Category Archives: Clinton

Hillary’s Good Luck Charm Finishes Second, Dies

Hillary Clinton picked the filly Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby. She bet on her to win, place, and show. Eight Belles was running a clean race with no bumping, but both front ankles broke shortly after crossing the finish line. She (the horse) had to be euthanized by injection on the track, in front of the spectators of the race, before Big Brown, the favorite and winner, was presented with his trophy.

Barack Obama picked Colonel John (not Admiral John) to win. His horse was not in the money.

PETA blamed the jockey, Gabriel Saez, for the tragedy.

§

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Kodera’s Korner, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Democrat=Socialist, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Advertisements

Paglia on Hillary’s Girly Men

Hillarious

April 9, 2008 | I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary’s orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?

The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.

That statement is in no way meant to exclude women. In fact, I work with many women who succeed just as well in this environment. It is just a shorthand for an environment that values achievement and straight talk. Hillary’s persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female — but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.

What kind of person would go to work for a Clinton in the first place? A naive true-believer? Everyone knows what they would be getting into: constant war rooms, personal attacks, spin, daily damage control, a boss prone to temper tantrums, placing your own integrity out on the ledge as a shill for a fundamentally dishonest person. I would argue that nobody who hasn’t already sold their soul years ago would ever want to be a part of that mess.

Your thoughts?

Chris Richard
Agoura Hills, Calif.

You have succinctly expressed one of the most unsettling aspects of Hillary Clinton‘s character and modus operandi.

I would have answered that, “Could you repeat the question?”

§

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, A Newt One- Coverage of Vets on the hill!, The Christian Nationalist, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Beagle Scout, Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, The Yankee Sailor, and Chuck’s Place, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

CPUSA supports Clinton or Obama, and Card Check

Joel Wendland writes for the Marxist electronic fishwrapper politicalaffairs.net

With the undiminished role of the labor-led people’s movement, Webb [president of the CPUSA] predicted the outcome could bring enormous change that puts people’s need before warmaking, sleaze and policies that put profits before peoples need. Such an outcome is possible regardless of whether or not Clinton or Obama wins, he stated.

The Democratic campaigns and the possibility for change have eroded disillusionment and apathy. The main dilemma of the left is to not be left behind in this upsurge, he said. If we are not engaged in this struggle to advance the people’s movement, we will be left behind.

This year the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) is powered by big labor and their demand for the Orwellian “Employee Free Choice Act,” also called “Card Check,” which claims to increase democracy in the workplace by taking away the secret ballot in unionization efforts. You read that right. It claims to increase democracy in the workplace by taking away the secret ballot! Its name is a bald-faced lie. Brian Faughnan notes in the Weekly Standard Blog that both Obama and Clinton are fanatics about the Card Check bill. They love it. And yet normal Americans are 60-80% opposed to Card Check, according to a poll taken by McLaughlin & Associates.

But this poll shows how unpopular Card Check is with ordinary voters. And while ‘Card Check’ or ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ may sound too abstract to form the basis of an effective attack ad, those phrases obscure the real issue: the right of a worker to vote on unionization without his boss or coworkers knowing how he voted.

In other words, the bill would encourage union organizers to use peer pressure and threats to force employees in non-union shops into signing up for unions. Without a secret ballot, there is no freedom of choice in voting. This bill would create vote fraud, plain and simple.

Vote fraud, another plank in the Democratic Party platform, along with support for Communist Party causes.

§

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Maggie’s Notebook, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Conservative Cat, D equals S, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

How to Cheat the Vote: Appendix AA

AA standing for Advertising Age. Which is where Ken Wheaton describes how his Republican primary vote ended up being cast for Hillary Clinton.

So I slide into the voting booth and go to the pull the lever and … nothing. It doesn’t budge. I try again. Out of curiosity I lightly pull on one of the Democratic candidates’ levers. That seems to be working fine. I stick my head out of the booth and tell the guy there’s a problem. I tell him I’m a registered Republican, at which point he announces to the entire table, “Oh, this guy’s a Republican,” as if it’s been six generations since they’ve seen such a thing. In fact, one of the other workers says, “A Republican? Really?”I want to make it clear: This wasn’t a case of voter intimidation. It wasn’t as if the poll workers said, “Ewwww, is there slime coming out of his butt” or “Oh, so that’s what Satan smells like.” No, it was more a sound of amazement. I suddenly knew what the Great White Buffalo feels like. That said, I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to announce a voter’s affiliation across the polling place. You’d think the Board of Elections would cover that in the classes it gives to poll workers.

So the guy fidgets with the outside of the booth, then comes back and STEPS INTO THE BOOTH WITH ME. “Go ahead and try it now,” he says, watching over my shoulder. I reach for the lever and … nothing. “Hold on,” he says, and steps outside of the booth, fiddles with the machine, steps back into the booth and says, “Now try.” Lather, rinse, repeat. I suggest maybe the big lever that registers the vote might have to be reset for this to work. At first he says no, but then changes his mind. “Well, we’ll just have to throw in a vote,” he says.

At this point, he selects Hillary Clinton then pulls the lever. Ka-ching. One more vote for Hillary.

We then try again. Nothing. So he gives me a paper ballot.

That is slick from the poll worker/vote cheater’s point of view! Work the polls. Get paid. Get to vote many times. I wonder if this Hillary Clinton-supporting Brooklyn poll worker was a New Hampshire resident for a day back when Hillary Clinton had the miraculous and unexpected win against Obama earlier this primary season.

Well, it’s slick unless you are an actual voter who obeys the rules and doesn’t habitually cheat and defraud his (or her) way around the world.

Related:
How to Cheat the Vote
Even Jimmah Carter favors photo ID to guard against US voter fraud

h/t: Alarming News

§

Trackposted to The Midnight Sun, A Blog For All, 123beta, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog’s Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Wake Up America, A Newt One, Adeline and Hazel, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Oh What a Sign: Clinton or Prosperity?

Pick one.

The Billary Clintons play the race card

Kyle-Anne Shiver has been conducting a virtual seminar at the American Thinker for the past month or so in how Barack Obama and the Billary Clintons, who were all well trained in Saul Alinsky’s 4GW methods of agitation, have been employing the Alinsky techniques to destroy and defeat each other. The Alinsky technique is a vicious way of scapegoating and personally destroying a opponent in order to arouse and excite one’s own followers and demoralize and defeat the opponent’s followers.

Even though Obama seems to be harnessing the South Carolina black vote that will give him that state’s delegates, he has been feeling the brunt of the Clintons’ mastery of the tactic of polarization, taught decades ago to Hillary by Saul Alinsky.
Obama is being forced into the position of being the black candidate. Successfully polarizing Obama, who has attempted to run as the anti-polarity uniter, a man in the middle, has not been a lazy-day walk in the park for the Clintons, and surely would not have been attempted if Obama hadn’t trounced them in Iowa. [link]
Let me set something straight. I am a pragmatic anti-racist. I believe that race is a useless distinction. Race is a lie. There is no black race, no white race, no oriental race, no Jewish, Palestinian, English, French, Swedish, Aryan, German, Swiss, Russian, Ethiopian, Eritrean or Arab race. Caucasian, Mongolian, Negro are all long-rejected classifications of the human race based on the way that people look and the color of their skin. The human race is the only race worth favoring. Well, maybe wolves and other dogs deserve some favoring too.But black and white racism is about as stupid as white chocolate. Dark chocolate, on the other hand…

The Alinsky technique goes something like this. Find an opponent who has some reason to avoid open conflict. This opponent will become the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world, the focus of agitation and polarization. Followers will come to believe this scapegoat is a vile enemy. It is not necessary that the scapegoat really be a vile enemy. They simply need to be able to be painted as an enemy.

Cue George W. Bush. Is Bush derangement syndrome more understandable now?

Ridicule the enemy. Then blame the enemy for whatever the enemy has. It doesn’t have to be anything bad. It only has to be something you don’t have. Start making a lot of noise. Be rude, horrible, hateful. This isn’t about truth or reality, it is about turning your followers into mad dogs and frightening the enemy and any innocent bystanders into letting you get away with whatever you want to do.

Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on the tactics of Saul Alinsky. She was offered a job to work directly for Alinsky in Chicago, but turned it down to go to law school at Yale, where she worked to defend Black Panthers from murder charges. She understands Alinsky’s method very well. After graduating, Obama went to work for a community organization in Chicago that needed a black person to rabble rouse in the hood. They used the Alinsky method to agitate for free goodies for the “Have Nots.” Obama learned by doing and became very good at it. He got good enough that it led to his first political office as a ward politician in Chicago.

Obama does not want to engage in verbal combat with Hillary Clinton because no man should fight a woman. Mrs. Clinton already complained that the men were beating up on helpless poor little rich-girl Hill at an early debate. Obama knows that beating up a girl is a losing tactic. Instead, he has been direct about publicly scapegoating Bill Clinton as the problem with the hostility in the campaign. He will not do the same to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps he will find some subordinates to do the dirty work of tarring her. If he wants to have a chance he will.

Obama is as likable as Bill Clinton. He doesn’t need to get into the mud to fight it out. He could win without using Alinsky tactics. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is not charismatic. She needs to use Alinsky-style tactics. If you thought the Bill Clinton years were divisive and polarizing for the country, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Following the successful example of the Clintons, the Democrats divide the country up into tribes of women, blacks, hispanics, gays and lesbians, abortionists, leftover marxists, good and bad members of the military, good and bad businessmen, tobacco-spitting hicks, NASCAR voters, and the like. If they can assemble enough tribes into their coalition they can win. They do not have any interest in bringing people together or in erasing tribal distinctions. They succeed when they polarize people and drive them into tribes, because that makes the tribes angry and easy to manipulate with Alinsky-style tactics.

So what are the Billary Clintons doing against Obama? They are turning his black support against him. He is not running on race, but black people support him anyway. The Clintons will force him to stand with his race while Hillary gathers women to herself, and in a vote along tribal lines the 50% woman vote beats the 10% black vote. They will also ridicule his lack of experience, as he is only a first term Senator, while touting Hillary Clinton’s experience.

This leaves an opening the Republican opponent can use in the general election. Ultra-feminist Hillary Clinton is counting being the long-suffering wife of a philandering President as experience leading the country. It isn’t, no matter how much she cries about it. She is only a second-term Senator and never held any elected office before joining the Senate. Plus she is older than Bill by a year. Perhaps she will cry in her defense again. Perhaps? Surely she will.

The presidential campaign is going to get really ugly. Uglier than we have ever seen it. And that ugliness will be something that can be turned against those who use it.

Links to more sources on these tactics below.

§

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pet Haven Blog, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Du Pont: Where They Stand

Where do the presidential candidates stand on the five issues that matter most?

Where They Stand
A look at the presidential candidates’ positions on the five biggest challenges facing America.

By PETE DU PONT
January 15, 2008

Three states down (Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire), and 47 to go. Seven candidates–from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain on top, to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in the middle and John Edwards at the bottom–are still in the race to become the next president of the United States.

In the beginning Mrs. Clinton was the Democratic establishment’s winning candidate. But with her loss in Iowa and her position as underdog in the New Hampshire pre-election polls, the more liberal Mr. Obama was assumed to be the likely Democrat nominee. He still may get the nomination, but a massive national Clinton effort led by Bill and his presidential contacts may get her to the top.

On the Republican side, the ultimate outcome is far from clear. Messrs. McCain, Romney and Giuliani are still serious candidates, and while Mr. Huckabee would like to be, his lack of a national organization and his policy beliefs (a national sales tax, limiting free trade) and his history of raising taxes as governor of Arkansas are unlikely to appeal to most Americans.

But the political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–“I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.

Continue reading