|
|
Whole Lotta Hate
Posted by Stephen Green · 19 June 2003
Let's get this out of the way right out front, so there's no mistaking where I come from: I hate Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Roger Ebert's review of the Rob Reiner disaster, "North,": I hate Hillary Clinton. Hate hate hate hate hate Hillary Clinton. Hate her. Hate every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of her. Hate the sensibility that thinks anyone would like her. Hate the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would vote for her. There. I feel better now. No, wait, writing about Hillary is like peeing after a six-pack of cheap beer – a little more foul stuff has to come out. I hate the fact that this stand-by-your-man's-coattails shrew is considered a feminist icon. I hate her blithe assumption of your and my lack of intelligence, or even simple memory. I hate her clumsy, self-serving, supposedly-self abnegating grabs at power. I hate the fact that this Faustian-bargain bin bitch holds herself up as a paragon of virtue. I hate even more that people, too many people, buy her act. Mostly I hate that she'd hate all of us masses, if only she could be bothered to notice us from time to time as something more than tax-coughing-up drones to be directed to the better (read: "her") good. That said, I will admit she's a pretty effective senator for the people for the great state of New York. Never let it be said that my hatred of Hillary is irrational; I'm certainly not on the side of the whack jobs who think she had Vince Foster whacked in the White House. I just don't like holier-than-thou hypocrites, is all. Especially when they get more positive press notice than I do. While I don't much care for Bill Clinton's politics nor his own hypocrisy, he still seems like a fun guy to hang out with. And he's certainly someone you'd like to share some scotch and cigars with – oh, the stories he would tell (some of them even true) after seven or eight belts of the Glenlivet. Hillary, on the other hand, would be like spending time with that maiden aunt who reads nothing but the Bible. If, that is, your maiden aunt who reads nothing but the Bible also enjoyed skinning live cats in front of you, as you sat restrained in her special, spiky "punishment chair." This brings me to Michael Barone's column in today's OpinionJournal. Baron thinks HRC is (duh) running for president in 2008. But he's not sure that's a good thing for Democrats: Democrats would be unwise to give up entirely on their chances in 2004; as the Clintons showed in 1992, great turnabouts in politics are possible. But if 2004 turns out as most people suspect, Democrats must decide if their psychic investment in the Clintons, and in Hillary Rodham Clinton as an icon of feminist success, justifies nominating a candidate with her electoral weakness. Democrats exulted when Bill Clinton seemed to be paying no price for his personal shortcomings in the 1992 and 1996 elections, and in the impeachment controversy. But nothing in politics is free; there is only some question about when you pay the price. Democrats may end up paying the price for Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater and Travelgate, in 2008. While I'll almost certainly vote for W in 2004, if only for his war record, I can't say who I'll support five years from now – a lot can change between now and then. But if Clinton grabs the Dem nod in naught-eight, I can say only this: If she can't be made to pay for her own sins, then let Barone be right and let her pay for her husband's. Comments
HRC's biggest priority these days is to be an "effective senator for the people of New York", and nothing more. I'd say she's doing just fine. And as far as the "feminist icon" thing goes, she earns that title by being an an "effective senator" despite the petty attacks from her enemies. The longer she continues to fight, the more of an icon she becomes. I can't stand Hillary either. Remember when she set the scarecrow on fire? And made Dorothy fall asleep in the field of poppys? No mention of that in her damed book. Posted by: Paul at June 19, 2003 05:33 AM"I hate her blithe assumption of your and my lack of intelligence" "I hate her blithe assumption of your and my lack of intelligence" Um.... THAT'S THE POINT YOU MORON! That sentence is meant to convey the message that she's assuming people to be stupid that aren't. Of course, your inability to grasp that simple point kind of belies your assertion that you aren't lacking in the gray matter. Posted by: Scott at June 19, 2003 06:42 AMI think the "Hillary is a good Senator" myth is about on par with the "Bill is a great politician" phrase. Kind of a polite little lie to make you sound unbiased when talking about them. What exactly has Hillary done in the Senate to make her a "good" Sentaor? What legislation has she introduced? What committees are she on? What has she done for the state of New York? She's spent more time stumping for her book than talking about anything pertaining to New York's social or economic issues. Drop the lie and call her what she is: a shameless self-promoter who exploits the infidelity in her own marriage for a quick buck and TV time at the expense of the people she's supposed to represent. (Remember she originally ran against Guliani? Yeah, that realization makes me feel bad for New York too.) Posted by: Mike M at June 19, 2003 06:49 AMIn case you guys haven't seen this yet, I think this hits the nail on the head: Enough with the Hillary hoopla Posted by: Russell at June 19, 2003 08:36 AMMike M - what has she done? She cares about the children! Jeez, tell us how you really feel. I am just amazed that people think she has accomplished anything. What has she done? She married Bill, was a lawyer in AR, sucking up gov't largesse, investing in cattle futures and ?????. Healthcare, glad she botched that one, but she did botch it. Then what, a bunch of speeches and appearances on friendly tv shows to save Bill's horny ass. She can lie with the best of them. And now another ghost written book where I am supposed to believe that she was shocked by Bill's deception, the fact that he lied to her about cheating (Couldn't see that one coming?) So, either she is the stupidest person in the world or a flat out liar. And people want her to be president. Please, I have seen the Clinton act already, no need to see a replay. What has she accomplished, nothing. Posted by: Kevin at June 19, 2003 08:59 AMBooks take time and attention. Lots of it. Her present one was announced over two years ago and has been in the works since. In light of that, perhaps her supporters would care to answer the following questions: -How much of the work was done on the national dime, i.e. her salary as Senator? (sorry, no other name on the dustjacket). -For the period the book was under construction, did the people of New York State get her full attention to their issues and representation? -If they got her full attention, how? If not, can that be called cheating? -If she used a ghostwriter, as some have said, yet gave no credit, is that a form of cheating? If not, why not? How does time spent on her present rounds of book tours help the people of New York? Just asking. Posted by: Stephen at June 19, 2003 09:05 AMThe single biggest thing that drives me nuts about Hillary - and it burns my wife even worse - is the way she and her defenders immediately characterize any criticism of Hillary as an attack on all women. Posted by: Crank at June 19, 2003 10:24 AMGreat post, but it needs an edit. "she's a pretty effective senator for" needs to be replaced with "she's a hack, who could give two shits about"... She cares about pushing her agenda and mangled views on the people of New York, not actually doing anything in our best interests. Posted by: Mr. Lion at June 19, 2003 12:23 PMScott, you wouldn't notice irony, sarcasm and other from this family even when they bounce before you and jump screaming loudly with their naked ass in your face, would you? You showed impressingly good who of us is the moron. Posted by: Lilli Marleen at June 19, 2003 02:35 PMWHICH of us... "Faustian-bargain bin bitch"? Classic! Posted by: Mike at June 20, 2003 07:32 AMI have seldom seen the cold glint in someone's eyes that Hillary displays. I imagine that Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam have the same cold light. I imagine she'd barbecue Toto if she felt she could gain support by this act. Its no wonder the Femanazis love her as one of their own. Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at June 21, 2003 12:15 AMHillary is a woman?
Hillary is Evita Peron without the looks or charm, Lady MacBeth without the pangs of conscience, Stalin with tits and a smaller moustache. She is a festering pustule so full of mendacity, ruthlessness, contempt, hypocrisy and arrogance that I hope she explodes. I can't believe God took Madeline Kahn and Gilda Radner and left behind this evil, ruthess, manipulative, exploitative, lying, calculating power-whore sack of S#!? Posted by: virge at June 21, 2003 09:02 PMAs a NY'er hwo has seen absoluely nothing from either senator and had to endure her "will she or won't she" crap leading up to the election i can say that i certainly do not see anything she has done for this constiuent HG Posted by: Howard at June 25, 2003 10:33 AMi used to work in political advertising, and have met "bill"... all i can say is... he comes off as a really nice guy! but there is the little issue of the quashed arrests of a hotel-wide orgy in little rock featuring all the important people. my guess is that hillary's appetites make bill's look mild by comparison (you don't really buy the monica story in the book do you?). even my parents, died-in-the-wool arkansans, have a distaste for the clintons. Posted by: tommylee at June 30, 2003 06:10 PMFor a political writer, John Fund is hopelessly naive. Of course Hillary isn't running for nomination to be the Democrat nominee for president in '04. She wants to be declared the nominee by acclamation and she will if Bush looks weak. Kerry can't drop out before she's ready to dump him. Too much time between now and July for others to get ideas. I can not respect anyone who puts up with a spouse that has sex with so many other people, over the course of decades. The only reason I can think of is that she saw him as her (political?) meal ticket. Perhaps she loves him enough or is so true to her vows that she puts up with his behavior, but I kind of doubt it - I mean, she is a lawyer, after all. I see nothing good in her, which is hard for me to believe of any person. I also suspect that the clintons [sic] are pushing for a losing Deomcratic ticket in order to make it easier for her to run in 2008. 'Pretty effective senator for New York'? Should that be as respected as 'Pretty effective senator for Nebraska'? If she thinks she might be President, being a 'pretty effective' senator for America might be a better option. Oddly enough, I haven't read any accounts about the major bills Sen. Clinton has passed yet. . . Good Lord, her Senate record rivals John Kerry. As an aside - "I was in Vietnam! And I spent 20 years in the Senate, but I was in Vietnam for 4 months!" If she does run for President in 2008, I suspect that she'll also be running for senator in the same election, if the laws permit her. . . oh, wait; laws can be changed or ignored, so never mind. After all, if rule like 'must be nominated 30 days before election date' can be countered with lame excuses like "We changed our minds 'cause he's a criminal"' and 'Must be a resident of the state' with "Sure, he's dead and not a resident of anywhere, but let's vote for him" (NJ and MO) any laws that stand in the DNC's way of letting Hillary run for both will not matter. I hope she loses both. Posted by: David D at July 21, 2004 07:05 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Vodka--it's not just for breakfast anymore."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
