Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The Other 'Historic' Choice: How Hillary Would Have Governed

Ever since June, when Bill Clinton criticized (however obliquely) Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill, there has been renewed chatter concerning a Hillary candidacy in 2012. Hillary could take advantage of a weakened president with plummeting approval ratings to achieve her own ambitions -- or save her party from the aforementioned weakened president, depending on the viewpoint. Whether this is a plausible theory or not is debatable, but it does bring to mind something else: What kind of presidency would a Hillary victory in 2008 have produced? How much better or worse off would the nation be at this point? The most likely conclusion: We'd probably be exactly where we are right now -- just less annoyed, and perhaps less fragmented as a people.

First, the differences, most of them being rooted in personality traits. Hillary has flaws, to be sure, but narcissism is not visibly among them. So say goodbye to a whole host of cringe-inducing Obama acts: the Brandenburg speech, the Cairo speech, the endless campaign speeches, the omnipresent "I" in nearly every spoken sentence, the appearance on "The View," the whole president-of-the-world routine. Nor does Clinton seem to harbor grudges against our allies, so the thinly veiled insults to England and Israel wouldn't have happened.

Hillary wouldn't have run around bowing to foreign leaders. Obama is arrogant and childishly thin-skinned. Hillary is decidedly less. She wouldn't have appeared so frightfully incompetent on so many issues, from the BP fiasco to formulating a coherent Afghanistan policy. Hillary seems to be a more serious person than the president; no repeat golf outings, date nights, or basketball with Arne Duncan for her. No birth certificate mess. What a boon to conservatives it would be to have this divisive issue off the table!

While all of these shortcomings leave Obama being less than what we expect of our president, they are, with the exception of incompetence, matters of character and more annoyances than serious problems. But now we come to the Big Difference: race. This is about more than the foolish Beer Summit; Obama was supposed to be the bridge, the transcender, the proof that the country has moved beyond a serious racial divide. Of course, it hasn't turned out that way at all; if anything, the situation is far worse. No policy of Obama's can be criticized without him or his defenders resorting to accusations of bigotry as the "real" cause of said criticism. Obama has proven to be a divider along racial lines as well as class and religious ones. This fragmentation is especially damaging when the nation is already in a down economy.
 I disagree. A lot. Regardless of what the idiots of the far left are saying, by electing jughead, America proved, once and for all, that it is not a society of racists. Bow-Boy could never have been sworn in as president (small "p", ALWAYS the small "p" when speaking of so miniature an intellect) were we in any way as intolerant of African-descended Americans as the far left idiots always seem to be caterwauling about.

As is usually the case when someone doth protest too much, it is they who view African-descended Americans as way-way different, or they wouldn't be hung up on so many imaginary aspersions. For when there are genuine complications afflicting a people they rarely go looking for counterfeit ones. We're in deep trouble on so very many fronts there simply isn't the time to look for imaginary racists, but the far left idiots still cling to their supposititious search for intolerance.

Well sorry, kids, Barry is a patented moron but race was never an issue when disagreeing with him. Genuine liberty is a painful process, one of the reasons we're the only country practicing it these days, and all the presence of Obowma really means is that liberty won, even when common sense said otherwise. Were RodHam to have garnered the nomination there was no certainty she could have beaten McCain, even though Pee Wee Herman would have trounced the man handily. 

What it all boils down to is the simple fact that neither RodHam nor Bow-Boy have anything resembling a genuine backbone, nor a definable matter of purpose, OTHER than to become, and remain, elected to public office. RodHam's puppeteers would have put the same words in her mouth as they lip-synced to Barry...BUT...

...Barry doesn't have nearly as horrid a laugh, treats the spoken word a helluva lot better, and, at the end of the day, sorry about this kids but isn't an old, chubby, short, thunder-thighed, homely woman.

Nothing he has done so far is un-doable, but man oh man this is going to be a tough egg to glue back together. What can be done can be un-done and that's what the Tea Party is trying to fix even as we speak. Yeah, liberty is a bitch. Welcome to America.

Oh yeah and before I forget, I posted the original headline straight from American Thinker, to make a point. Neither Hillary nor Barack know how to "govern". To them, you see, the operative word is "rule".


Lemuel Calhoon said...

Exit polling showed that Hillary would have won with a larger margin than little obie. This fits in with what we have learned about how the Obama campaign gamed the primaries to basically steal the nomination.

fits said...

I always figured that she could get more dead folks to vote for her than he could, but boy was I wrong.

Athan of Philippines said...



fits said...

Uh huh, Athan. Then all the world's competencies now belong us. And we can has competencies much more then yesterday before. Until the little green roaches make poopoops in our socks.

fits said...