[Please note I had written this post on Thursday morning, fortunately in a text file so I didn’t lose it, but couldn’t post it because of our blog woes.]
Some in the media have made much of Ms. Hillary’s attempt yesterday Wednesday to play flight attendant on her campaign plane yesterday. I even saw a clip of this stunt on FoxNews.
What struck me about what AP called a “humorous riff” was two things, first, that it wasn’t humorous and, second, it was all about politics.
Many politicians, in doing such stunts, eschew the political references to show their more personal side. It seems Ms. Hillary’s personal side is all politics.
All this “riff” was was an attempt to draw more media attention to her attacks on the GOP and her campaign slogans, note her comment that the view from the left of revealed “an America with a strong middle class at home and a strong reputation in the world” and the excessive references to “experience.” (I guess for Ms. Hillary sleeping in the White House counts as executive experience.)
This whole lame “riff” only increased my animosity toward the former First Lady for in her attempt to show a more light-hearted side, this woman revealed that how completely political she is.
It made me wonder if she has any other interests besides politics. One more reason to defeat her as quickly as possible. For as person as political as she will have fewer resources on which to draw to unite the nation if, in the unfortunate event she wins his fall, she becomes president.
This failed attempt at humor makes it increasingly clear why we must defeat Ms. Hillary.
When you review Hillary’s years since law school, it reads more like a pathology than a life. It is fairly simple to identify what drives her, but almost impossible to find her person and personality. I can not relate to her as a loving wife or a mother or a neighbor or a friend. In those areas she is sterile plastic. She is not the only person I know who fits this mold, but I have never been asked to elect one to the presidency. As a matter of fact, the computer “HAL” in “2001” had more experience, more ability to change and more personality than Hillary is capable of mustering.
What a perfect description of Hillary above. I cannot for the life of me detect a scintilla of sincerity in her. Whether it is the “Black voice in a Baptist church, her attempt at airplane buffoonery or an attempt to fight back tears the day before an election, it all spells hollow and contrived. What is even sadder are those who fall for such theatrics as being sincere.
Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have this in common… plastic. Her airplane performance was like her Christmas gift ad: awful.
The problem for Hillary isn’t how completely political she is. That’s true of pretty much everyone in politics, at least at the national level. It’s how inept she is at disguising that. If you really think that the actions and statements of every other major candidate aren’t equally calculated, you are delusional.
I liked her flight attendant schtick, and I’m no fan of Marxism. Of course, she got her sides mixed up, and god knows why the “middle class” is the be all and end all of politics. I thought the Dems were all about the poor, anyways, and how to continue bribing them to vote Dem while making everyone else poor as well.
Call me delusional. I think there are plenty of people in politics who are good, decent people and good parents, worthy spouses and reliable friends. I also think there are plenty of cold, calculating opportunists who feed at the trough of politics.
I expect George W. Bush will finish his term and happily return to his Texas ranch. Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush 1, and Ford did the same. (LBJ and Nixon were exiled.) It is Carter, Clinton, McGovern and Gore who have wandered the empty stage searching for acclaim.
Some are able to leave the spotlight and resume normalcy. Others never achieved normalcy and seek to satisfy their need for constant validation.
Why the Democrats keep producing this kind of candidate, I can not explain.
I actually saw the clip of Mrs Clinton doing her flight attendant riff. She read it off a paper stuck to the wall if you watch it closely. She is a stepford wife/woman. Nothing she does isn’t calculated. There is no normal there. Nothing spontaneous. She is rarely available for one on one questions. When she started losing ground to Obama, the campaign realized they had to put her out there more. For better or worse. The bottom line on the Clintons for me is they expected this to be a coronation. They are peed that they must fight for the Dem nomination. When either of them have to answer anything but the most vanilla canned question…..they are ready to fist fight the questioner. Ex: Wild Bill.
Has anyone seen this movie yet?
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
There are few things that irk me as much as the “theyre all the same” cliche. No, they aren’t. If they were, I wouldnt bother voting. There are some politicians who are very good, honest people; there are politicians with great character, and there are politicians that really do care about lots of things more than they do politics. And then there is Hillary.
Invariably said by either someone who doesnt pay enough attention to politics to know the difference, or by a lib who doesnt care if their representatives are lying, cheating, stealing, soulless political robots so long as they are in power, and so assumes everyone else is as lacking in honesty, character and integrity as they. either way, precisely the kind of politicians and *voters* we need less of.
and god knows why the “middle class” is the be all and end all of politics.
Well, you can’t have them move up to Hillary’s caste. They gotta stay under her shoe where she can control ’em.
I found Hillary’s Wellesly’s Thesis, which is about her then-idol Saul Alinsky.
http://gopublius.com/hillary-clintons-wellesley-thesis/
American Thinker has done a great job analysing this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/hillarys_oedipal_problem.html (small excerpt):
While Hillary’s father was a fervently anti-Communist Goldwater Republican, at Wellesley College, Saul Alinsky, a Marxist radical, became Hillary’s father substitute. Switching from a Goldwater Republican to Saul Alinsky was her way of breaking with her real father and rejecting her younger self. She wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE
“My senior year at Wellesley would further test and articulate my beliefs. For my thesis I analyzed the work of a Chicago native and community organizer named Saul Alinsky”
END QUOTE
Hillary’s thesis was titled, “There is only the Fight, An Analysis of the Alinsky model” (italics added)
As she wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE
“If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.
“The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.’ The question is how one acquires power, and Alinsky’s answer is through organization… For Alinsky, power is the ‘very essence of life, the dynamic of life’ and is found in ‘…active citizen participation pulsing upward providing a unified strength for a common purpose of organization….'” (P. 7-8)
END QUOTE
What is the “social revolution” Hillary and the radicals-cum-insiders want? Hillary doesn’t want to merely make law or implement policy; she wants to re-shape humanity in her own image. She explains:
BEGIN QUOTE
“A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and the behaviors of men.” (p. 6)
“Alinsky: ‘In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative; they think consensus is better. But to organize, you need a Bull Connor or a Jim Clark.'” (italics added)
END QUOTE
See the whole thing
Even in college, Hillary wanted polarization and political power? Surprise, surprise.
Saul Alinsky also had great influence on Barack Obama. I am not inclined toward conspiracy theories, but when you read Alinsky and understand his form of underground warfare, you have every reason to double check the motives of those who came under his sway.