The Hillary factor

Bill-Clinton-and-Hillary--001Roger Simon has warned conservatives that they’re taking their eye off the ball — and the ball is Hillary Clinton.  While we conservatives are fighting our internecine Rove versus Cruz arguments, Hillary is continuing to amass power.  It’s not just that the New York Times is whitewashing Benghazi on her behalf, says Simon.  Instead, it’s that she, unlike Obama, actually has the political chops (including the political husband) to consolidate socialist gains in American government:

The principal enemy for the right and the center-right is now Hillary Clinton, the vastly favored frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. She is so far in front, in fact, that her competitors are not even in hailing distance. 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.)

With that in mind, how does one explain the fact that Richard Cohen, an ardent Progressive, has penned a column telling everyone that Hillary may have been harmed by Obamacare?  He argues that, if people don’t like Obamacare, they won’t like her.  That argument is a red herring.  The facts on the ground are that Hillary kept away from Obamacare.  Her own dreams of socialized medicine notwithstanding, she had the smarts and political savvy to recognize early on that Obamacare, an unholy marriage of government and insurance companies, would be DOA and start to smell very quickly.  My take on Cohen’s overacted hand wringing it is that he thinks the best thing to happen now is for conservatives to leave Hillary alone, so that she can continue to aggregate political power.  “Move along!  Nothing to see here.  Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.”

So yeah, I think that Cohen’s article, to the extent it tries to distract attention from Hillary, proves that Simon is correct.  The Left wants Hillary to be left alone so that she can get ready for her spectacular, pre-paved emergence on the political scene.

I think, though, that Simon errs in one thing, which is his belief that the internecine war in the Republican party doesn’t matter.  Instead, it matters a great deal.  Conservatives aren’t stupid.  They know that, if another Democrat — any Democrat — gets the White House, we’ll be irrevocably on the pathway to becoming Greece.  There will be no turning back.  Knowing that, conservatives are taking a stand as to how to block that possibility:  with Tea Party, constitutional firebrands or with establishment, appeasing RINOs.  That the latter might do nothing at all to block the possibility is not something their supporters are considering.  Instead, their analysis is that the MSM has so terribly damaged the Tea Party brand that it cannot possibly win, so it’s better to back RINOs who are imperfect but might win.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. Matt_SE says

    Hillary is not inevitable. She is not Obama.
    Obama was an unknown quantity, and he saw to it that it stayed that way. Hillary is an open book by comparison, mainly because of her history as First Lady. Bill had his peccadillos, but the biggest, slimiest scandals had Hillary’s fingerprints on them. So she’s hated by the right.
    She’s also seen as too comfy with big money donors like on Wall Street, so she’s hated by the far left, too. Hence the talk of a challenge by Elizabeth Warren (for the record, I consider Warren a less-intelligent version of Hillary but she does have the anonymity thing going on).
    Then, even if you discount her time as First Lady or disavow any connection with Obama’s scandals (Benghazi!!!), she still has no record of accomplishment…not as Secretary of State, not as NY Senator.
    In summary, we would have to try really hard to lose to Hillary…I’m not worried about her.
    The second part of the article is more consequential. Simon is wrong to take the “can’t we all just get along” tack. We (Tea Party and Establishment) CANNOT get along, because we want opposite and mutually exclusive things. Our goal are at odds.
    The establishment has the money, but we have the people (I think). As the Colorado recalls showed, people trump money.
    I’m confident that no meaningful reform of government will happen with the current “leadership” of the Republicans. They need to be purged; especially McConnell.

  2. jj says

    I don’t think Hillary Clinton is politically savvy in the least – and I think her husband was shocked and amazed at what a crappy candidate she was last time out.  (He probably, to an extent, fell for the BS too, and found the reality appalling.)  But savvy?  Think back a bit – it’s not that long ago – and note that everything this woman touches – on her own – turns to excrement.  And does so with maximum fuss, feathers, waste energy, and chaos, too.  (Her own attempts at health care being a prime example.)
    I don’t think she’s the least bit savvy, nor do I think she’s particularly bright.  Nor do I think she’s done a damn thing – on her own – in her life.  She is the grand champion coat-tail rider, and I find it hilarious that progressive women seem to be unable to discern this, and hold her up as an example for independent women everywhere.  The sad fact remains that without Bill, nobody outside her immediate family ever heard of her.  Her own accomplishments add up to a resume thinner than Obama’s.
    But Bill is politically smart.  He’s a piece of offal, but that  doesn’t prevent him being politically smart.  He’s fully aware that on her own she’s a disaster, (I don’t think he even likes her, to judge from some dropped remarks over the years), so he’s setting up the scenario to keep her surrounded by people who are much more politically savvy than she.  People who will watch her every step; control her every word, and who are loyal to him.  (And I’ll just state for the record right here: It passes my understanding why anyone would be loyal to him, he is such garbage and so manifestly loyal to nothing but himself, but that’s democrats for you.)  It doesn’t matter who she has on the masthead as campaign manager: her campaign manager is Bill.
    Her mouth needs to be controlled most of all, and he is never going to allow anything like “at this point, what does it matter?” to cross her lips again.  (I would bet that remark, in all it’s stupidity and pique, will have been the last unscripted Hillary we ever hear.)  I know that when he saw that on TV he fell off his couch, smacked his forehead, and implored the heavens: “how did I ever get mixed up with this idiot?”
    I will disagree with Simon to this extent: Hillary isn’t “amassing” anything.  But Bill is.  Nobody owes her a thing, and she’s been so damaged by her own witlessness (see above) that she’s incapable – but she’ll certainly benefit from his activities.  He’s become a saint among democrats instead of the occupant of a cell he ought to be, so he counts.  The weight he swings is real.
    But I am also in agreement with Cohen.  Herr stance on Obamacare is irrelevant.  Everybody knows she’s a democrat, everybody knows the democrats marched in lockstep off that particular cliff, and everybody who isn’t one of them hates them all – including her – for it.  And for the general malaise that’s infected the country for six years.  And for the unbelievable deficit and debt situations.  And for the millions of jobs lost.  When Jackass bows to the Saudis, or gets beaten stupid by Putin she pays for it, as do they all.  She doesn’t get to avoid the geenral reckoning that the democrats have coming: she’s one of them, wherever she positioned herself on health care.
    The question will be: are there enough true believers who are congenitally on her side because she’s a democrat to carry the day for her?  I don’t know the answer.  Conservatives and republicans in this country self-identify in greater numbers than liberals and democrats – this remains a conservatively-inclined country – but I don’t know.  Obama is not done damaging the democrat brand, either, though whether whatever damage he does penetrates to the core of true believers is also an unanswered question.
    But I don’t regard Hillary as either savvy, or smart.  I do think she’ll henceforward shut up, and say and do exactly what Bill and his hand-picked handlers tell her to say and do.  Her thoughts on the matter – any matter – no longer matter: she’ll parrot what he tells her.  So let’s not pretend Hillary’s any threat at all: she isn’t.  But he is.

    • Matt_SE says

      Yeah…we haven’t seen the results of the employer mandate yet. I fear the possibility that Obama can somehow put off the consequences so that it doesn’t affect the 2014 races, but I know he can’t put it off to not affect the 2016 races.
      Everything we’ve seen so far has been a prelude to that disaster. Political scientists in the far future will note that as the beginning of the “Great Reversal.”
      We ain’t see nothing yet!

  3. Matt_SE says

    Oh, another thing:
    Based on what I see in the comments of several different blogs, conservatives will not vote for RINOs no matter the consequences.
    In fact, it’s safe to call it a visceral disgust if not hatred.
    I expect Democrats to use that as a blunting mechanism in 2014. Just like in the VA governor’s race, expect to see “3rd party” or “independent” candidates funded by leftist money in order to peel votes from Republican candidates.
    Still, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a rapprochement if I were you.

  4. jj says

    The ideological stance of the republican party will be an issue, and is really the only ray of light the democrat operation has.  Conservatively-inclined republicans, regrettably, are much better people than any democrat ever spawned.  They have standards.  They have expectations of their candidates with regard to those standards.  If a candidate doesn’t meet them, conservatively-inclined voters have demonstrated that their money is where their mouths are, and they’ll stay home.  They are honorable.  The democrats are not.  They have no standards, and are not trammeled with expectations.  Democrats are, I suppose you could say, much more disciplined than republicans: they’d vote for Heinrich Himmler if he had a (d) after his name.   While this is great for party discipline and winning elections it doesn’t take much account of who or what might be a positive result for America.  This seems not to matter to them.
    At least as big a question as who wins is the question of whether or not the republican party survives.  As currently constituted I believe it does not.  It will either move to the right, or it will be as swamped as the Whigs were when Lincoln and his cohort decided they were too far gone to save, and the republican party was born from the wreckage.  (Everybody forgets that old Abe, a tear perpetually in his eye, was not at all a nice man.  He was a dick – pardon me.  He was a nut-cutting political animal, perfectly happy to [figuratively, of course] slit the throats of those other political animals who couldn’t or wouldn’t discern which way the wind was blowing, and stood against the new regime.  The Whigs vanished without trace, let us recall – and did it pretty briskly, too.)  The republican party seems to be following the Whig trajectory.  A new pattern is emerging, and they don’t seem to be getting it.  They aren’t listening to their constituents, and John Boehner evidently thinks the job of new republican members of congress is to kowtow to him, and do what he tells them to do – or else.  The base is gone, and all that’s left is the game-players – and John may be not far from finding out what “or else” really means.
    That would be bad, perhaps, for the coming election cycles – but ultimately good for America.  Bad because the birth of a new party or the fundamental reset of an existing one is always a chaotic and sloppy process and the coming elections may be a godless stramash.  Good because people are done with the party being hijacked by such as Boehner, McCain, Cornyn, Graham, etc., and will put it back on a Constitutional American track.
    I think there’s little question the momentum is shifting, but it’ll be a bloody mess for a while.  And whether the republican party survives – and there’s little reason for it to do so as currently constituted – or is replaced by something new is quite a way up in the air.   

  5. expat says

    Another thing that could go against Hillary is that she is so yesterday. What are her new ideas that will inspire the young?  Do young women who have jobs actually care about the glass ceiling? How will her being president improve their lives?  What the Reps need is someone who can create enthusiasm by relating to the real lives of the young.

  6. says

    I think those of you focusing on Hillary — bad candidate, bad ideas, unappealing personality, old, stale, taint of Obamacare, etc. — are correct in your assessment of her.  However, you’re missing something:  the media and entertainment industry want her to win.  2012 showed us that, no matter how bad things get, if the media/infotainment world has your back, you will win. 

    We look at the MSM and think “lies, all of it.”  Most people, however, look at it and think (a) that’s the truth or (b) it’s dumb and I’m ignoring it. 

    We think option (b) means that the person is also rejecting the MSM’s conclusions.  That’s where we err.  Just as I automatically hum the Oscar Meyer tune every time I walk down the cold cuts aisle (despite not having seen one of their commercials since I was a child), the MSM’s memes are embedded deep in American’s psyches.  Even though Americans’ conscious minds are tuning the MSM out, their unconscious minds are marching along like good little soldiers.

    Sadly, Andrew Breitbart took to the grave his knack for disrupting the circuits. is just a news outlet and James O’Keefe (who is, I think, Breitbart’s true heir) still lacks the presence and gravitas.

  7. Charles Martel says

    Speaking as a Julia, I know that Hillary will protect my right to the consequence-free orgasm (peace and plenty be upon it), which includes financing my Constitutional right to contracept or abort. That to me is what feminism is all about—even if I sometimes naughtily think that she probably hasn’t been getting any for, oh, say, 40 or 50 years.
    Wait, hold my horses! Maybe she has O’ed lately. If the rumors are true that she may soon reveal herself as a Sapphic fellow-traveler, that would make my support for her even stronger. Remembering my butch friends in college, I know that they are the kind of gals who instinctively understand the power of an unfettered, uninhibited, federally subsidized pudenda. 

  8. says

    However, you’re missing something:  the media and entertainment industry want her to win.
    That’s not normally going to be a problem during a war though. And by “war”, you know what I’m referring to.

  9. jj says

    I think there are times the media runs up against its limits, and I also think this dame might be one of them.  They’ve been trying to make her likable for decades – it just doesn’t work, because she isn’t.  Thus far she’s unable, even with Bill’s tutelage, to successfully pretend she is.  Nobody actually likes her.  (As I said earlier: I don’t think Bill does either.)  This means something, because the American morons will not generally elect people they don’t like, or find likable.  (The exception that springs to mind was the JFK-Nixon election, which Nixon, who was not likable, won.  On the other hand the American people were okay with it being stolen by the more affable Kennedy.)
    You know this is an important factor, because you can see by a quick run-through of the history of the last fifty year’s elections that a major democrat tactic is not merely to have policy issues and differences with republicans, but they go overboard trying to demonize them, which is nothing more than ‘render them unlikable’ writ large.  It wasn’t enough to disagree with Goldwater, Johnson had to make him crazy and dangerous.  Unlikable.  Uncomfortable to be around.
    Again, Nixon was an anomaly in 1968, effortless to portray as unlikable, but Humphrey was such a hopelessly dishonest old hack himself he couldn’t get it done no matter how big his grin.  McGovern was a one-trick pony with no clue of governance and everybody knew it, making Nixon, again, the unlikable exception.  Carter was a good old boy shitkicker, shufflin’ and grinnin’ – and a lot easier to be around than the rather stiff Ford.  Reagan, however, buried him in 1980 and rolled through eight years with sunniness intact.  Immensely likable, and even his political foes had to admit it.  Nobody liked Dukakis, including his wife who had to be a drunk to live with him, so he lost.  Clinton was full of excrement at all times right up to and including through the present moment, but nobody alive would choose Bush over him to go out for a crawl on a Friday night.  He’s shit – but he’s likable.  There are trees that are more likable and easier to get along with than either Gore or Kerry, and, obviously, Jugears was able to portray himself as more likable than either the Bitch or the stick-up-the-ass Preppie.  (It wasn’t hard in either case.)
    And therein lies one of her many problems.  She’s still the Bitch.  She hasn’t been able to move away from being the Bitch.  And when she opens her mouth like she did in the Benghazi hearings she puts it in neon.  The press can cover up for and make it easy for an Obama because nobody knew who the hell he was.  They could do it again because Romney was a stiff.  But Bitch?  We have decades, decades of experience of her.  Even among my liberal acquaintanceship I don’t know any body who likes her.  That counts with Americans, unable, as they are, to actually look at, process, or understand issues.

    • says

      I wish I was as optimistic as you, jj.  To the extent that most of the women with whom I’ve friends on the “real me” Facebook are liberals, I can see their rising excitement.  Even though it’s almost three years until the next election, they’re already celebrating Hillary as their pro-abortion candidate of choice.

      • jj says

        Dunno – is that optimism?  Which is not me being smart, I’m genuinely wondering if my thoughts could be characterized as ‘optimistic.’  I think I thought of it more as a sad commentary on the stupidity of the average American voter than as an expression of optimism over her losing!   
        I think you’re right, to an extent.  There is a core – the Himmler voters referenced above – who will vote for the (d) no matter what.  With this candidate a lot of them seem to be female.  And there’s nothing to be done about either of those things – the reflexive voters or that a lot are female.  But I’m hoping they’re not a large enough core to swing the thing.  I’m hoping that Bitch will, on her own, have to round up some electoral muscle.  I don’t think she can.  I think everybody who’s going to vote for her is already committed.  I think/hope they’re not enough: I think/hope she’s going to have to add some.  And therein, I hope/think/pray lies her downfall.

        • Matt_SE says

          In this sense, Hillary’s problem is the same as the Republican candidate’s: how do you broaden your appeal without alienating your base?
          The difference comes from the core ideology:
          For a Republican, the coalition-breaker is social issues. But these can be solved by appealing to State’s Rights (assuming you deflect all the civil war slavery arguments). Under this regime, you live and let-live and most conservatives are content.
          The problem for Hillary is that militant leftism/progressivism is a conquering/proselytizing faith. They want to “live”, but not “let-live.” Only uniformity will suffice. She has no way to moderate her progressive policies without endangering her standing among the faithful.
          Normally, leftists try to sound moderate for the general election and the faithful know this is crap. The old (nudge,nudge) business.
          I think there’s enough doubt among the far left in Hillary’s case to possibly split their coalition, per Elizabeth Warren.

          • Matt_SE says

            Negative attacks against Hillary can take a number of tacks, depending on which portion of her base you want to peel away.
            For the far left:
            – Welfare reform by Bill. True, she wasn’t involved, but she was standing near it. After all, isn’t she riding on his coattails?
            – Being too cozy with Wall Street. Goldman Sachs, all the big business donations. Real OWS stuff.
            For the more classically-liberal:
            – Tacit support of Obama’s drone strike policy?
            – Support of the completely ILLIBERAL Muslim Brotherhood. She’s got her fingerprints all over that one.

          • jj says

            You’re talking policy, Matt.  I’m operating on a much simpler level: Americans have never elected as president a person they didn’t like.  (Except Nixon, the only exception of whom I can think.)   Having never been an electorate of smart or informed voters, they go for the visceral stuff: do I like this person?  Nobody except the core true believers likes her.  By themselves I don’t think that’s enough: she’s going to have to add voters.  She already has all the reflexive (d) voters, they’re already committed.  To add to them she can’t talk policy, it doesn’t matter where her fingerprints are.  She has to be likable.  Personable.  Friendly.  Project a little warmth.  All stuff that is very, very difficult for her: she is not likable, personable, friendly or possessed of warmth.  Americans do not elect people they don’t like, and this is really uphill for her.

  10. Matt_SE says

    Which ties into something my mother said; that Chris Christie is [reported to be] likeable. I will admit ignorance, having not heard him give one speech. But some people seem to think he has that kind of Howard Stern-like honesty that is refreshing in contrast to other politicians.
    So I guess he’s likeable, at least to some folks.
    Personally, I judge him on what I’ve heard of his policies. And from what I’ve heard, he’s no conservative. I think this is a view shared by most other conservatives, especially those outside the northeast.
    Also, I wonder how likeable he’ll be once the MSM start going to town on him.
    So this sets up a problem: he could sway independents, but I don’t think there’s a prayer he’ll get the conservative vote. Which would result in an electoral defeat much like Romney’s (though Romney was less personally likeable, however good a person he is).
    So, who is likeable that can also garner the support of the conservative base?  I think the only one that fits that bill is Rand Paul. He seems likeable enough, and conservatives can largely hold their noses and vote for a libertarian, I think.
    By way of disclosure, Paul is actually my second- or third-place choice after Ted Cruz and Rick Perry in that order. Cruz is a bona-fide conservative with the guts and savvy to fight Washington D.C. insiders, but he’s already been the victim of left-wing smearing. I’m not sure how likeable he can be made.
    Perry had a poor performance last cycle, but I’ve been very impressed with his stewardship of Texas in the interim. I think that after (former JUNIOR SENATOR) Obama, proof of executive experience may make a big comeback for voters.

  11. Matt_SE says

    I agree, JJ. She’s not likeable.
    That sort of thing is hard to fake, too. I imagine she will be media-managed VERY closely in the campaign to prevent off-the-cuff remarks. In that, she’s similar to Obama: needs to be managed, but for bitchiness instead of dumbassery.
    I expect to never see her without a “handler” present. The MSM, of course, will never mention that. Just like they omitted mention of the “handlers” in the old Soviet Union.

  12. says

    “Instead, their analysis is that the MSM has so terribly damaged the Tea Party brand that it cannot possibly win, so it’s better to back RINOs who are imperfect but might win.”
    That’s the strategy, military strategy, people are entrusting their lives and the lives of their children to?
    Man, have the United States Empire of Freedom fallen low. We can’t win, so let’s back the collaborators, spies, and greedy folks. Sure, that’ll work. What would Sun Tzu say?

Leave a Reply