Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Hillary the Inauthentic

In 2008 Barack Obama said that Hillary Clinton was “likable enough.” Apparently, yet again, Obama was wrong. It seems that Hillary is not even close to being likable enough.

It’s beginning to disturb the liberal media, people who would be expected to support her candidacy. They seem to think that she is looking more and more like a loser.

Winners do not sit down to do a jokey video with uber-exhibitionist Lena Dunham.

Frank Bruni reports on the cringe-inducing encounter:

She had a law career, an ambitious agenda as first lady, an industrious stint in the Senate, those years and miles as secretary of state.

And it has come to this: In a bid to seem less stuffy and turn the page on a beleaguered (yet again) presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton is chatting with Lena Dunham about the singer Lenny Kravitz’s penis.

In his opening sentence, Bruni strains to recount Hillary’s achievements. But, that is the real problem. She is really running on her husband’s name and achievements. And she is running as a feminist, despite her long history of enabling her husband to abuse women sexually. How much credibility could she to inveigh against rape culture and unwanted sexual touching.

Bruni says that the Dunham/Clinton love-in is a pajama party sans pajamas. I find the innuendo amusing, but will leave that one to your imagination:

But it’s in large part a Dunham-Clinton love-in, a pajama party minus the pajamas, ostensibly in keeping with the Clinton campaign’s recent pledge to roll out a warmer, funnier version of the candidate. I’ve lost count of which version we’re on.

In the promotional video, Clinton kids that because Dunham’s newsletter and the website associated with it are called Lenny, she half expected that the person coming to question her might be Kravitz.

Dunham then mentions some viral footage of a Kravitz wardrobe malfunction: “His stuff fell out of his pants.”

Clinton feigns fascination. “I’ll look for that,” she says.

We are happy to see Bill Clinton’s wife bond with Dunham over their interest in gazing longingly on a man’s penis. One understands that this fascination does not characterize heterosexual women.

Bruni is exasperated by the incompetence of the Clinton campaign. Keep in mind that he is likely to want to support the Democratic candidate in the pages of the New York Times:

But her campaign so far is an unimpressive dress rehearsal for the general election. It’s devoid of soul and sweep, a series of labored gestures and precisely staked positions. Constituency by constituency, leftward adjustment by leftward adjustment, she and her aides slog and muscle their way forward.

And they contradict the adage that a politician campaigns in poetry and governs in prose. Clinton campaigns in something more like a PowerPoint presentation. Prose would be an upgrade. Poetry is light years away.

Nearly everyone who has met Hillary Clinton says that she is charming and personable in private. In public, she’s a dud.

My only explanation is the easiest one: she is not running on her substantial achievements; she is not running on her policy proposals; she is not running on her accomplishments. She is running as an empty pantsuit, or, on her husband’s record.

Her supporters and advisers recommend that she become more real and more authentic, warmer and more effusive. The problem is, as a candidate she is unreal. She cannot present herself as she really is because she did not earn any of the positions she held.

Recall what Bruni lists as her achievements. A high-profile law career while her husband was governor. An ambitious agenda as first lady—that is, an incompetent effort to reform health care. Industriousness in the Senate… which suggests that she worked hard but did not accomplish much. And, a lot of frequent flier miles when secretary of state.

Like Obama, she must know in the depths of her soul that she is an impostor. Unlike Obama she cannot give a decent speech and is not a very good liar.

In many if not most ways, Hillary is an impostor. And she is not good enough to hide it.


4 comments:

  1. Stuart: Like Obama, she must know in the depths of her soul that she is an impostor. Unlike Obama she cannot give a decent speech and is not a very good liar.

    It is strange that she's paid so much money to give her speeches, at least before running for president, or is she still gettig paid? I really do believe the Clintons were "flat broke" after Clinton left office, at least by debt versus assets. So she may know she's an imposter, but at least the Clintons knew they had to cash in on their political celebrity status to make ends meet. And I'm sure they were sincere in their gratitude to W for keeping their taxes low, and for Obama allowing the Bush tax cuts to remain.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

    And interestingly Trump might be her complete opposite, at least he has no idea that he is an imposter. I wonder what that means?

    And now Trump has promised tax cuts for everyone, perhaps we'll soon reach 60% who pay no federal taxes, even if billionaires will get the lion's share, Bill and Hillary can go back to their $250k speeches.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/donald-trump-tax-plan/
    ---------
    But many of those families already pay no federal taxes. Roughly 45% of American households will not owe any federal income taxes this year under the existing tax code... Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation. "It will probably add to the number of people who don't have to pay any income tax. That was already true of many people and he's just expanding the number of people."
    ---------

    If only I thought the party could continue, I'd be all for President Trump to make America great again. But I just don't expect any president can do that. Not even a new "War president" can help us this time.

    I won't vote for Jeb! but at this point a fourth Bush term doesn't sound so bad. He knows he shouldn't say "Read my lips no new taxes" unless he means it. And he knows "He tried to kill my daddy" is a poor argument for invasion. These are important lessons of wisdom that come out of a dynasty.

    And we know the Clintons have a deep bench too. Chelsea turned 35 this year! I'm thinking 2024 will be her turn, which leaves Jeb! open for a fifth Bush term!
    http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/04/11/prediction-chelsea-clinton-run-president-2024/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am unsure she has a soul. I do wonder if she's a sociopath.

    She thinks nothing of lying, repeatedly, even after getting caught.
    She does not seem to understand the music of human emotions, and can only ape the words, as if they are alien to her.
    When frustrated in getting what she wants (and clearly she thinks she deserves what she wants), she lashes out in vicious outrage at those around her.
    She seems to order people about as if they were blocks of wood, to be moved at her whim.
    She seems angered at the idea that someone might have different needs that counter hers.
    And she has never evinced a sense of shame. It's always someone else's fault, indeed she has the solipsistic belief that segments of the world are aligned against her ('vast conspiracy').

    But that's only my view from a great distance. Up close she might actually have human qualities invisible to the camera and podium.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Bruni says that the Dunham/Clinton love-in is a pajama party sans pajamas. I find the innuendo amusing, but will leave that one to your imagination:" Brain bleach, STAT!

    "Nearly everyone who has met Hillary Clinton says that she is charming and personable in private. In public, she’s a dud." I'd like statistics on that "nearly everyone". She seems dedicated to NOT meeting the public.

    Stu, if you wrote "My only explanation is the easiest one: she is not running on her substantial achievements; she is not running on her policy proposals; she is not running on her accomplishments.", I'd like to see those enumerated. Because I'm not seeing any of those, other than Hillarycare.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, I was wrong about Jeb! He's apparently wants to lobby for the Coal industry while he's running for office.

    Apparently we can't even afford the most whimpy republican to be president ever ever again. Democrats win, no matter how bad, for not being as stupid as the republicans.

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/how-ill-slash-the-regulation-tax-1442961807-lMyQjAxMTE1MTIzNDcyMjQ2Wj
    ---------
    As early as possible, I promise to roll back many of the most reckless and damaging rules promulgated under President Obama. As president, I will repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over millions of acres of private land, its new regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan, and its new and costly coal-ash standards for power plants. ...
    ------------

    http://www2.epa.gov/coalash/frequent-questions-about-coal-ash-disposal-rule#4
    --------
    Why is EPA regulating coal ash?

    EPA determined that improperly constructed or managed coal ash disposal units have been linked to cases of harm to surface or ground water or to the air. This new rule addresses the risks from coal ash disposal identified in these cases -- leaking of contaminants into groundwater, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments such as what occurred at TVA's Kingston, Tennessee facility -- by adding new requirements for coal ash surface impoundments and landfills.
    --------

    And apparently the EPA's plans that Jeb! hates are still too soft.
    http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/epa-coal-ash-rules
    --------
    If the EPA had decided to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, the federal government would be required to develop a cradle-to-grave management program for dealing with the material. The disposal practices of every coal-fired plant would have come under federal scrutiny. But now that the agency chose to classify coal ash as ordinary garbage, the responsibility will still fall to the states to develop management plans.

    The EPA set a floor beneath which the states are not allowed to fall, but it’s a pretty low floor. Each state is supposed to develop a coal ash management plan subject to EPA approval. Under the federal rules, liners will be mandatory in new ash ponds and pits. Companies will be required to increase monitoring of coal ash sites and eventually publish the data. There will be rules to control “fugitive dust”—coal ash that blows away from the pits. This is a major problem for waterways in the West, many of which run through tribal lands.
    -------

    ReplyDelete