Post of the Day

by Dave Schuler on April 29, 2014

Demonstrating that he still hasn’t lost his touch, I commend Mickey Kaus’s post, “A Marxist Analyst of Hillary” to your attention. Here’s the opening:

Now that we are all Marxists, we need to uncover the materialist basis of even seemingly non-economic phenomena. Take Hillary Clinton’s campaign/non-campaign for President. Is she running or not? Why won’t she say?

I think that this is something that should be repeated every time the name “Clinton” is mentioned. Here we have a woman who was the only Ivy grad among her contemporaries couldn’t pass the DC bar the first time around but who, fortuitously, was hired by Little Rock’s largest law firm as soon as Hubbie was elected governor of Arkansas. By a stroke of good fortune her first investment outing netted her a very tidy sum. Have I mentioned that her husband was governor of Arkansas? She appears to have received investment advice from Tyson Foods (headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas).

She was catapulted to national attention by her husband’s presidential run, made successful at least in part by a demonstration of public forgiveness of her husband’s many infidelities. For this she is a Champion of Feminism.

She is a woman of contradictions, to say the least.

Read the whole thing. If Mr. Kaus’s analysis is correct, there will be a lot of disappointed Democrats within just a few months time. And a mad scramble in 2016.

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

... April 29, 2014 at 10:18 am

She was catapulted to national attention by her husband’s presidential run, made successful at least in part by a demonstration of public forgiveness of her husband’s many infidelities.

No, no! It’s much more sinister than that. She accused everyone that accused Bill of infidelity of being involved in a vast conspiracy. She abused anyone that questioned he husband’s fidelity in a loud and vicious manner. And when it was finally shown that a great many of the accusations were true, she … continued to slam people for saying bad things about her husband. She has been a vicious hell-bitch who has regularly engaged in smearing opponents who pointed out the bad behavior of her husband and herself. No mere Tammy Wynette she.

Dave Schuler April 29, 2014 at 10:21 am

You’ve got to admit that complaining about the “politics of personal destruction” takes a lot of chutzpah under the circumstances.

... April 29, 2014 at 10:25 am

No one doubts her chutzpah.

steve April 29, 2014 at 12:23 pm

The sad part is that she is probably better than most of the potential GOP candidates. The good news is that she does not have Bill’s gifts and won’t win the nomination.

Steve

jan April 29, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Hillary Clinton is a bastion of raw ambition, coupled with a vacated conscience. Her gestures, moves, words, deeds all seem to be calculated around personal political goals/gratification aimed at attaining a seat on top of the heap of power.

She definitely is not a female one would want to cultivate in terms of loyalty, love, ethics, character, or steadfast friendship. Basically, Hillary is a cold, cold woman sliming her way through the political channels of government on the coattails of a conveniently popular husband. Without him she would have been a nobody, impatiently sharpening her teeth in some law firm, while attempting to skim as much money and prestige off the top as was feasible.

The sad part is that she is probably better than most of the potential GOP candidates.

Considering Hillary to have a higher range of integrity, propriety, good judgment, or competence than other GOP candidates is simply a very partisan overview. The problem, though, in accurately assessing her groomed ‘candidacy’ is that past flaws/mistakes are being airbrushed and/or ignored by the MSM and her political party. The corners of dirt on her are being swept clean. Her harsh demeanor, explosive and expletive-ladened temperament is being superficially softened, molding her into a more palatable Margaret Thatcher image. IOW, Hillary is being sugar-coated and finessed in order to be more acceptable to the electorate.

You can’t, however, say the same for the GOP POTUS possibilities, who are continuously tried, convicted, and negatively remanded over to the public for any past clumsy comments, unpopular stances, their political/family associations, or anything else deemed outside the realm of the PC orientation that has permeated our political culture. In fact, being politically correct has become a bigger factor in the selection of a POTUS than, let’s say, having a solid, successful record to run on, ideas that will work to expand an economy or increase world stability, rather than weaken it.

For instance, there are republican governors like Jindal, Walker and Pence, who have strengthened their states fiscally through reform measures introduced. Jindal’s HC ideas have been particularly constructive, as have been his ideas regarding education reform, which are always shot down by school unions not wanting any changes. Where are Hillary’s ideas? Where are her accomplishments? She, IMO, is simply a symbolic feminine figure, trying to gain a legacy on the back of an empty but stridently self-serving governmental career.

michael reynolds April 29, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Ronald Reagan’s pre-presidential accomplishments: B movie star, union organizer, speaker-for-hire and two-term governor of California in which his signal accomplishments were balancing the state budget by raising taxes, sending CHP in to beat up protesters and legalizing abortion.

Eisenhower pre-presidency: General. (Mediocre general, actually, though one hell of a staff guy and an unparalleled wrangler of egomaniacs.)

Abraham Lincoln, pre-presidency: Corporate lawyer, one-term Congressman from Bumfuck. Two years in politics.

You know what would be a really impressive resumé for a future president? How about Congressman, Senator, Secretary of State, Minister to Russia, Ambassador to the Court of Saint James. Man, you’d have the full package then. Which is why we so revere James Buchanan.

There is no resumé that qualifies you to be president. We’re not hiring a new code monkey or a head of human resources. The essential requirement is that you get elected. That’s the qualification.

Andy April 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm

If Hillary and Jeb end up winning their respective nominations, I’ll be ready to declare them a modern-day Marius and Sulla.

Trumwill April 29, 2014 at 8:08 pm

HRC would be the most qualified president in over two decades. Not that that’s a very high hurdle to jump. That latter part going towards Michael’s point, of course.

Guarneri April 30, 2014 at 4:03 pm

I’m with Michael, except he forgot something. One hell of talented cattle futures trader. Why, if she wasn’t so steadfast in her selfless devotion to public service she could have been a trading legend. She may still do it on the side, though. You know how some people morph into looking like the things they love…….

Guarneri April 30, 2014 at 4:07 pm

“The essential requirement is that you get elected. That’s the qualification.”

Indeed. And then you, too, can produce .1% GDP growth and 11% real unemployment………..

Dave Schuler April 30, 2014 at 5:34 pm

If what people are taking away from this post (and Mickey Kaus’s) is “resume”, then either I’m not expressing myself well or they’re not reading closely enough.

jan April 30, 2014 at 7:22 pm

To use Kaus’s language, he is postulating that HRC’s flirting with a run for POTUS is a gravy train move, and little else. IOW, seeking public service positions, which then curries favor with Wall Street donors trying to get an inside tract, is a major source of funding their lifestyle and foundations.

Lately, the schemes of most politicians (of all political strains) seems to be more about self-service than public-service. It’s discouraging….

jan April 30, 2014 at 10:29 pm

BTW, not that I’m necessarily buying Kaus’s premise about HRC, but if he proves to be right, who would fill the democratic candidate shoes?

Unlike the crowded GOP field elbowing each other to have the highest polling numbers, there is extreme deference shown the Clintons in not stepping on their ambitions until they voluntarily decide to step aside.

I personally don’t see this as being particularly healthy, to have such scant competition in the dem party, because of people automatically bowing to the Clinton machine. While both Bush and Clinton have been tagged as being part of political dynasties, it seems that the Bush family’s experimentation with running are at least not appearing to dampen any desires of other R’s contemplating the nomination, like is being demonstrated in the tepid list of democrats mentioned as democratic POTUS possibilities.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: