Doc's Talk: Ready for Hillary

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Ready for Hillary

Sultan Knish

Ready for Hillary is the PAC run by an environmentalist sweatshop owner and sleazy Texas storm chasing lawyer whose mission is to pave the way for the coronation of Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

And then the cameras will pan to the strategically selected multiracial girls sitting on the shoulders of

their mothers holding up signs reading, "Hillary Taught Me I Can Be Anything I Want To Be" and the same media personalities who trashed her bid in 2008 will be discussing how great it will be to have a female president in 2016.

The name "Ready for Hillary" is a callback to that 2008 election when the country wasn't ready for her. There is no admission that Hillary may have been unready in 2008. Hillary is never unready. Hillary never makes any mistakes. Not even when four Americans end up dead.

It's not Hillary who wasn't ready in 2008. It was the country that wasn't ready for Hillary. And now she will graciously give the nation of fools and ignoramuses another chance to vote for her. It's a noblesse oblige that should touch even the coldest Alaskan heart.

Why vote for Hillary? Because Hillary wants you to vote for her. Because she expects you to vote for her. There is that cloud of unmet expectations that she carries with her everywhere she goes, drifting through the frosty smiles that shift into the overenthusiastic mannerisms of a woman who has never gotten comfortable with audiences because she really doesn't like people very much.

There is no actual reason to vote for Hillary except that she's running. Obama could at least cobble together some stage-managed charisma, a few lifted quotes from African-American writers and a pinch of skeptical leftism into the persona of a political machine. Hillary never even had that. All the charisma is on Bill's side of the family. Hillary delivers speeches with determination, but no heart. Like everything that involves dealing with people, you can tell that she's just trying to get through it.

Ready for Hillary has never really gotten past 2008, the way that some Democrats never got past 2000 and are still obsessed with Bush. With Biden about as likely to become president as the ducks of Central Park are to spontaneously begin performing Hamlet for Shakespeare in the Park, Hillary has inherited the mantle, but has no idea what to do with it. And that's the story of her life.

Hillary Clinton is a talented bureaucratic warrior. Put her in an organization and she will find a way to climb into a position that is the perfect jumping off point for something higher. And then when she makes the leap, she only goes halfway and ends up in an uncomfortable position. Bill Clinton got her to First Lady where she was stuck in a ceremonial role, unable to nationalize health care, but able to fire White House staffers.

Bill Clinton's infidelity got her to the Senate, but then she was stuck again and fell while jumping for the White House. That got her stuck as Secretary of State and she hopes that presiding over the Arab Spring and Benghazi will do more to get her over the top than being First Lady or the Sinecure Senator from New York did.

The common thread is that Hillary never does the job she has. Instead she neglects it while planning to use it to go somewhere higher up.

Hillary would like to run on being Secretary of State, but she doesn't have a thing to show for her time in the State Department. Nothing good at any rate. Mentioning the Arab Spring is hopeless. And that just leaves her reset button with Russia or the opening of Burma. The trouble with either of those achievements is that they both turned sour fast. The Russian reset button failed and Muslim pressure on Burma over a flood of Bangladeshi Muslims has gotten liberals all worked up over the country.

There's no doubt that Hillary has 1001 stories about all the famous people she met and how she solved diplomatic impasses through creative thinking, but none of the stories add up to anything without an issue or a region or an event that gives people a reason to care. And Hillary doesn't have that.

The classier version of Ready for Hillary argues that she was cut off from authority and that no one listened to her good ideas. That puts Hillary Clinton in the strange position of running against an administration that she was part of. On the one hand, Hillary is running for president based on her work as Secretary of State. And on the other, she's not responsible for anything that happened while she occupied that position because she was really powerless.

There's a cynical posturing victimhood underlying all this. It's always someone else's fault. Hillary tried her best, but they just weren't ready to let her do the job. So the only answer is to give her the biggest job in the land based on eight years in the Senate and a brief term as Secretary of State that she wants credit, but not responsibility for.

Ready for Hillary is trying to learn the lessons of the Obama campaign. But the cool is missing. They're trying to make Hillary's pantsuit cool. And they're selling campaign swag that looks like it came from a German experimentalist film made behind the Iron Curtain. Considering that Ready is co-chaired by a woman who ran a major fashion brand, it's a little confusing why the Hillary gear looks like it was designed by a surly teenage girl after five minutes in photoshop and a lot of glue.

The dominant theme is oppressive. There's nothing inspirational here. The design cues seem to have been taken from Shepard Fairey's work, not on the Obama "Hope" poster but on his "Obey" art. Instead of a disembodied face of Andre the Giant, there's a disembodied face of Hillary, looking suspiciously like her British doppleganger Emma Thompson who played her in Primary Colors. Instead of OBEY, it says READY, but the meaning is the same.

After a period of appropriate mocking, the designs will be shaken up. There will be fewer red, black and gray combinations that look like they came from a Goth garage sale, but the depressive spirit of Hillary 2016 will linger on.

Hillary's supporters sometimes identify with her, but they don't really believe in her. The identification is based on that sense of inevitable doom. The expectation that Hillary will get close enough to the big prize that she really wants only to have it unfairly snatched away from her grasp. It's not Hillary the diplomat, the senator or the liberal activist who inspires them, it's their own sense that they can never get as far ahead as they deserve without being slapped down.

They're not ready for Hillary to win. They're ready for her to lose. They want to see her continue on, even through the setbacks the way that they continue on through their setbacks. It's not Hillary the winner that they want, but Hillary the survivor. Hillary Clinton has come to occupy the cultural space of a country song and she can't seem to figure out how to break the cycle.

Ready for Hillary tries to be fresh but it carries a sizable whiff of grievance. Its underlying message is that Hillary should have won in 2008. And that message is true enough. Hillary's qualifications were limited, but they were superior to those of Obama. There were enough votes to put her over the top. And while she would have been a disaster, it's doubtful that the disaster would have been as big and bad as it was under Obama.

But the real reason that she lost was that sense of futility. The plans that she and Bill had worked out came to nothing when the economy overturned and pretending to a Democrat who had national security credentials was suddenly a formula for defeat. Now the plan is to run to the left of Obama on national security. And if her record holds true, then the timing will be just as bad this time around.

Hillary Clinton is big on planning, but is inflexible. Improvisation isn't her strong suit. It's not the

strong suit of the people around her. They're not creative people and they lack the instinct for risk. They wage long term campaigns and then don't understand when they fall short of their goals because the circumstances have changed.

The problem isn't that the country wasn't ready for Hillary. It was that Hillary had once again misread the country. Now she may be misreading it again by promising to solve all our problems with diplomacy instead of violence. Ready for Hillary wants to make "Ready" for Hillary into what "Hope" was for Obama. But Ready is Hillary's slogan. It's what she wants. Hope is what voters want.

Whether it's 2008 or 2016, Hillary still doesn't understand people. The voters don't need to be ready for her. She needs to be ready for them.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk