Some thoughts on Hillary, from a recovering leftist:
Hillary is the one who can consolidate and solidify the “gains” of the Obama era in a way Obama himself never could because she is much more politically savvy — Obama was only savvy about getting elected, not governing — and has the backing of her even more politically savvy husband. Hillary is the one who can fully remake the United States into some version of Western Europe or, yet more frighteningly, China, a permanently stratified state capitalism governed by quasi-totalitarian bureaucrats. (We can call this system Soros Marxism, meaning a ruling clique of increasingly rich corporate czars employing a propagandistic veneer of socialist equality to keep the power and wealth for themselves.)
As Roger Kimball pointed out, the New York Times (the very model of that propagandistic veneer) already knows their bread is buttered with Hillary, not Obama. They demonstrated that Saturday with their revisionist article on Benghazi, bent on taking that scandal (Hillary’s Achilles’ heel) off the table for the coming elections or at least seriously defusing it. Republicans would do well to redouble their efforts to make sure this particular obfuscation does not succeed by doing the proper research and communicating the results to the public — succinctly and repeatedly.
But to do this our group must concentrate on the principal enemy and not upon each other. My inbox is filled with emails on both sides of the inter-right wars (the Tea Partiers and the so-called RINOs) excoriating each other. What unmitigated idiocy — as if Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz was the principal enemy and not Hillary Clinton. It’s a war between those who favor cutting government by seventy percent versus those who favor cutting it by fifty or sixty, ignoring those who want to expand it by a hundred. Although not nearly as violent, it’s in some weird way reminiscent of the party rectification campaigns practiced by Stalinists back in the 1940s.
Let’s hope they can unite. They have a couple years for a leader to emerge.
The problem is people always want to eliminate the local opposition before anything else: you see that here, in history, and (in particular) all the time in fiction. “Let’s eliminate the unbelievers in the next town over so we have a united front to crush the enemy kingdom next door,” only they never finish the first step.
Except it’s usually, “let’s ally with the enemy kingdom over there to crush the unbelievers in the next town!”
Yes, indeed. Nurse Ratched is infinitely scarier than Il Dufe.
There are three major flaws in this article. First, there is an assumption that Hillary is even going to run in 2016. She might, but at the moment I haven’t seen her do anything that would suggest she is planning a run. Second is the assumption that she could win. In 2008, there was a significant “anybody but a Clinton” wing in the Democratic Party. I was part of that wing, because I remembered the 1990s and the never-ending hoopla in the media about Whitewater / Rose law firm billing / other crap I’ve blanked out on. This wing was not looking for a re-imagining of that era.
The third flaw is the assertion that the New York Times article whitewashes Clinton. Having read the article, it makes clear that our diplomats on the ground did not have a good understanding of who was who in the Benghazi zoo. That does not make the chief US diplomat look very smart.
What I think the Republicans forget is that Benghazi became such a political football because your man Romney shot his mouth off before he had the facts. If he’d waited a couple of days instead of launching an attack on Obama before the bodies had cooled off (literally) it wouldn’t have been such an embarrassment for your side.
In short, please proceed with your attacks on Hillary – you’re wasting your ammo.
I haven’t seen her do anything that would suggest she is planning a run.
Hilarious.
Having read the article, it makes clear that our diplomats on the ground did not have a good understanding of who was who in the Benghazi zoo. That does not make the chief US diplomat look very smart.
One would not know who that person is from reading the article.
Benghazi became such a political football because your man Romney shot his mouth off before he had the facts.
That’s horse-excrement media spin, not reality.
One would not know who that person is from reading the article. So the readership of the New York Times doesn’t know that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time?
So Romney did not issue a statement before Steven’s death was confirmed, before Obama said anything, and probably before Steven’s body had cooled saying It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Do you really expect us to believe that if it had been a Republican Secretary of State, the Times wouldn’t have used their name (and political party)?
And Romney had it exactly right.
Yes Rand, we are far from agreement on many issues. But Mr. Romney indeed had it exactly right.
Mr. Romney was defending our First Amendment rights, and yes, even those of a dodgy immigrant filmmaker on our shores.
Churchill famously described the need to protect state secrets “with a bodyguard of lies.” The “filmmaker” story was a clumsy lie, but I will give the Obama Administration the benefit of the belief that they were protecting a secret of collective importance to all of us.
So Mr. Romney should have not rushed to say anything because the Administration’s awkward attempt to suppress speech was “cover” for an important national security matter? He should have waited until the Ambassador’s mortal remains reached room temperature? Until the National Security Advisor finished her circuit of the “talk shows”? Until the caskets reached Dover, Maryland, and the Secretary of State pledged vengeance on behalf of a family member — on the filmmaker?
I am tired crude remarks like “shoot off at the mouth”, the “cool” use of four-letter words, the cliche outrage and “Have you no decency?” Yeah, the Right takes a lot of “cheap shots” at the President, this President, but I am tired of his defenders who won’t brook any criticism at all, especially after they savaged our last President.
The First Amendment is a core value across our political spectrum, but yes, what we regard as “free speech” from an individual is regarded in parts of the world as a collective act of war of America. Or so our National Security Advisor and Secretary of State seemed to suggest. It appears easy to apologize and grovel and suggest we have to restrict speech because we are vulnerable to persons beyond our borders who take deadly offense.
As the son of immigrant parents from a part of the world where insult is taken at the drop of a hat and political criticism had been, was, and is expressed in guarded language, I stand with Mr. Romney and go ahead call me and Mr. Romney whatever names you want.
I haven’t seen her do anything that would suggest she is planning a run.
Since it’s a slow day, for entertainment purposes, can you suggest something she might do, but hasn’t, that would indicate to you that she is planning to run.
Well, she could actually announce that she’s going to run. But I think that’s about all that’s missing.
“Having read the article, it makes clear that our diplomats on the ground did not have a good understanding of who was who in the Benghazi zoo.”
No. The people on the ground had a good idea what Benghazi was like. That is why they made so many requests for increased security and voiced concerns about the militia guarding their compound. Requests denied by Hillary.
” That does not make the chief US diplomat look very smart.”
If only our ambassador didn’t wear such short skirts and alluring makeup, he wouldn’t have been killed. Why blame the victim? He asked for help and was denied prior to 9/11 and during the attack.
“What I think the Republicans forget is that Benghazi became such a political football because your man Romney shot his mouth off before he had the facts”
Lol. The old we couldn’t cover Benghazi because a Republican talked about it meme. You know how ridiculous that sounds coming from the “unbiased” news media? Romney was right and instead of focusing on his statements, the media should have focused on the people who were accountable, Obama and Hillary. Al Qaeda isn’t on the run as Obama claimed.
In short Benghazi became such a political football because security requests were denied in a country where Obama helped Islamist militants take over the country leading to the brutal deaths of our ambassador, a member of his staff, and some ex-military guys who tried to save them when Obama turned his back and refused to send aide to our people while they were fighting for their lives and Obama’s policies. Since then we have seen the region deteriorate into the chaos of Islamic militancy. A crushing rebuke from reality of Obama’s foreign policy emphasized by what happened in Syria, Egypt, and his dealings with Iran.
The chief US diplomat is the Secretary of State – at the time Hillary Clinton.
Having said that, Steven’s job was, in part, deciding if certain regions of the country were safe for himself and his staff. He could have closed the consulate and/or decided not to spend the night there. Clinton did not order him to go to Benghazi.
Steven’s death is analogous to a senior military officer getting killed after having decided to visit a forward operating base. The officer made a calculated risk to put the base where he did, and another calculated risk to visit when he did.
Those are facts, not blaming the victim.
Those are facts, but not all the facts. We still have to deal with the appearance of deliberately preventing US military and others from attempting to help in a life or death situation and then blaming a youtube video of a movie for causing the attack. Just because the ambassador may have made a poor decision doesn’t excuse what came after the attack.
“The chief US diplomat is”
You have to put that in the proper context if that is what you meant. The chief diplomat in Libya was the ambassador and he died while his requests for security and calls for help were ignored.
“Having said that, Steven’s job was, in part, deciding if certain regions of the country were safe for himself and his staff”
Back to blaming the victim. Imagine if you held Obama and Hillary to the same standard you hold the slain ambassador.
” He could have closed the consulate and/or decided not to spend the night there. Clinton did not order him to go to Benghazi.”
Ya sure. He was just a rogue ambassador operating on his own without any direction from the President or the Secretary of State while in a country where we just helped Islamic militants overthrow the government.
“Those are facts, not blaming the victim.”
No, you are blaming the victim. The ambassador was acting as an agent of the government. He wasn’t acting out his own foreign policy. He was doing the bidding of his bosses.
” First, there is an assumption that Hillary is even going to run in 2016. She might, but at the moment I haven’t seen her do anything that would suggest she is planning a run.”
Since you say she might, why is it a MAJOR flaw to assume she will?
It would only be a major flaw if we knew she was definitely not running yet assumed that she was.
So far the only major flaw here is your sentence.
” Second is the assumption that she could win.”
So are you saying that there is absolutely no way, at all, ever, that Hillary could win? Unless you are saying she cannot win – and you know for a fact, as an absolute certainty, she cannot win – then there is no major flaw here either.
“The third flaw is the assertion that the New York Times article whitewashes Clinton. ”
Here, it’s a matter of opinion as to the objective of the article. You are welcome to your own opinion, of course – no matter how silly it is. The major flaw could very well be in your opinion……..couldn’t it?
Gregg, you are “spinning your wheels.”
“In 2008, there was a significant “anybody but a Clinton” wing in the Democratic Party. I was part of that wing, because I remembered the 1990s and the never-ending hoopla in the media about Whitewater / Rose law firm billing / other crap I’ve blanked out on. This wing was not looking for a re-imagining of that era.”
So members of the “anybody but a Clinton” wing in the Democratic Party oppose Hillary Clinton, and will continue to oppose Hillary Clinton, not on the soundness or lack thereof of her policy prescriptions, not on her personal integrity or any possible deficiencies of same, not for her strength of character to meet unforseen crises head on or for perceived weakness in the department, not for being a symbol of gender equality or being a mere token, not for her charisma in appealing to voters or perhaps tone-deafness to their concerns?
This opposition is based on “never-ending hoopla in the media” on scandals that are described with a four-letter word, suggesting that the writer of that word dismisses the substance of those alleged scandals? Or if not dismissing the substance, finding the harm in those scandals restricted to the bad press they bring?
There is no “there, there”, no underlying principles. The only mode of rhetoric is anger and outrage. Every, last pronouncement, every last stand on the issues, every candidate supported and every candidate opposed, is derived from some kind of calculation of what will annoy the “other side”, that “Principal Enemy” Rand mentions in his post.
Well, if there were more than an iota of difference between Clinton’s policies, practical experience, etc., things might have been different. But there were a lot of scandals, none of which to my knowledge proved to be anything other than mudslinging.
The Clintons are not beloved of the left wing of the party, because of their involvement in the DLC – the centrist wing of the party.
Clinton in 2016 will be 69 years old – an age when many people decide to retire, not run for office. Per my Googling, only two presidents were 69 when they were elected – Ronald Reagan and William Henry Harrison. (Well, Harrison was 68 and change – but he didn’t last a month as President.)
In short, it’s not at all obvious that she’d run or be able to get nominated, so yes, assuming she’s the presumptive heir is a major flaw.
“In short, it’s not at all obvious that she’d run or be able to get nominated, so yes, assuming she’s the presumptive heir is a major flaw.”
Too bad that wasn’t one of the 3 alleged major flaws you listed.
The closest you came was:
“Second is the assumption that she could win.”
“could” does not equal “presumptive heir.
You really ought to re-read your own post to see what delusions you had when you wrote it so that you don’t continue to embarrass yourself later on.
“Gregg, you are “spinning your wheels.” ”
Your post is irrelevant as it ignores the fact that I was pointing out logical inconsistencies within what Gerrib wrote.
The remark “iota of difference between Clinton’s policies” is pure gibberish. There are times when pointing out grammar mistakes makes a person a prissy scold, but there are times when “that prose jus’ don’ parse.” Singular Clinton, possesive, which Clinton — William Jefferson or Hillary Rodham? Plural Clintons, meaning both these public figures, apostrophe goes after the “s”, but then what does that sentence even mean? Professor, I am confused!
So the Clinton scandals are no more than mudslinging from political opponents, and one could stipulate that point to be at least arguable. This means an outspoken Democrat has abandoned Hillary Clinton . . . mainly because, and through no fault of her own, she does not get fair treatment in the main-stream press? Huh?
Forget about the scandals. Secretary Clinton is in Nigeria holding a “town hall”, and a man asks what “President Clinton” thinks of China extending its influence in Nigeria and other parts of Africa, and this man finds himself staring down a double barrel of feminist outrage from America’s top diplomat.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together figured that he came of age when Mr. Clinton was the U.S. President and misspoke, and even if he meant President Clinton and thought the Secretary of State knew the former President’s mind on this by being married to him, the Secretary could have said, “If you want the views of former President Clinton, I will have to ask him, but if you want the views of current President Obama, as his Secretary of State I can tell you that . . .”
There is a certain Mad Tea Party (excuse the pun) quality to discussions around here.
Hillary Clinton is an attorney, activist, former United States Senator from New York, Democractic Primary presidential candidate, and U.S. Secretary of State with tremendous “name recognition.” She is deeply disliked in conservative circles, but that is true of many Democrats who have promoted liberal views and policies, but she remains generally popular if presidential straw polls are to believed.
And there are arguments against her running, the Bill Clinton scandals, which are non-scandals, her record as Secretary of State culminating in the Benghazi attack along with the apparent misdirection concerning a film attributed to a Coptic-Egyptian man with brushes with the law, which is also a non-scandal, which Presidential Candidate Romney took at face value as a threat to the First Amendment, which proved him to be a dangerous rube for “speaking too soon” before it was apparent that the “offensive film” was a tissue-thin “cover” for something that President Obama got really, really defensive about in the 2nd Debate (Candy! Read the transcript! It says “terrorism”!), probably for national security reasons that he couldn’t talk about and Candidate Romney couldn’t talk about either because he received classified briefings.
(Time out: Am I the only person in the post-Snowden world who sees any irony in this?)
Oh, and approaching age 69, forget that women live a lot longer than men, she will be “old”, as in “Reagan old”, as in “President Harrison who died after a month old.”
In mainstream culture, whether Hillary Clinton is the presumptive 2016 nominee is arguable. Here, on Rand’s fine Web site, this view is not only a “flaw”, it is a “major flaw.” Many MSM pundits see Ms. Clinton as the presumptive nominee (way in advance — remember Ed Muskie?), but for a bunch of yammering Libertarians, this is a “major flaw”, and these Libertarians need to be set straight, that is, unless they are willing to expend all of their “ammo” countering Hillary Clinton, but these Libertarians need to be scolded because they could use being scolded, but at the same time, they must be encouraged to “waste their ammo”, and maybe scolding them about wasting “ammo” will work as reverse psychology?
You have to cut Admiral Gerrib some slack here. Each time he is reminded of the Hillaryism “We’re going to take things away from you for your own good,” he gets a tingle that goes all the way down his body. Blood rushes from his brain to travel . . . well, you know where.
He fondly remembers her meeting Gandhi down at the local 7/11.