Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

These Are The Golden Days for Clintonphobics

I’m glad it ended this way. It could have ended differently. Hillary could have lost the New Hampshire primary five days after finishing third in the Iowa caucuses. Within one week of actual voters getting their say, her candidacy would have gone from inevitable to untenable.

Instead, she pulled off a surprise victory and lived to fight the next battle. She went on to interrupt her downward trajectory with other victories – Super Tuesday, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. After each one I despaired. Perhaps there really was no escape from a second Clinton presidency.

Now that I can exhale, I’m happy her repudiation was protracted rather than swift. Think of everything we would have missed if Hillary’s campaign had ended in January. We couldn’t have watched her go from being entitled to embattled to embittered to unhinged. We never would have learned the breathless details of the daring commando raid carried out by the Lioness of Tuzla. We would have been deprived of the spectacle of this graduate of Wellesley and Yale, whose family raked in $100 million over the past seven years, channeling George Wallace. Nor would we have seen the woman praised by her husband for having a “responsibility gene” boast that not a single economist endorsed her gas tax holiday, or claim that she had a plan to litigate OPEC out of existence.

Her defeat, of course, is their defeat. Finally, conservatives get two for the price of one. We’ve watched the trickle of liberal commentators who sign off on every mean and derogatory thing conservatives said about Bill and Hillary in the 1990s become an avalanche. His reputation is permanently, thoroughly diminished among the academics and journalists who will determine his legacy. And he did it for nothing. She lost.

Now that the Clintonian epoch is behind us, we need no longer be forced to ponder their grotesque and incomprehensible marriage. Emily Yoffe of Slate watched Bill as he stood behind Hillary in Indiana after Tuesday’s debacle, and imagined him thinking, “Hill, you haven’t got it. I’ve got it, and you haven’t, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Hill, guess what, all those years you sacrificed for my career – well, it turns out I wasn’t holding you back. You’re only on this stage because of me, and even so, now that it’s your turn and you had everything in your favor – Hill, you just haven’t got it. And let’s face it, Obama, he’s got it.”

Better still, the Clinton tenacity is a gift that keeps on giving. We’re now in the Wylie Coyote phase of the campaign, where she insists that if she keeps pumping her legs and doesn’t look down, she can run past the edge of the cliff as far as she likes. Coming soon to YouTube, Hillary’s press conference outside Obama’s inaugural ball, demanding to know why he can’t close the deal. It’s an amazing journey – from Eleanor Roosevelt to Harold Stassen in five excruciating, wonderful months.

Discussions - 10 Comments

Yes and lots of yeses, except for the Obama inaugural ball part. I really hope you are wrong about that.


Very true. This primary season has worked out pretty well for us.

uh William -Don't you think that there is going to be a Hillary in 2012? It is the political version of Alien vs. Predator; Freddy vs. Jason --and we will all keep coming back for more....

Dear Mr. Voegeli: Should Obama be elected, a distinct possibility, will all this rejoicing you are doing today console you? There's little doubt that Hillary Clinton will be a weaker candidate for the Democrats if for no other reason than the press will do all it can to help Obama. McCain is going to be mighty disillusioned when his "buddies" start writing stories about him with baseball bats. Let the press go to work, and McCain will be hard pressed to win. Having Obama in the White House would be a disaster on just about any topic you could choose. The only advantage I could see is that Andrew Sullivan will look even more idiotic than he does now after six months. That's way too small a benefit.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

4: Obama would be a disastrous president, but so would Hillary. Both are leftists. "All-talk Barack" is an utter lightweight and a product of identity politics; "Shrillary," however, has no scruples and comes with someone at least as bad, her husband. It is not at all clear that Clinton is the weaker Democratic candidate. The people on (broadly speaking) the left who dislike her tend to dislike her for silly or inadequate reasons. They will line up with Obama when it matters. Whereas those Democrats who dislike Obama feel what is wrong with him in their guts, even if it's unfortunately not well articulated in sound bites with unsympathetic reporters. Bill (Voegeli) is simply celebrating the defeat of two awful people, the Clintons. In this, I heartily concur, as should all of us.

Oops ... I meant that those on the left who dislike Hillary would have lined up with HER, had she won the nomination.

It isn't over yet.

Barrack Hussein Obama is but one revelation away from having his candidacy blown out of the water. It just takes one single congregant to come forward and say: "Yea, I was there, and the only people looking more excited than Wright himself was Obama and his wife." That's all it will take. And if the GOP had any brains they'd put half-a-million dollars out there to serve as enticement for that congregant to come forward and speak the truth. That should be more than enough.

Just put the money out on the street. Put up some flyers in the 'hood. Run some radio ads looking for someone to spill the beans about the Obamas and Wright's "Church."

When the Obama campaign complains, and they surely will, simply answer: "What's your beef, didn't you tell us you weren't there during those wild sermons, --------------------- you don't have anything to hide, do ya' Barrack."

In fact they should run the ads now, and just watch the Democrat superdelegates start to sweat. It would be a way of helping Hillary prolong and continue the race. Which is what we want. We want to see the Democrat convention blow sky high.

He was there for TWENTY YEARS.

20 years, 2 decades.

Stands to reason somebody saw something, somebody knows something. Yet so far they've kept their trap shut. I'm sure they saw Michelle jumping and a hollering in the aisles. But I'm sure that Barrack Hussein wasn't laggard in showing his adulation either.

What would Lee Atwater do in this situation?

He left Harvard, not just Harvard, but HARVARD LAW, and went there, went to sit at the knee of a creature like Wright. Law schools train the mind to think. Yet his mind accepted uncritically not just the whacked out conspiracy theories, but the venom, the poisons of that creature, that divisive, pathological creature.

Played right, that should be game, set and match.

As for Hillary, she's not done yet. She has a great ally, the pathologies that the Obama's subscribed to over the last two decades.

In playoff games played at Yankee Stadium, Jeter often reminded his teammates when things were looking grim, "that the ghosts haven't showed up yet." Implying that they will, that they will make their presence felt, and help the Yankees to victory.

Similar shadows lurk in this Democrat primary season. And they're going to be heard, regardless of the lengths the msm goes to keep Obama's halo firmly fixed to his head.

All she has to do is run out the race, continue to gather some delegates, prevent him from securing the number of delegates needed to secure prior to the Convention, then hope that the gremlins appear.

The Clintons learned not just tenacity, ---------------------- but patience. And they've acquired the confidence that flows from knowing that their patience won't go unrewarded. Again and again their squalid doings made Democrats recoil from them, such as after the pardons of creatures like Rich, and the disclosures that they were auctioning off pardons. But they know that after a few months pass, they'll be welcomed back with open arms.

They could come out and blatantly play the race card, and by the end of the year it will be as if nothing happened. They won't even bother offering an apology or an explanation. They won't need to.

So whatever stigma may momentarily attach to them, ----------------- so what, they've known stigma before, -------------------- and it hasn't hurt them yet. They'll still be raking in the millions, they'll still be on the A list, they'll still be invited here, there and everywhere.

"His reputation is permanently, thoroughly diminished among the academics and journalists who will determine his legacy."

Only one problem, what if we like the Clintons better than we do the academics and journalists who determine legacy?

Which Academics? Which Journalists? The Clintons represent the Pragmatist school of the Democratic Party, they represent the same view of human nature that everyone shells out big money to swallow, and then shamelessly cover up: The MBA. The Clintons make it clear that all principle is just window dressing. The Era of big government or the era of little government is just window dressing. I like the Clintons, I know that when Clinton suggests something it is vetted...I know that they are both liars...but liars in the same sense that I understand Marketing departments to be fabricating the truth. And this is the perculiar thing that I think will determine the way that the Clinton legacy will be understood...it will be understood against the backdrop of a larger understanding of the various marketing campaigns that seek to frame it(and none of these attempts will ever be taken at face value.) It will be understood as shamelessly pragmatic, but if Fareed Zakaria is right about our current state of affairs then pragmatism itself sounds like a quite healthy outlook, being the outlook that when conscious of itself generally reduces the exagerations and flatening of the world by the cacaphony of principle and utopian principalities of God and Man.

Obama by contrast seems to represent principle and hope that is something more than window dressing, theological in its pure rejection of the MBA and low machiavellian mentality, without sufficient understanding of the efficacy of naked self-interest and its role in making the world an objectively better place. One should never forget why Perrier is $3 a bottle, and Hillary Clinton with her Wylie Coyoteness lets all americans see it. You see nothing is quite as American as Wal-Mart, even if we know it isn't perfect or pretentious in the least bit, and the Clintons will be remembered as Wal-Mart is remmembered, sued, tarred and feathered, low, machiavellian, cheap, anti-competitive, monopolistic and everything that made america great but was whinned about by perrier sipping existentialists fauwning over piss jesus while scareing the hell out of normal folk with sophisticated conspiracy theories they never could quite comprehend...while Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola and the evil MBA driven folk were busy achieving semi-miraculous world peace via globalization.

Pragmatism has caused the sewer that is the Mideast today. Again and again Western powers declined to polish off enemies, preferring instead to do business with them.

And business as usual has now put us in a situation where the Mideast is on the verge of a proliferation of WMD. Failure to pound Iran has resulted in other Mideast countries beginning their own nuclear program, {S. Arabia, Egypt, Libya won't be far behind, seeing that other Mideast states are effectively in a nuclear arms race}.

When a Western city is pulverized by a muslim weapon of supreme slaughter, -------------- or worse, several Western cities, and that most likely will happen in our lifetime, Pragamatism will acquire an odor that will last for eternity. And it won't be a pleasant one.

People like Baker, people like the Bush family, and people like the Clintons too, are going to see their reputations undergo a profound transformation. The proponents of Eurabia, the proponents of multicultural immigration policies, ------------------- the future will have as much trouble understanding them as we do understanding those that practiced child sacrifice.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12339