strategist, Mark Penn, recently told reporters that the New York senator
would be a better Commander-in-Chief than either Sen. Barack Obama or
Sen. John McCain. This preposterous delusion explains Penn’s equally
incredible misreading of public sentiment and why Hillary has lost 10
primaries in a row and will soon lose Texas and Ohio. Apparently Penn
has caught the Clintons’ legendary amnesia problem.
It has not only escaped
him that Obama did not call the mastermind behind our successful surge
in Iraq, General David Petraeus, a liar, as Hillary did on September 11,
2007, when she told the military icon in a congressional hearing
that his report of progress required "the willing suspension of
disbelief,” but also that Sen. McCain put his entire career (and
credibility) on the line in first suggesting a change in strategy
in Iraq and then passionately supporting it in spite of relentless
criticism. And that is not to omit his lengthy and esteemed career as a
military combat veteran, prisoner-of-war (and torture victim for
five-and-a-half-years), U.S. Senator (for 25 years), and national hero.
Here is another example
of how clueless both Penn and Hillary are. According to Michael Grunwald
of Time.com, Penn said that Hillary’s 10-in-a-row primary losses meant
had a lot of independent voters so it didn't really matter…and Hawaii
was practically Obama's home state so it obviously didn't matter.
"Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who
can win the general election," Penn said.
Grunwald cites more of Penn’s self-deluded
thinking. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn't matter because they were
deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn't matter
because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington
didn't matter because caucuses aren't truly representative. Maryland and
Virginia didn't matter because Obama was expected to win there. Missouri
might have mattered, but didn’t when Obama slam-dunked Hillary in the
The Loathing Factor
Hillary, to my eyesight and ears, has never
looked or sounded better. The folds in her sagging neck, her jowls, her
laugh lines, the crow’s feet around her eyes, and the double chin she
sported but a year ago – all have mysteriously vanished, probably
because the extreme stress of campaigning, which ages most people, has
had a Fountain-of-Youth effect on warrior Hillary. You go girl!
As for hearing her speak, she clearly has her
riff down cold – socialized medicine, surrender in Iraq, guillotining
the corporate powers who fuel our splendiferous economy, high taxes,
government control of everyone’s life – although her vocal range is
off-putting, going as it does from faux-muted to screech-owl strident in
10 seconds flat.
While (mostly older) female liberal voters
support Hillary, poll after poll (for many years now) show that men
loathe the woman. Why?
I suspect that men instinctively realize that a
woman who chooses men like Bill Clinton and Mark Penn – and then sticks
with them in spite of the embarrassment and humiliation they cause her –
would make an equally poor choice in selecting, for instance, a
Secretary of Defense. After the Iowa caucus, when she came in a
mortifying third, you would have thought that she’d rein in her husband,
who was already sabotaging her campaign, and fire Penn for his
unerringly wrong predictions. Her failure to do so sent a loud-and-clear
signal that the only thing she’d be ready for "on Day One” was even more
reliance on such unreliable sources.
I also suspect that men more than women don’t
buy Hillary’s claim of "experience.” It’s bad enough that in the one
major project she undertook during her "first term” in the White House –
to reform our nation’s healthcare system – she failed utterly. And now
that she’s in charge of managing her campaign, a job significantly less
demanding than being president, her own "surge” strategy has also
failed. She can’t manage the internecine squabbling among her staff. She
clearly has no coherent message. She has sent her good ole reliable base
fleeing into the arms of her arch-rival Obama. And she has squandered
millions in campaign cash (read taxpayer money) on, according to
Newsmax.com, the following:
▪ $3.8 million for fees
and expenses paid in January to the firm that includes Mark Penn. The
firm has billed more than $10 million overall, an amount some
strategists have called "stunning,” according to the NY Times.
▪ $730,000 both paid
and owed to Howard Wolfson, a senior member of Hillary’s advertising
▪ $2.3 million to the
ad company owned by Mandy Grunwald, a Clinton media strategist.
▪ $800,000 – including
$11,000 for pizza – to a South Carolina company that was supposed to
turn out black voters for Hillary (she lost).
▪ More than $25,000 for
rooms at the posh Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas, and another $5,000 at the
According to political
strategist Joe Trippi, "The problem is she ran a campaign like they were
staying at the Ritz-Carlton. Everything was the best – the most
expensive draping at events, the biggest charter. It was like, `We’re
going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look
This is the woman who
wants to run our economy!
Then there’s the all-too-credible suspicion that
Hillary just plain doesn’t like the male of the species. As Camille
"It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff
has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys
forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed
military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton
presidency probably belongs to this pattern.”
[This] disdain for masculinity...is why Hillary acts on Gloria
Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed
about her pal Hillary...speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and
reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment,
which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century.
History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically
obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female
subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by
look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with
any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex
steeped in toxic gender bias.
The Political Factor
The ideas that Hillary has been advocating
during her past "35 years of experience” have alienated, infuriated and
disgusted most men. In a 2001 article, "The White Male Problem,”
Professor William A. Galston, a
former deputy assistant for domestic policy under Bill Clinton,
Nearly every major development of the past generation worked to
push white men away from the Democratic Party. For some, the civil
rights revolution was the trigger; for others, it was the rise of
feminism and its institutionalization in the party's official structure
that drove them away. The rhetoric employed by high-profile extremists
in these movements, who denounced white men as racist and patriarchal
oppressors, exacerbated these effects. Conflict within the Democratic
Party sparked by the events of 1968 led to rules changes that diminished
the power of labor unions, for decades centers of white male political
influence and social standing.
foreign and defense policy also played a role. The Democratic Party
became the epicenter of opposition to the Vietnam War, a stance that
spilled over into a broader critique of the Cold War, the defense
budget, the foreign policy establishment, our assertive
internationalism, and of the United States itself. These developments
offended many white men who were traditional patriots and favored a
strong national defense.
Gun control, which many white men saw as the translation of defense
dovishness into domestic policy, made matters worse and helped cement
the Democrats' image as the party of weakness.
Great Society programs largely aided women and minorities. And for
two decades (1973-1993), the federal government failed to address the
problem of wage stagnation, which hit less well-educated white men
especially hard. By the 2000 presidential election, the majority of
upscale white men came to believe that they needed nothing from
government except to be left alone, while many downscale white men
concluded that government either did not understand how to help them or
did not care enough to do so.
It is clear from the evidence that white men have a distinctive
cultural outlook. Even more than most Americans, they prize
independence, individual choice, and personal integrity and strength.
Men gravitate toward candidates they see as having the courage to stand
up against the odds, even against the majority...
So there you have it. It is Hillary’s very core
beliefs that make men sick. Confirming this, NRO columnist Kathryn Jean
Lopez writes in "Turning Off Men,” exit polls show that "men
are going for
Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton [because of her] explicit play for
women, her tendency to rely on government rather than personal freedom,
and her insistence that the first thing she’s going to do as president
is start to move U.S. troops out of Iraq...”
Not one to conceal his
dislike of Hillary, Rush Limbaugh has railed about her "testicle
lockbox...which reminds men of the worst characteristics of women
they've encountered over their life: totally controlling, not soft and
cuddly, not sympathetic, not patient, not understanding, demanding,
One political analyst
expands a bit: "If Barack Obama goes on to sew up the Democratic
nomination, which seems more likely every day, his triumph will be a
testament to the hubris and folly of Hillary Clinton, who once believed
she could ignore the white male voter.”
Yes, Hillary has a
man problem. So what else is new?