Friday, October 5, 2007

Good news on HRC front
Tom Smith

I hope I'm wrong, but as of now I think next President is going to be none other than the former First Lady HRC.  So say the prediction markets.  True, I'm thinking of reasons it won't be that bad.  And a lot can happen between now and then.  But on the silver lining front, there is this, which suggests HRC might be fairly tough on national defense.  I know one Marine high-flyer who likes her.  She certainly understands the concept of enemies and the need to destroy them.  I think the islamo-fascist approach to, ah, gender issues really bothers her, as it does a lot of real feminists of her generation.  Or maybe I just being too optimistic, as is my habit.

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/10/good-news-on-hr.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef00e54f05a0528834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good news on HRC front
Tom Smith
:

Comments

I have at last come up with a way of remebering whether she spells her name as Hilary or Hillary. Hell.

Posted by: dearieme | Oct 5, 2007 3:02:18 PM

When she was co President with Bill, she never showed much interest in fighting Islamofascism, in fact the passivity of the Clinton administration in the 90's made OBL more bold. Why do we expect her to be any different next time around?

Posted by: johnr | Oct 5, 2007 4:37:49 PM

"She certainly understands the concept of enemies and the need to destroy them."

Also, she does it ruthlessly, and without remorse. I sure wouldn't want to be an ememy of our country if she was CIC.

She also won't be able to show weakness, as the first female CIC. Plus, many of the Bush haters that are against the war on terror will find new reasons to be for it, with one of their own in the White House.

I think she would be very good on foriegn policy, it's her socialist vision on domestic policy that worries me.

Maybe more than anything, she likely would appoint two or more Supremes. That's really scary.

Posted by: tjg | Oct 5, 2007 4:41:56 PM

It's all talk. I haven't heard much if any outrage on let's say female circumcision or for that matter the death of millions of female fetuses around the world and here. Yes,a true feminist is our Hillary and her sisters.

Posted by: Rosem | Oct 5, 2007 5:20:24 PM

You're appreciating the difference between a person who knows the US has implacable enemies and one who doesn't. After all, the party of the democrats is full of the latter.

But she goes after her enemies with a zeal that says that she doesn't even require a justification (e.i. these enemies can't be convinced or bought off). Why does she fight? That's who she is. Why does a scorpion sting?

The most successful thing she ever did, in her eyes, was help prepare the impeachment of Nixon. And who knows how many principles bent in her mind one way to get Dick out, and bent the other to keep Bill in?

And now you would ask her, "please, remember who your real enemies are!" There's a mysoginistic ideology in the Middle East, but who can even look so far away when there's a Vast Rightwing Conspiracy right here at home? How can you ever hope she'll wisely prioritize her two enemies?

Posted by: Cincinatus | Oct 5, 2007 5:28:16 PM

I agree with johnr. It's her socialist vision that worries me, too. We should recall that the old Soviet Union was quite fine on foreign policy: The Politburo was unequivocally clear on who their foreign enemies were, and they were merciless in fighting them. But conditions inside that erstwhile Russian Empire were--not to put too fine a point to it--abominable, and they did not improve throughout the life of the regime. Collectivism as a governing principle does not favor the free. Mrs. Clinton is nothing if not a collectivist. Of course, neither she nor any of her operatives will tell you this. But I ask you: (1) What is the good in fighting for the preservation of a collectivist society? (2)How does the citizenry profit thereby?

Answer: (1) It is of no good, and (2) the citizenry profits not at all.

We are going to have to answer these questions, because they address the condition we are nearly certain to face.

Posted by: betsybounds | Oct 5, 2007 5:29:39 PM

Dear Tom,

"Or maybe I just being too optimistic, as is my habit."

You're right: you're being too optimistic.

Having said this, Hillary right now looks like the 800 lb. gorilla. Right now. However, the odds are that she's going to have to face either Giuliani or Thompson in multiple debates. And, when those happen, they're going to knock her down and take her lunch money. Giuliani will be especially formidable since he operated for years in possibly the most rough-and-tumble political environment on the planet.

To wit: need I remind everyone that Hillary's got a lot of baggage hitched up to her ample posterior? Both the G-Man and the T-Man will be only too happy to play customs inspectors and arrange for full body-cavity searches of Hillary's real or asserted "record." Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, cattle futures, the White House Travel Office, HillaryCare, Bubba's failure to get Bin Laden, Media Matters...all that "mierda" will be coming back front and center, because she's never satisfactorily answered for any of it. And that forced, calculated, cackling laugh of hers will remind a lot of voters, even Democrats, why there's something about her that just pisses them off.

Furthermore, Hillary won't be able to play the "Don't beat up on me 'cause I'm a girl!" and the "tiny tears" card because she's wanting to play with the big boys. If Hillary pulls that kind of crap, then all Rudy or Fred have to do is gently say, "If you can't handle tough questions about your record and your proposed programs, then how in hell are you going to deal with Congress--especially if it flips back to the GOP?"

Methinks the 800 lb. McHilla Gorilla doth have feet of clay.

Posted by: MarkJ | Oct 5, 2007 5:42:31 PM

Dear Tom,

"Or maybe I just being too optimistic, as is my habit."

You're right: you're being too optimistic.

Having said this, Hillary right now looks like the 800 lb. gorilla. Right now. However, the odds are that she's going to have to face either Giuliani or Thompson in multiple debates. And, when those happen, they're going to knock her down and take her lunch money. Giuliani will be especially formidable since he operated for years in possibly the most rough-and-tumble political environment on the planet.

To wit: need I remind everyone that Hillary's got a lot of baggage hitched up to her ample posterior? Both the G-Man and the T-Man will be only too happy to play customs inspectors and arrange for full body-cavity searches of Hillary's real or asserted "record." Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, cattle futures, the White House Travel Office, HillaryCare, Bubba's failure to get Bin Laden, Media Matters...all that "mierda" will be coming back front and center, because she's never satisfactorily answered for any of it. And that forced, calculated, cackling laugh of hers will remind a lot of voters, even Democrats, why there's something about her that just pisses them off.

Furthermore, Hillary won't be able to play the "Don't beat up on me 'cause I'm a girl!" and the "tiny tears" card because she's wanting to play with the big boys. If Hillary pulls that kind of crap, then all Rudy or Fred have to do is gently say, "If you can't handle tough questions about your record and your proposed programs, then how in hell are you going to deal with Congress--especially if it flips back to the GOP?"

Methinks the 800 lb. McHilla Gorilla doth have feet of clay.

Posted by: MarkJ | Oct 5, 2007 5:46:56 PM

She certainly understands the concept of enemies and the need to destroy them

If you think this applies to the Islamofascists, then you've got a bad case of projection. Were the sailors killed on the USS Cole not Americans? They died with little more than some lip-biting by the Clintons. Remember the Clinton rules of engagement?

Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries (on the USS Cole minutes after the first suicide boat had blown up) had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."

Our soldiers in Somalia got whacked and then we fled. Just where was all this bellicosity then?

She's vengeance-minded when it comes to her enemies, Tom, not yours.

Posted by: K T Cat | Oct 5, 2007 6:12:26 PM

I'd sleep a whole lot better at night if I had the slightest confidence that HRC would be half as ruthless to our foreign enemies as she is to her domestic ones.

Posted by: Skippy | Oct 5, 2007 6:51:01 PM

I think that it's clear that Senator Clinton would go nuclear if she thought that doing so would make the difference between being re-elected and being a one-term President.

I fear that she'd be fairly likely to muddle into a situation where she had to make that choice.

Posted by: Andy Freeman | Oct 5, 2007 7:37:41 PM

She destroys HER enemies. Not America's enemies. Big difference, there.

Posted by: Dsinope | Oct 5, 2007 10:01:52 PM

When Bill and Hillary were at the helm last time, they cut military spending and closed military bases. If memory serves, the Clinton's treated our military as their own personal enemy.

Posted by: E-ho | Oct 6, 2007 4:43:01 AM

GW Bush has not identified our real enemies. I have zero hope that Hillary would ever speak of the "irreconcilable wing of Islam," which I believe so far is the most accurate description that still leaves room to acknowledge that some Muslims are decent individuals (see http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4815).

For Hillary to identify the enemy would be completely against her parties belief in extreme multiculturalism as a method to continue to gain power for the nouveau (stupid) elite.

Posted by: defender | Oct 6, 2007 4:58:39 AM

Tom -

First off, I came here via Instapundit, so you might want to update your Trackbacks.

Second, I agree with you that Hillary would probably be a pretty tough opponent in the foreign theater. As far as her domestic agenda goes, well, allow me to skew the conversation by pointing out that presidents don't make laws. They can suggest laws, and offer up Supreme Court nominees, but that's no guarantee they'll be accepted by Congress.

But third, I commend you for at least keeping an open mind. There are blogsites out there where the CDS runs as rampant as BDS does on the left-wing sites. For those of you out there who fear YOU might be infected with CDS, please read this:

http://www.valcondria.com/text/shadow.htm

And Tom, if you'll note, a number of commenters here are suffering from CDS. Witness a few comments:

"I have at last come up with a way of remebering whether she spells her name as Hilary or Hillary. Hell." - dearieme

Note how this is kind of a 'beginner's CDS'. If it made any sense at all, her name would be "Hellary". But the young CDSite just HAS to make his or her point by using a strong word like "Hell".

"When she was co President with Bill, she never showed much interest in fighting Islamofascism" - johnr

So, a First Lady is now supposed to have a strong foreign policy?

Here's another one along the same lines:

"When Bill and Hillary were at the helm last time, they cut military spending and closed military bases. If memory serves, the Clinton's treated our military as their own personal enemy." - E-ho

Note how, again, suddenly a First Lady is supposed to have an active role in the presidency and help make key decisions in military matters.

And then we have the same denial that I mention in the article above:

"The most successful thing she ever did, in her eyes, was help prepare the impeachment of Nixon. - Cincinatus

Apparently, in Cincy's eyes, becoming one of only two senators from the third largest state in the most powerful nation in the world is 'nothing'.

So, what have YOU done lately, Cincy?

Keep up the good work, Tom, and don't let the CDS bunch wear you down. If you read my article, you'll notice that the comments I noted above are the same dark foreshadowing I saw that day.

Posted by: Dr. Mercury | Oct 6, 2007 7:10:15 AM

On the other hand, calling Hillary a vindictive collectivist is much like calling Bush overly loyal and inarticulate: Not kind, but true.

Dsinope: The good news is that America's enemies will become her problem, if not her enemies, if she is elected. I don't think they are patient enough to wait - if she's elected something will happen (hopefully far from here) that will require a response from the President, regardless of who is holding the office. It will probably be sooner rather than later. Then they will become her enemies for forcing her into a corner (not for whatever damage they did as enemies of America). Vindictive people take things very personally.

Posted by: mrsizer | Oct 6, 2007 9:22:08 AM

Can you say Secretary of Defense Murtha? Without gagging?

Posted by: sherlock | Oct 6, 2007 9:33:19 AM

"She also won't be able to show weakness, as the first female CIC. Plus, many of the Bush haters that are against the war on terror will find new reasons to be for it, with one of their own in the White House."

You may want to check with Joe Lieberman on that point.

Posted by: willis | Oct 6, 2007 10:19:17 AM