Monday, August 08, 2011

Run Hillary Run? For The Democrats, Tragedy Turns Into Farce

I just read one of the most unintentionally funny stories I've seen in a long time, over at Tina Brown's Left wing Daily Beast.

The subject? The Left's buyer's remorse with Obama, their growing realization that Lady Macbeth was actually more qualified to be president and calls for her to primary President Obama in 2012.

Allow me to throw out a few of the juicier quotes so you don't have to waste your precious time on this lame screed:

At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly.

A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’” she said.

Looking as if she were about to cry, an 83-year-old Obama supporter shook her head. “I’m so disappointed in him,” she said. “It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”

During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles. {....}

Among many of the 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, the reaction is simple and bitter: “We told you so.”

On Real Time With Bill Maher, the host said that as far as he was concerned, Obama might as well be a Republican, and added that he thought last week represented the tipping point in Obama’s presidency. Wondering if liberals have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, Maher asked his panel whether Clinton would have been a better president.

“Yes,” replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, adding that Clinton would have been “a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress.”

“She knows how to deal with difficult men,” Maher agreed. {...}

Even Pravda-on-the-Hudson decided to get into the act, digging up some Lefty psych professor named Drew Westen, who summed up what a lot of us knew 2 1/2 years ago in a New York Times Sunday Review article called, “What Happened to Obama?” :
“Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he occasionally, as a state senator in Illinois, voted ‘present’ on difficult issues,” wrote Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

The article also quotes the blog of someone named Matthew Dickinson who the Beast describes as a 'presidential scholar:

“Remember that 3 a.m. phone call? Remember the warning about the rose-colored petals falling from the sky? Remember about learning on the job? Sure you do. Doesn’t a part of you, deep down, realize she was right?” wrote Dickinson, a political-science professor at Middlebury College. “If I heard it once this last week, I heard it a thousand times: You were duped by Obama’s rhetoric—the whole ‘hopey-changey’ thing. And you wanted to be part of history, too—to help break down the ultimate racial barrier. That’s OK. We were all young once. But now it’s time to elect someone who can play hardball, who understands how to be ruthless, who will be a real ... uh ... tough negotiator in office. There won’t be any debate about Hillary’s, er, ‘man-package.’”

I told you it was hilarious. Imagine that..the Democrats admitting that they foisted a totally unqualified President on the country for racial and PR reasons, that they were willing to fool not only the country but themselves to get a win. Imagine that..they're admitting that they realize they gave the nomination to someone they knew was a totally unqualified con man just because they wanted a monolithic black vote, the support of the nutroots and George Soros' money! And now, they suddenly have buyer's remorse.

Does this mean we can finally question their patriotism, not to mention their intelligence and common sense?

Would any sane person trust them to govern?

For my part, I confess to having a little pity - not much, just a little - at the way Hillary Clinton was treated by her own party when the super delegates, the party insiders stole the nomination from her and handed it to Obama on a silver platter. They even rubbed her face in her humiliation and made her cast the deciding vote at the convention to nominate him.

For my part I hope she runs, but I doubt she will. Because the Democrats still need a monolithic black vote to win elections, and anyone challenging President Obama isn't going to get it even if they win. Unless he resigns beforehand, which I still call as a 40% chance.

There's also another problem Mrs. Clinton's faces if she runs. Her own record isn't exactly stellar. Not as our unelected co-president, where she was the guiding force behind the Democrat's first stab at foisting government run health care on the country, was implicated in scandals like FileGate and TravelGate, lied openly in order to help Mr. Bill slither into the White House and brought a busload of radicals to work there, many who stalled in cooperating with the Secret Service on background checks for security clearances because their records simply made them ineligible to receive one.

Not in the Senate, where she voted almost in lockstep for most of the exact Democrat-backed legislation that got us into this mess.

And not as Secretary of State, where she was reduced to being the president's messenger girl, failed spectacularly at her attempts at diplomacy ( remember the US-Russia reset?) got caught in a whole slew of embarrassing lies and misstatements and lacks so much as a single actual real accomplishment.

She polls high now, because she's been in low visibility for awhile. But once she gets back in the arena and her past surfaces, it won't be pretty. Especially if she does what Hillary Clinton has always done and gets caught in a few more outright whoppers.

The only reason Mrs. Clinton isn't a convicted felon is because the federal prosecutors couldn't prove criminal intent on those legal documents she forged as part of the Whitewater scam and because Susan McDougal and Web Hubbell were willing to sit in jail and keep their mouths shut in exchange for a pardon from President Clinton and a little something something on the back end.

If she runs again, its going to make people remember what they found so distasteful about her and her husband in the first place.

please helps me write more gooder!


louielouie said...

i have to disagree with ff on his interpretation of sec. of state klebb.
no doubt the accuracy and detail of his information, however, every detail that ff discussed is the very reason that the socialists will support her.
the buyers remorse meme will not surface as MSM will not allow it to be promoted. one paragraph in an entire article does not an issue make.
i for one don't think she has a snowballs chance in hell. while she may be more qualified to be the occupant of the white house, she is not far enough left for the socialists.
as far as race goes, the socialists are more concerned about a monolithic black vote than they are about the vote of white women, as a demographic.
i'm just curious, isn't this bush's fault?

louielouie said...

take note of the date of composition. nobody ever went broke betting on the gullibility of americans.

Anonymous said...

"Acomplished very little before he ran for president"!! In fact he is like a ghost. Did he ever exist, did he ever actually go the schools he graduated from? There have been interviews of classmates of Obama; people who took the same classes he did, who don't remember him and never saw him. How did he get into these prestigious schools? Who paid for it. How did he travel without a U.S. passport and if he had a passport that was not U.S. how was that possible? Why are all his mentors committed communists and how does that happen without someone directing it. I never knew a communist personally but Obama is very close friends with dozens of them. They taught him when he was young and helped him organize communities. They got him jobs and gave him connections. He is like a ghost, his past a secret, he doesn't even cast a shadow in the sunlight. Who is he???

Anonymous said...

I think Hillary takes a run at it if Obama's ratings continue to tank.