Clinton as Icon of Predation

Hillary Clinton, the current frontrunner for the Democrat Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, is hailed in liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream media’) circles as a role model for women everywhere, as a feminist icon; which is an odd aspect of an otherwise insane candidacy. On this point, the case against her is easy to make.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband comes to mind. As President of the United States, Bill Clinton was impeached, and later disbarred, for obstructing a federal investigation, for lying to a federal grand jury and for conspiring with others to do the same. He made fools of his own cabinet members when he had them publicly vouch for his veracity in the matter of Monica Lewinsky, the young White House intern upon whom President Clinton enacted a sexual predation that surely would have prompted the resignation or removal of a U.S. Senator or a General in the U.S. military. Mr. Clinton also lied to the American people when he stood before news cameras, pounded his fist on a podium and denied having had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, it is well documented that while Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, Bill Clinton was a serial predator of women, and quite possibly a rapist.

Mr. Clinton’s consistent defender, and therefore greatest enabler, in his various sordid affairs was none other than his wife, Hillary. Aside from whatever else may have motivated her, insuring that her husband survived his presidency was an immense boon to Mrs. Clinton’s own political ambitions. She parlayed her White House stint into a successful U.S. Senate campaign, and the rest is recent history.

The Clintons’ morally and ethically challenged shenanigans continue and are hurting Mrs. Clinton’s poll numbers, as noted previously on these pages. A visceral opportunist, she will use any means available to advance her own candidacy. However, promoting herself as a role model for women everywhere, as a feminist icon, is worse than absurd. It is obscene.

Where Romney, Clinton and Biden Meet

 

It goes back at least to 2011, when the powers that determine Republican presidential politics began to hone in on Mr. Romney as the man to face President Obama in 2012. Romney went on to lose a winnable race against a vulnerable sitting president, when others could perhaps have performed better.

Other Republican contenders were not hampered by RomneyCare – the system of public health insurance (seen by many as ‘ObamaCare light’) that Mr. Romney brought to Massachusetts when he was governor there, and later refused to disavow, putting himself directly at odds with his own party’s base – and so, you get the idea. Romney had problems from the outset, from which he could not or would not extricate himself.

Now we have Hillary Clinton, who, as noted before on these pages, has problems of her own. She lacks the two most important characteristics a presidential candidate needs – charisma and credibility. It seems people don’t much trust her, or much like her. After all, it’s hard to like someone who’s stiff as dried timber and who you’re convinced is both a rich elitist and a brazen liar; recent polling suggests a burgeoning consensus views Mrs. Clinton that way. Such public opinion, once entrenched, is nigh on impossible to change to a meaningful degree.

Hillary, like Romney, has been designated by her party’s elite as their standard bearer. And she, like Romney, has chosen not to deal early and directly with her own political baggage. She has, instead, chosen to ignore it and pretend it will go away. Mrs. Clinton’s overly orchestrated, utterly unnatural public appearances, with her segregated press corps and pre-screened audiences, will not manufacture credibility. She’ll only lose more of what little she has left.

Enter Joe Biden. He’s the guy some liberal pundits are now pointing to as the next best hope for their party in 2016. As Hillary continues to slip, we may hear more voices join the ‘Draft Joe’ chorus. Problem is, old Joe is himself a severely gaffe-prone, lumbering dunce of a politician. Turning to him is an act of desperation, since he has serious problems of his own. In due course and if need be, we’ll discuss them on these pages. Stay tuned, as the formerly no-drama Democrat side of this race gets ever more interesting.

Big Bad News for Democrats

 

Big news from swing states is bad news for Democrats. Their presidential standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, is losing to all three of the top Republican contenders in head to head polling in Colorado, Virginia and Iowa.

Released today by Quinnipiac, this most recent polling shows Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio each beating Mrs. Clinton in head to head match-ups, by at least three points and by as much as nine points. I’ve noted before that the Democrats are beginning to worry about Mrs. Clinton’s viability as a national candidate. This is more evidence they have reason to do so.

A Nuclear Iran: A False Man’s False Choice

 

President Obama and his minions have busied themselves these past several days selling their nuclear deal with Iran, encouraging its public approval in the U.S. and abroad. They have made little effort to find support in the U.S. Congress, ironically the one place they ought to have first taken their bone-headed agreement – not a treaty, mind you, as that would require approval by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, something clearly not in the offing.

In a manner consistent with other of his purported accomplishments (such as ObamaCare and administrative overhauls of internet regulations and of U.S. immigration policy), Mr. Obama’s just completed executive agreement with Iran reeks of arrogance and partisanship and is, despite its significance, a contrivance. Thus, we see Mr. Obama and his supporters employ a false argument and a false choice to defend it.

Their choice: either we accept the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran or we go to war – our only viable options, according to Mr. Obama and his supporters. It reminds one of the argument that Mr. Obama’s economic policies, such as they are, saved America from a second Great Depression. The panache of such rhetoric is that it ultimately cannot be proved, and so ostensibly cannot be disproved. This is also the argument’s limitation. Undeniably, other options do exist.

Short of war, and aside from the one-sided terms that Mr. Obama’s team negotiated, there were separate diplomatic options and potential solutions (among them the economic sanctions that were so onerous on Iran’s economy as to bring them initially to the bargaining table, before Mr. Obama offered to remove said sanctions, on his way to giving away the store). Mr. Obama chose his own course, and this agreement, which he has negotiated so poorly, all but guarantees a nuclear Iran and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. By the time these things come to pass, as they sadly and mostly likely will, Mr. Obama will have sought another audaciously false argument, to place blame with someone other than himself.

For now, simply consider how many millions of Americans have lost access to their doctors and health insurance plans because of ObamaCare, despite President Obama’s unequivocal promise that such would not occur. Can we trust the same man’s assurances that the world is now a safer place because Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons – period?

Trump The Next Perot

 

Key to Bill Clinton’s two presidential victories was the presence in both elections of the somewhat kooky, certainly unconventional, billionaire business man, Ross Perot, as a third-party candidate. Mr. Perot drew crucial percentages from the support of Mr. Clinton’s Republican rivals, President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Senator Robert Dole in 1996. And though Mr. Clinton failed to receive a majority of the popular vote in either of those elections, he did manage to secure his entrée to the White House, and thus managed to launch the political career of his wife, Hillary.

Mrs. Clinton may now be hoping to re-tap the formula that yielded electoral success for her husband in the nineties, and her version of Ross Perot appears to be the somewhat kooky, certainly unconventional, billionaire business man, Donald Trump. In the early days of his own presidential candidacy, Mr. Trump has drawn the spotlight, and apparent ire, of the liberal media (a.k.a. mainstream media), due largely to his controversial remarks on immigration.

If Mrs. Clinton secures the Democrat party’s nomination (which, though insane, seems likely), and if Mr. Trump fails to secure the Republican nomination (a near certainty), one can expect Mr. Trump to at least toy with the idea of launching a third-party candidacy. And it won’t matter what else he talks about – illegal immigration, real estate prices in Manhattan, weather patterns over Antarctica – one can expect the liberal media to enthusiastically embrace Mr. Trump, much as they did Mr. Perot in the nineties. They’ll make use of him, as best they can, to draw attention and support from the Republican candidate, in the hope of giving another Clinton another entrée to the White House.