comment was intended as a threat or a 'warning', and the Obama campaign (of course) is making what hay it can with the comment, though they may pretend to take the high ground and to be magnanimous about her gaffe.
But really: this woman is being abandoned by everybody that matters in the Democrat Party, it seems; Carter is telling her to give up, she's got the Kennedys incensed about her infelicitous remark.
Things don't look good for her, so where is the invincibility that many conservatives ascribed to her? Much of the semi-hysterical rhetoric about her on the right hinged on her almost superhuman ruthlessness and power. I have thought for some time now that Hillary's enemies on the right were exaggerating her supposedly formidable nature way beyond all reason.
When the Clintons first emerged onto the national stage in 1992, I had an immediate distrust of and antipathy towards Bill Clinton, so much so that it was the beginning of the end of my association with liberalism and the Democrat Party. However, I quickly noticed, early on, that Hillary inspired a much fiercer animus than did Bill among most on the right. Why was this so?
I certainly didn't like her; I still considered myself a feminist and I thought she was a fraud as a feminist; after all, she stupidly defended her husband's adulterous behavior and later on, when it was evident that she had political aspirations of her own, I saw her as riding on his coattails, and not relying on her own achievements.
But why did Hillary evoke such bitter hatred? People on the right coined various derogatory nicknames for Bill, most of them simply ridiculing him and his satyr-like inclinations. By contrast, most of the nicknames for Hillary were based on her supposed inhuman, evil nature: 'Hitlery' or 'Hellary' or 'HillZilla' or 'The Lizard Queen.'
Was the visceral dislike of her based on negative feelings toward domineering females? Did she remind many people of punitive schoolteachers they had as children, or overbearing mothers-in-law? I noticed that a lot of people called her 'Nurse Ratched'. I never saw the movie or read the book that character appeared in, but I understand the antipathy to that stereotype. I suppose there is something primally repellent about a cruel, ruthless, cold-blooded woman, given that the true feminine nature is supposed to have some nurturing, gentle qualities. For whatever reason, Hillary inspires a strong, negative reaction among many people, and she has definitely not won any friends lately.
The belief was she was inevitable as a presidential candidate, and that she had the whole Democrat Party in the palm of her hand, and was fully in command. There was no stopping her, so they said. There was this general idea that she was superhumanly powerful, unstoppable, a force of nature. Few believed that she was just a human being, and that she put her pant(suit) on one leg at a time like anybody else. No; she was the Witch Queen, like a character out of a horror movie. This still seems to be the consensus over at Free Republic and such places, and there seems to be little thought given to the idea that there may be worse than Hillary in store for us, while the Republican faithful are busy celebrating her impending political demise.
Just look at the nature of this latest kerfuffle: she supposedly made a veiled threat against Obama.
I said when Obama first began his campaign that he would be treated with kid gloves, and that any and all criticism of him would be closely scrutinized. I said that it would be all race, all the time, and so far that's not been too far wrong. Did the supposed 'threat' have a racial element to it? Remember that the Obama campaign, and the sympathetic media, have fretted about the possibilities of somebody making an attempt on the candidate's life. Surely that was in the back of such people's minds if not in the forefront when they overreacted to the comments.
Granted, it was a bizarre thing for Hillary to say; she seems to be lacking in tact and she seems to have a tin ear when choosing her words but I am doubtful that she is stupid enough to make threats in public, even those of a very ambiguous nature. If she was consciously doing that, she is evil, but if so, her evil is balanced out by her stupidity.
Evil is always more dangerous when accompanied by intelligence, and charm, the latter of which Hillary completely lacks, unlike her husband.
In that sense, I don't believe she is this menace to us all that she is cracked up to be; she might be a power-hungry woman and an ambitious woman, but she is so transparent that she is just not that good at duping most people. Beware of the charming people; they are much better at camouflaging their intentions.
Labels: Political Campaigns, Presidential Candidates, Republicans