Sunday, November 18, 2007


(Initially written Nov. 5, 2005)

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't like the Clintons. I think they are merely con artists posing as politicians. During the eight years of the Clinton administration and the campaigns leading up to them, we rarely saw Bill or Hillary Clinton stand with sturdy ideological backbone in support of any issue unless a phalanx of Democrats braced them upright and pushed them forward.

In the face of vehement opposition by his most loyal constituents, feminists and black Democrats, Bill Clinton signed into law the third Congressional attempt at a Welfare Reform bill. Number three was virtually indistinguishable from the two reform bills he had previously vetoed. The cries from the feminist orthodoxy and the pseudo black leadership about the degenerative bill #3 was as long and as loud as it was for the failed Welfare Reforms numbers 1 and 2. But, at the urging of his pollster/Svengali, Dick Morris, he felt compelled to sign a bill whose third veto might cost him his 1996 re-election bid.

And now as Hillary Clinton girds for her 2006 Senatorial re-election in the state of New York, many believe that it is simply an imprimatur for a 2008 run at the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Her campaign rhetoric clearly seems to bear this out. As we move toward Election Day 2006, George W. Bush is only in the first year of his lame duck second term and Mrs. Clinton appears to be positioning herself to be the Senator from New York who would be the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee. As you listen to her closely, she is sounding more and more like Bill Clinton. In fact, put a 2005 emphasis on Bill Clinton's 1992 speeches and you have Mrs. Clinton's 2006/2008 campaign strategy. Will it work a second time? You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool 43% of the people all of the time - provided you have a third party candidate with a grudge against your opponent. Less than half of all eligible voters went to the polls in 1992 and 57% of them did not want the "two for the price of one" Clintons anywhere near the vicinity of the White House. Apparently the public did not view the media mavens' opinion that Bill Clinton was the "greatest," "savviest," "most astute" political mind they had seen in their lifetime.

Can they really be that naive? How savvy or astute is it for a career politician to fall the helpless prey of the pizza delivery girl at the first sign of her thong! From thousands of miles away, having never met Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky told friends that her burgeoning internship at the White House would earn her a set of "presidential kneepads." Why was her ability to see through Bill Clinton so much better than those "celebrity status" journalists who cover him? Were they that gullible at the feet of Bill Clinton or are they just that bad at their job!

And after decades of advanced "feminism" preaching the horrors of stunted self-esteem among girls whose mothers stay in marriages with openly serial philanderers, 'feminist' icon Hillary Rodham Clinton subjected her daughter to just that. Or does the National Organization for Women now find that subjecting young daughters to the problems of low self-esteem, dysfunctional familial and personal relationships and the hours of therapy that these feminists generally foresee in whorish marriages is now acceptable if it gets your daughter from Arkansas public schools to Oxford in the process? Tabloid fodder aside, the effects of growing up Clinton is yet to be determined for young Miss Chelsea.

One of feminisms glaring dichotomies reared its psychotic head during "L'Affaire Lewinsky." Appearing on 60 MINUTES, Kathleen Willey alleged that, after the suicide of her husband, she went to the White House and met with Bill Clinton in an effort to secure a job whereupon Clinton proceeded to forcibly French kiss her and fondle her inappropriately. Subsequently, also on national TV, Patricia Ireland termed such behavior, if true, was a "sexual assault." However, on the op-ed page of a national newspaper, Mrs. Gloria Steinem basically opined that because Clinton stopped when the widow Willey rejected his advance, no harm no foul. Yet these same women were virtually apoplectic over an uncorroborated allegation that a potential jurist used the name of a male porn star in the presence of an adult female with a law degree.

"Men just don't get it!" was/is the never ending feminist rallying cry. Yet these same feminists indict perpetrators of sexual harassment based on political ideology and party affiliation, not on "inappropriate" or illegal behavior.

Former Republican Senator Bob Packwood was run out of office when a series of women were allowed to testify that the Senator forcibly kissed and/or fondled them in his office some 15 years prior. Yet when years old allegations of forcible fondling and rape were leveled against Democrat Bill Clinton, it was deemed unnecessary to hear those witnesses testify before the Senate during the impeachment trial of then President Clinton. California Senator Barbara Boxer stated that she did not want Monica Lewinsky coming to Washington and "soiling the Senate floor." The past public behavior of Senators Teddy Kennedy and Christopher Dodd alone would necessitate Miss Lewinsky needing a pair of sturdy hip boots to avoid the grime and stench of an already well-soiled Senate floor.

National rallies for women's "whatever" and/or "the children" become center stage platforms for female and child rights advocates from Washington, DC to Hollywood, California. They uniformly bash men, perverts, wife abusers, child molesters and Republicans in defense of women's rights and "protecting our children." The most recent victims of nationwide notoriety are always referred to - their grieving families in attendance. However, the outrage displayed by the feminists at these gatherings must have been drowned out by the deafening applause that some of these very speakers and their significant others gave to fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski after being awarded the Oscar for Best Director for the film THE PIANIST.

Feminism: 'tis a psychopathy devoutly to be dissed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's public history has been shown to be the antithesis of everything that feminists purport to believe in and stand for. And now that the possibility looms large that Mrs. Clinton will take a run at the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and ultimately the White House, will her husband's 43% successful strategy of being all things to all people work for her? And, once again, will the press buy into it? Will the public?

Just a few short years ago the Democrats floated the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to temporarily relieve Bill Clinton of his presidential duties so that the Clintons could seek professional help to repair their marital relationship in light of Bubba's seemingly serious serial infidelity. Apparently not getting fired and a subsequent seat in the US Senate is now the perfect substitute for couples said to be in need of professional help. Will the American public trust the future of their children and their country to someone whose own supporters told us was in need of therapy and counseling? Or has their shuttle distance relationship been a substitute for their needed theraputic cure.

Perhaps Tony Soprano's panic attacks have nothing to do with the responsibilities of his life as a crime boss. Just maybe the need to medicate his angst fueled attacks is the product of trying to understand the women in his life, what the hell they mean, and what the hell they want.

No comments: