Hillary Clinton makes Condi Rice’s tenure at Foggy Bottom seem almost “Kissingerian”.
Oddly, Clinton concluded soon after losing to Obama in 2008 that she could not challenge him in 2012 because even if she won the nomination, black voters would not show up for her in the general election.
by Michael Goodwin
She came, she cried, she conquered, proving it will take more than a lethal terror attack on her watch to sink the unsinkable Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton sailed triumphantly through Congress last week on her way out the State Department door, shredding expectations she would face a tough grilling. The cooling breezes from Democratic punkahwallahs and the fearful quaking from Republican wimps turned what should have been riveting revelations about the Benghazi slaughter into a day of air balls.
The highlights of her appearances — Clinton’s teary eyes over the deaths and furious “What difference does it make?” outburst — mattered only because she showed emotion. Otherwise, she was forced to give up nothing except a few hours of her time.
She was all smiles and chipper the next day when she went back to the Senate with her nominated successor, Sen. John Kerry. Her glide out of government, and almost certainly into the 2016 campaign, will climax tonight when she and President Obama appear together on “60 Minutes.” Expect mutual slobbering praise as the former rivals link arms to the permanent profit of both.
The choreographed Hillary Farewell Tour is the latest reminder that Republicans have no answer for the Democrats’ potent brew of identity politics and the cult of celebrity.
No longer a test of performance and results, the political game now is about building a following based on race, gender and other identity markers that are immune to traditional standards of accountability.
Barack Obama wins re-election with one of the more dismal Oval Office records in memory, and Clinton is hailed as a great secretary of state without actually having done anything great.
Obama belongs on Mount Rushmore. If you don’t agree, you’re a racist.
Clinton was a brilliant diplomat. If you don’t agree, you’re a sexist.
The heads-I-win, tails-you-lose nature of Democratic politics these days snuffs out honest debate and competition, but in the short run, it’s an election juggernaut.
And it’s not just Republicans who should worry. As the Democratic Party loses more white men, white male Dems increasingly will face an uphill climb against female and nonwhite primary competitors.
Vice President Joe Biden and Gov. Cuomo, for example, are likely to seek the Dem presidential nomination in four years. If they do, they will be instant underdogs against Clinton. No matter their records and history of pandering to the base, they have no built-in constituency the way Obama did or Clinton does.
Oddly, Clinton concluded soon after losing to Obama in 2008 that she could not challenge him in 2012 because even if she won the nomination, black voters would not show up for her in the general election.
So she traveled the world and kept her mouth shut if she ever disagreed, and is now rewarded with a send-off that smacks of departing royalty. With Obama helping propel her into orbit, she instantly becomes the front-runner for 2016.
But now, while the record is fresh, is the time to apply some inconvenient facts to her tenure at State. A fair reading of the last four years is that America is weaker around the globe, largely by her and Obama’s choice.
Start with the twin terrors of Iran and North Korea. Both are marching toward what they insist will be confrontations with America. While Obama and Clinton tried to stop their nuclear programs with sanctions and, in the case of Iran, sabotage, the policies failed. The confrontation is closer than when the dynamic duo took office.
[......]
Syria and Libya prove that leading from behind is not leading at all. Al Qaeda groups are rising throughout Africa. China and Russia show they neither fear nor respect the United States.
As for our friends, important ones like Israel, Poland and Colombia are alarmed. The Saudis are turning to China, and even Canada wonders whether we are reliable.
Finally, this: Can anyone name a country that Obama and Clinton turned from an adversary into a friend? No, you can’t, because there aren’t any. Not one.
But, as Clinton said about Benghazi, what difference does it make? Absolutely none, and that’s her real legacy.
Selling out for a sweet $100,000
Once, the NAACP commanded respect. These days, it’s more likely to command cash for lending its name to destructive causes.
Consider that the New York chapter of the once-honorable civil-rights group received $100,000 from Coca-Cola at about the time it agreed to support the beverage industry’s lawsuit against a city restriction on sugary drinks.
More than a year ago, the NAACP also took at least $25,000 from the teachers union after supporting its lawsuit to stop City Hall from shutting down failing schools.
“An outright disgrace” is how Mayor Bloomberg described the move by the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation for trying to stop his ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. The mayor says the drinks are a major factor in childhood obesity, which is a plague in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
“How can the NAACP chapter look at themselves in the mirror knowing they are deliberately hurting the life expectancy and quality of life for the people they’re supposed to serve?” Bloomberg said on WOR radio. Similarly, he said the Hispanic Federation “sold its soul” because it, too, got money from the soda makers.
Bloomberg won’t get a good response because there isn’t one. Neither was there one when the NAACP fought against the closing of failing schools that mostly serve black and Hispanic students.
In the soda case, Coke’s lawyers helped write the court filings for both the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation. Surprise, surprise, both groups wrap their discrimination claims in language that echoes the industry.
Shame, shame.
New gun bill misses the mark
Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced her gun-control bill with great fanfare, but the fine print suggests the impact might not be dramatic. Buried in a summary, the California Democrat says that, since the last weapons ban expired in 2004, 350 people have been killed with guns covered by that ban.
That’s a lot of people. But with as many as 13,000 homicides in America each year, that means about 100,000 murders took place since 2004 involving weapons not covered by the ban.
[........]
One nation under BamBest line of the week comes from my colleague at Fox News, K.T. McFarland: “Of our last two presidents, one thought he talked to God and the other one thinks he is God.”
Tags: Michael Goofwin
Outside of being a frequent flyer maven, It’s hard to point to any
actual Hillary accomplishment.
I’ve been busy and out of the news loop for a few days. I just caught that 60 Minutes interview.
Where do I hurl?
The woman has blood on her hands. Up to her elbows.
It’s interesting to see Goodwin’s blind spots. He can see that Hillary is a fraud and a washout, but he can’t see that Feinstein’s gun-grab is wrong by nature; he only sees that it is “ineffective.”
He also can’t imagine that there might be some perfectly reasonable basis to oppose Nanny Bloomberg’s soda ban. I realize that it is silly to expect the NAACP to do anything out of principle—but they are right to oppose the ban whether they did so for principle or for payoff.
Brit Hume: Case for Hillary Clinton being a great secretary of state ‘exceedingly weak’
Got that right! I would have said it differently.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I’m not sure that’s fair. We read the NY Post every day, so I’ve known his views for quite awhile. I think it’s a good idea to remember the space restrictions print writers have to deal with. I worked at USA Today for a few years and the reporters were always bitching about it. Also, they hated their editors. heh.
Reasons to be cheerful.
Urban Infidel wrote:
We cancelled our NYT sub about a year ago. There was a hilarious ‘advice’ column in Sunday’s paper (which we sometimes buy). I’ll post it on an open thread as I don’t want to derail this, but believe me it is comedy gold and epitomizes why the NYT is circling the drain.
@ Urban Infidel:
@ eaglesoars:
While in line at the grocery store yesterday, I picked up a copy of the latest Time Magazine just out of curiosity. It was about 35 pages, over half of which were ads. Cheap paper. Complete joke. I just chuckled and put it back in the rack without skimming any of the articles.
RIX wrote:
She’s been awful.
eaglesoars wrote:
60 Minutes should have been “retired” years ago.
huckfunn wrote:
That should be going digital soon enough.
Urban Infidel wrote:
I normally never feel good when I hear about layoffs but if layoffs are necessary let it be liberals.
eaglesoars wrote:
You can post it on this thread. I give you permission. heh
@ huckfunn:
Me too. They still don’t understand why they’re failing. And it ain’t the innernut.
eaglesoars wrote:
I like Goodwin a lot. He admitted to voting for Obama in 2008 and what a huge mistake that was.
Speranza wrote:
nah. I don’t want to derail. I know it takes some work to get these threads up and this thread is a really good topic.
Speranza wrote:
And that’s why I lost all respect for Ann Althouse. About 3 wks before the election, she said she was ‘still on the fence’ -- after having voted for Obama in ’08.
Stupid is to the bone.
Speranza wrote:
The cover price was $5. Who the hell would pay $5 for such a piece of crap? I can’t imagine that the digital version will do any better.
“So I think she has been a capable and hard-working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.”
I think Brit Hume was far too generous with that.
huckfunn wrote:
I have not looked at Time Magazine in well over 15 years. It was always a notoriously anti-Israel magazine. Newsweek was not much better.
Speranza wrote:
In the car today, I think I heard that someone was talking a Nobel for her because she’s been so wonderful? Hubby nearly ran the car right off the Beltway. HA!
eaglesoars wrote:
Perhaps. However I for one am not going to toss under the proverbial bus those honest Obama voters who admitted it was a mistake in voting for Obama in 2008 and redeemed themselves by voting Republican in 2012.
eaglesoars wrote:
A Nobel for what accomplishment? What a minute -- Obama won one in 2008 and was not yet even inaugurated.
eaglesoars wrote:
Yeah I was shocked to read that Althouse supported him in 2008. Come on we all know that John McCain is a **** but he is still a lot better then Obama.
eaglesoars wrote:
As you wish. Most threads go off topic after a while anyway.
Speranza wrote:
Nor am I. But I give Alhouse no break. She didn’t know it was a mistake and was still considering voting for the SOB. Fuck her.
I’m tired. Think I’ll watch a movie and go to bed.
Play nicely.
Speranza wrote:
Me bad. I thought you were referring to Michael Goodwin. Althouse has got to be a blithering fool to have still been sitting on the fence three weeks before the election.
eaglesoars wrote:
Haw!
Hillary sure looks old and frumpy.
Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz discuss the Middle East on Uncommon Knowledge
Speranza wrote:
Yep.
Speranza wrote:
She does. It’s got to be a hard job but Condi Rice held up better.
Anyone who downloaded that free (for today) book I recommended is going to have a heck of a laugh. I’m taking a peek at it between doing other things, and part of the section on Biden just made me actually laugh out loud.
@ Mars:
What book?
@ Mars:
I don’t have a kindle.
@ Urban Infidel:
Kindle app also works on PC, Mac, Android tablet/phone, Ipad/Iphone.
In fact due to a bit of bad formatting on the writers part, it seems easier to read on PC than anything else.
Mars wrote:
I don’t have any of those things. I’m an incorrigible luddite for the most part. I’d have to get the paperback.
Mars wrote:
Maybe Obama could read it on his way to Las Vegas tomorrow.
Obama to Fly Over 9 Hours Just for Speech on Immigration. Cost to taxpayers… $1.6 million.
Urban Infidel wrote:
How do you post on here? Telegraph? //
Mars wrote:
I’m using a highly-developed system of strings and tin cans.
huckfunn wrote:
I don’t see O touching anything that is free.
Urban Infidel wrote:
Damn, my can/string system never worked right, I kept getting the neighbors can.
Urban Infidel wrote:
Another one who was not a great Secretary of State but at least she was not running for office.
Mars wrote:
Who would that be?
Mars wrote:
Yeah the print was awfully small.
One of Hillary’s premier achievements:
Speranza wrote:
Apparently the guy who wrote it Jake Aurelian. That’s what he has down in his bio.
http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/01/its-now-illegal-to-unlock-your-phone-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know/
Massive federal overreach kicks consumers square in the balls. Companies victorious, capitalism takes another hit.
Mars wrote:
Also, Ebay has already bowed to their progressive masters and started eliminating unlocking services from their listings.
Speaking of stupid crap coming from the NY Times:
As absurd as this assertion is, they’re probably right about the final result, though. If we were to actually do all the things they want in order to stop imaginary “global warming,” the industrialized world would end up looking much like formerly prosperous South Africa does today.
They say it is still legal to unlock your legacy phones. One small problem, just like the gun debate, they have managed to cause it to become much more difficult and far more expensive.
So, now instead of going on Ebay and finding a seller to give you an unlock code for 99cents, you have to find a shady chinese website and pay 40 dollars and up to get the same unlock code.
PROGRESS!!
So I guess the question I should ask is this. How many of you here knew about this? Is it worth a thread? This is one of the more outrageous things to have happened under this president and it seemed to have happened quietly and without any public input.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/27/cbss-charles-osgood-constitution-worthy-reverence-which-most-american
Of course with idiots like this telling people what to think, it’s surprising we haven’t already destroyed ourselves.
Mars wrote:
Another quote from intellectual radish Osgood.
Mars wrote:
Or from his guest, I can’t really tell they way they formatted it.
Talking to myself is fun. I should try it sometime.
Radish, radish, radish, radish, chimichanga.
@ Mars:
Like Bill Clinton? He never got more than 48% of the vote. That means 52% voted against him (and 57% the first time).
Of course, he was actually referring to George W. Bush.
eaglesoars wrote:
Up to her EYEBROWS.
Mars wrote:
THIS is what Hillary Clinton is all about.
I think so.
RIX wrote:
/well at least she only got 4 people killed… It could have been much worse.
Mars wrote:
Good grief just make him “President for Life”.
brookly red wrote:
What does it matter? /
Mars wrote:
Ok thanks.
Speranza wrote:
touche!
Gutfeld on the Croft-Obama-Clinton ménage à trois. Gut’s a hoot.
In her testimony over benghazi, she said she never saw any requests for support..
really, are people so stupid as to support another one of these idiots who hide behind their serfs, and who can never get them to copy her on important items?
brookly red wrote:
It IS worse. A LOT worse. Believe it.
@ quiet man:
She said lots of things that weren’t true.
For example, she said that those responsible had been fired. That’s an outright lie. They’re on “administrative leave,” which means they’re sitting at home while collecting their inflated paychecks.
1389AD wrote:
1389AD wrote:
oh yes it is a phucin disaster…
@ 69 quiet man:
I just watched a Gen. McChrystal video in cpan and he said in 03-06 he had the ability to watch videos down to the squad level and also the ability to converse with squads leaders.
So the Whitehouse was able to watch and talk to Benghazi.
McChrystal also said that the Algerians fought a long bloody insurgency with terrorist and he wasn’t surprised they sent a message to future arafats that there was no negotiating with them.
He also thought Abu Gharib was the worst inflaming incident in the Iraq war. I would suggest though that apple pie would inflame illiterate oppressed jihadis.
He he think the modern solution is to respect the individuality of the muslim citizen when forming an attack against a terrorist. Which I found ironic that Petraeus could not find it within himself to do the same in Florida.
@ Speranza: What does Abu Gharib matter to Hilary then. Or what does the Iraq war matter to her. Nothing I guess.
darkwords wrote:
Not necessarily. The State Department doesn’t use the equipment the military does.
McChrystal was referring to a system called Blue Force Tracker.
lobo91 wrote:
she is a Clinton
brookly red wrote:
yeah
Mars wrote:
I guess I have my answer. I just thought it was worth mentioning that the federal government along with our friendly neighborhood outrageously priced cell phone companies conspired to eliminate pay as you go cell services and screw over limited budget people like me.
@ 1389AD:
When I go I your blog from my iPhone, there is this annoying little menu that pops up that says “share” and has the Facebook, Twitter etc icon on it. I can’t see anyway to dismiss it, and it is annoying because it covers over text of articles I am trying to read. Whether I view “mobile” or “full ” version of your site it is still there.
@ Mars:
You could always get an Obamaphone.
//
lobo91 wrote:
lol, pass.
@ Mars:
From what I am reading in the article you linked, they are not making it illegal to sell unlocked phones,
only to unlock phones that had been purchased as part of a contract. Nor are they making it illegal to “jailbreak” an iPhone or “root” an Android device. I have not heard that AT&T or T-Mobile are canceling their pay as you go plans…I’m posting this from an iPhone purchased unlocked from the Apple store and “jail broken” so I can use it on an AT&T pay as you go plan.
I think I’ll write an article. This is a major case of under the radar bullshit. This is a time bomb that was hidden inside the DMCA and just dropped on us after the immaculate inauguration. One more bit of legislation that went by without being read.
@ 79 Mars: don’t know about it. But I think requiring a two year contract and specific carriers is non competitive. Also the power hookups need to be standard as well as the sim chips. A person should be able to move among phone companies and not be held a prisoner by them.
@ The Osprey:
Doesn’t really matter does it. I’ve gotten all my past phones by buying locked damaged phones, fixing them, and then getting them unlocked. I can’t drop 200+ for an unlocked phone. I need to be in the 100 under range. This is an intentional screwjob and will negatively affect Straight Talk and similar services. Of course it won’t affect AT&T, TMobile, or Verizon. But, it sure as hell will hit their customer base when they jack prices on all their plans including pay as you go, again.
(Anyone else notice the elimination of the many of the unlimited data plans, especially from the big providers? That was right after the DMCA, they were already planning for this. Now they’ve eliminated all the grandfathered unlimited plans. The Cell phone industry is destroying itself due to it’s insanity and greed. It’s far worse than the home phone debacle ever was.)
Someday I will understand why corporations decide to engage in the exact behaviors the anti-capitalists accuse them of engaging in.
darkwords wrote:
And that’s what they are trying to destroy piece by piece. The worst of the bunch is Verizon. As one of the few CDMA providers they think they can get away with massive price increases attached to huge reductions in services. They’ve gone to levels I would almost consider criminal.
They’ve all priced themselves into the stratosphere so I’m stuck trying to find an unlimited everything plan that isn’t lying about being unlimited. (Spoiler alert, every pay as you go unlimited plan is lying in some way.)
What I find interesting in this particular instance is that our raving marxist lunatics aided and abetted the phone industry in this behavior by actually legislating it.
Also in case someone missed it, the companies excluded themselves from the unlocking rules. So, they will now dry up the supply of privately unlocked phones and will be the only authorized distributors. Which will then be paired with huge price increases.
The used phone market is dead. This will put at least three stores in my town out of business. This will take away options for the consumers.
And much like the Apple jailbreaking lawsuits and rules. This tells the consumer, you spent a lot on that phone, too bad it doesn’t belong to you.
This is also paving the way for the next “revolution” in video games. Both Microsoft and Sony are talking about the elimination of disc based games. So we have eliminated another industry, forced people into “online only” gaming, and taken away another level of choice for the consumer.
The Osprey wrote:
yep.
you sign a contract, you follow the rules.
dont like it, dont sign the contract. the phone co’s have to make money on that deeply discounted phone you get for the 2 year contract. i sure as hell wasnt going to spend 800 on the samsung phone i have, i got it for 199 and a 2 year contract. fine by me.
The weird part here is that the DMCA was put in place in 98, reviewed in 2006, and 2010 and decided that the rules were fine.
Then in 2012 the freaking librarian of congress, just decides, with no form of review or oversight, that this rule will go into effect. Even though both previous reviews said it shouldn’t.
WTF is going on here?
@ RIX:
Besides an entire continent being set ablaze that is.
OOT goes up at 2200 eastern.
that’s a few minutes from now
This is starting to get old…
I guess should expect an AT&T SWAT team to bust my door off it’s hinges at 4am.
BBIAM. Gotta load some mags.
@ 92 coldwarrior: You can make a case for monopolistic practices based on that two year contract. The phone companies have always had to be forced to leave their monopolistic ways and actually be a good capitalist. Two year cell phone contracts discriminate against the paycheck to paycheck purchaser. They miss one payment and they get bad credit with no ability to face the monolithic wall of the phone company.
@ darkwords:
Exactly, crap like that is why I left he contract system. I will not be bound by their absurdities anymore. The constant threat hanging over my head is too much stress.
@ darkwords:
dont like it dont sign the contract.
the phone company cannot take an 800 phone and just give it to you without recouping a profit.
they OWE a profit to their shareholders. this is the corporation’s moral responsibility.
darkwords wrote:
Or Monica spanking Bill’s monkey?
coldwarrior wrote:
I know you’re talking to Darkwords, but I’m not talking about their practices there. I won’t sign the contract. I just think it’s bullshit that they are trying to destroy a section of the market that involves phones that are already purchased and out of their system. And it was done by an unelected clown who probably just received a massive retirement bonus from Verizon for this task.
@ coldwarrior:
You’ll notice I’m not complaining about the recent decisions that most of the companies have made to stop subsidizing their phones. That is their choice, just as it is the choice of the consumer to add a payment plan to their contract. (In fact this will benefit the consumer in the long run since the payments are less and last for less time than paying the increased fees to make up for the subsidies.)
Not every decision that gets made is evil, some are a little suspicious though.
Mars wrote:
we agree there.
after the phone’s loss is recouped as profit, then it is indeed free and clear.
then there is no reason why they cant be hacked.
coldwarrior wrote:
What I don’t understand is why this doesn’t fall under the same decision that said Apple couldn’t make jailbreaking illegal. As far as I remember the court rules that once the phone was paid for it belonged to the consumer to do with as they pleased.