Hillary Clinton Would be a Disastrous President During Wartime

Monday, February 13, 2006
“WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November.

The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."

Fox News atory.

I don’t think that Hillary Clinton has a realistic chance of being elected the leader of our country. But let’s dwell on the remote possibility that my prediction is proven incorrect. Might she ultimately prove to be another Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher? Nope, this is highly unlikely. These two women possessed a healthy pessimism concerning human nature. They rightfully perceive the at least metaphorical reality of Original Sin is alive and well on planet Earth. Our emphasis must be on destroying our enemy and not dealing with “root causes.” Osama bin Ladin should be considered a murderous scum bag and not a misunderstood victim of Western imperialism. The ideological underpinning of Senator Clinton’s core philosophy revolves around the mistaken notion that the world is mostly comprised of victimizers and victims. If anyone is hostile towards the United States---then we must have done something to get them this angry. When push comes to shove, we are at fault. It is therefore the duty of the president of the United States to apologize profusely and ask for forgiveness. Is Hillary Clinton consciously aware of her deep seated motivations? Probably not, and this is what makers her so dangerous.

Try imagining the late Scoop Jackson running for president against a Republican candidate in 2008. Would he be spouting nonsense about the GOP allegedly “playing the fear card” to win elections? I don’t think so.
If nothing else, he might even run to the right of the Republicans!

4 comments:

Rick Ballard said...

Scoop Jackson, Zell Miller or Harry Truman - there are other names that could easily be added and every one of them could give the Reps a real run for the money on security issues. Kennedy and Johnson could for that matter.

I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization of Hillary as operating from what she would call a "false consciousness". No one can say that Marxists can not be as ruthless as they deem necessary. The victim/victimizer charade is for the useful idiots and Hillary is no idiot. Fortunately, she's not much of a politician either. Her lies lack the neccessary faux sincerity that Bill had mastered.

David Thomson said...

“I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization of Hillary as operating from what she would call a "false consciousness"

Many people unwittingly embrace Marxist doctrines. These individuals are convinced that this is simply an objective and dispassionate world view. Consciously or subconsciously, she is a leftist ideologue. That's all we really need to know.

terrye said...

david:

I doubt very much that she can be elected, her negatives are very high.

I think the victimization mentality might be true of some liberals and their world view. But I am not sure about Hillary. There is something about her than makes me think she just might push that button. She is m.e.a.n.

In fact I worry more about her trying to prove how tough she is than her running scared, if you get my drift.

gumshoe1 said...

fingers crossed we don't
have to find out(Re:Hillary),
but look at Howard Dean:

plenty of political ambition.

badly over-estimates his own credentials.

look at John Kerry:

plenty of political ambition.

badly over-estimates his own credentials.

look at Al Gore:

plenty of political ambition.

badly over-estimates his own credentials.

for all her loathing of the military,i agree...
on a global stage...
events would demand she
"prove how tough" she was.

and i don't think she has the restraint to manage the outcome.