Thursday, April 21, 2016

What's Wrong with Hillary?

Even a Bernie Sanders supporter can be right some of the time. Today Camille Paglia, a staunch supporter of the Vermont socialist, takes out after Hillary Clinton. In so doing she exposes the weakness of the Clinton candidacy.

If the Republicans did not seem to be hell bent on nominating their weakest candidate, the election would have been a walk. As things look now, it’s probably going to be a blowout, and not for the good guys.

Alas, here is Paglia on Hillary:

Hillary’s breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn’t faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week’s debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don’t give a damn about international affairs—all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion.

Since the Hillary candidacy, and not just the Hillary candidacy reflects what Paglia calls the dysfunction of our dramatic institutions, she is right to identify an atavistic longing, either for monarchy or pagan idolatry. In all fairness the Hillary candidacy is not the only one that fits the description.

In her words:

I’m starting to wonder, given the increasing dysfunction of our democratic institutions, if the Hillary cult isn’t perhaps registering an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it’s just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry, as can be felt in the Little Italy street festival scene of The Godfather, Part II, where devout pedestrians pin money to the statue of San Rocco as it is carried by in procession. There was a strange analogy to that last week, when Sanders supporters satirically showered Hillary’s motorcade with dollar bills as she arrived at George Clooney’s luxe fund-raiser in Los Angeles.

Finally, because no one else seems to be interested in it, Paglia raises the issue of Hillary’s persistent cough:

And what about that persistent cough? “Allergy season,” the hacking Hillary claimed on a New York radio show this week. (“You all right? Any mouth to mouth CPR?” joked a host.) I’m just a Ph.D., not an M.D., but I’ll put my Miss Marple hat on here. Am I the only one who noticed Hillary’s high-wrap collar, pallid, puffy face, and bulging eyes during her choleric New Hampshire primary concession speech in February? (Another unusually high collar followed the next morning.)

My tentative theory is that Hillary may have sporadic flare-ups of goiter, worsened under stress. Coughing is a symptom. High collars mask a swollen throat. In serious cases, an operation may be necessary. Is this chronic thyroid condition disqualifying in a presidential candidate? Certainly not in my view, but I don’t like being lied to—by candidates, campaign staffs, or their media sycophants.

Of course, a persistent cough can mean anything. But it is very rarely a sign of good health. Surely, Paglia is correct. The American people do have a right to know what’s wrong with Hillary.


Stuart Schneiderman said...

All the polls says that he runs weaker against the Dems than Cruz or Kasich... that's what I meant by weakest candidate.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Hillary is not in good health, nor is she in good spirits. Hillary is a lousy campaigner... it it is painfully obvious she doesn't like it. She's not a politician... she's a policy wonk. In the era of women's liberation, this woman couldn't rise above a local school board election, but she has her husband's last name. She married well. She's accomplished little else. Great bona fides.

The Left is quite concerned with the woe of our "democratic institutions" (to quote Paglia). Our democratic institutions are under pressure because of rampant cynicism, driven by a lunatic media, astounding apathy, and lack of a moral code. We get what we put in, and we expect far more of our institutions than we contribute. We don't fund the ones that matter (Defense), we have freeloaders sucking at the teat of the ones they themselves don't fund (SSID fraud, etc.), and we assume everyone is on the take because no one is held accountable (read: Lois Lerner, et al). Gosh, I can't imagine why these "institutions" are failing. Who's responsible? Maybe the all-knowing, all-powerful government can do something about it!

Lefties are too smart to believe in God or Santa Claus, but they sure believe in the power of the GOVERNMENT to solve all our ills.

But the line I hear from liberals, Democrats and Lefties that increasingly concerns me is the lugubrious drivel about "our failing political system." Our system is working just fine. We hear about all this painful political polarization, and later about how Washington isn't getting anything done or solving our problems. Our system is based on the separation of powers, and demands compromise to get anything done. With all this polarization, nothing is getting done. Just as the Framers designed. If no one wants to compromise, nothing's going to get done. And that's not a bad thing, that's the way our system is supposed to work. What is discouraging is the talk of "the system" and no efforts to make it work. It leads me to believe they want to change it, or impose their will as President Obama has done by exercising the executive powers he does not have. A couple more Lefty Supreme Court nominees, and there won't be an independent judiciary to check the executive. The Supreme Court will be the president's rubber stamp... so long as the president has a D next to his/her name. It'll be open season on Congressional prerogatives, as if that is not happening now under the Obama-Holder-Lynch lawless way of governing.

The truth is that we're not a democracy -- we're a constitutionally-limited federal republic. The people are sovereign. If so many are concerned about democracy, maybe they should listen to the people. This is a center-right country, and people don't want the socialism that Bernie and Hillary offer. ObamaCare is proof positive: it's a full-fledged disgrace. It is amazing to listen to the Democrat debates and rallies... you'd think they've been out of power for two decades, wailing about change and transformation. Where have they been the last seven years? What is all this "progress" the Progressives want? Where are we progressing toward? Hillary wants to go "forward." Okay, where? It's not where the majority of people want to go. All the social change in this country seems to be driven by the medley of slivers of the Democrat coalition, imposed through the courts. Wow, I'm overwhelmed by this beautiful, harmonious "democracy" in action.

This grand Progressive vision is not democratic. It is being pursued through legal means and extralegal means, imposed by executives and judges... legislature be damned. Congress is a fantastic inconvenience. We might as well do away with it, and with elections. After all, the Progressives know what's best for us. They always have.

Ares Olympus said...

The weird thing about politics is when there's a lot of contempt going on, that can generate sympathy for the target. And this is my case for Hillary.

I tend to think its accurate to call the Clintons "money grubbers", and they've certainly milked Bill's presidency to a near maximum yield, and their Clinton Foundation is a troubled example. Why do people give money to it, except in exchange for influence? And it seems extra troubling for it to exist while Hillary is running for President. If your inclined to believe Wikipedia's summary:
Through 2014 the foundation had raised almost $2 billion from U.S. corporations especially Wall Street; foreign governments and corporations; political donors; and various other moneyed interests. During its lifetime the foundation has received praise from philanthropic experts and has had support from both Democrats and Republicans, with the latter including members of the George W. Bush administration. Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs. Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation. Consequently, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" in April 2015; it was removed from the "watch list" in December 2015 after the charity posted amended tax returns and a public memo on its website. A different charity monitor, the American Institute of Philanthropy, says that 89 percent of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2013.

Anyway back to Hillary and Paglia, I accept there is some sort of "cult" towards Hillary, although in that regard it is NO WORSE than the cult towards Drumpf. Basically neither of them has anything more that symbolic value to offer the presidency. Trump as the "independent" billionaire who is not beholden to any financial interests (except his own investments), and Hillary as the first woman president, after being the third woman Secretary of State.

But Trump and Clinton are opposite in other ways. She represents first, second and third "Status quo", the ideal of a meritocracy, without facing the rot within, and Trump represents first, second, and third Rossevelt's ideal of the Bully Pulpit, without the wisdom to do anything except bully others without consequences.

I'll go with Hillary, but I have no illusions she'll protect us from anything. But at least her knowledge is reality based, while Trump's stream of consciousness wisdom is at least as likely to cause more problems than he can solve.

I just saw Harry Dent is predicting a 70% drop of the stock market by the end of 2017. I approve of predictions like that because it encourages people to pull their money out before it happens, as they say "buy low, sell high". There are times like now that risks far exceed marginal returns that are left to be had. 04-15-16 - STOCKS SET TO FALL 70% BY LATE 2017 - w/Harry Dent

But Obama and Hillary are not allowed to talk about this, because it would contradict their narrative of recovery. Trump got blasted recently for a contrarian opinion, but he's not said what we should do about it. I guess when you have billions in real assets, even if you lose 70%, its still billions, right? Maybe he really wouldn't bail out the "investor class" like Hillary is sure to do?

Anyway, Paglia doesn't seem worried about all of this. I wonder where she keeps her nest eggs these days?