Hillary Clinton | The Necropolitan Sentinel

Home » Posts tagged "Hillary Clinton"

Bored Abroad

Posted on March 14, 2013 By Anthony Bialy

This perfectly Bizarro administration is libertarian as long as it pertains to foreign policy. Everything is inverted in classic Barack Obama style, as he needles citizens while letting the world run about unsupervised. Aside from a rather active drone policy which Rand Paul spent a little more than half a day documenting, the president is rather lackadaisical about threats.

The one place America can't afford to be hands off is everywhere else, but we're letting tinpot nuke collectors and self-aggrandizing quasi-commie lunkheads set their own life paths. Dealing with global goons is not the occasion to apply free market principles, and yet he stops meddling only when someone threatens our natural rights.

Obama is confused about Charles Bronson's motivations during “Death Wish.” With that in mind, the new offensive defense secretary is ready to blame Israel for provoking the region's basest savages by existing. Bagel-hating knuckle-dragger Chuck Hagel tries to assuage the American public by claiming that his job merely requires him to sit at his desk in the center of the Pentagon and count the sides to ensure they're all in place.

Unlike the average American entrepreneur, Iran is free to choose its path. With turning sand into glass as the only science experiment that interests Persian troglodytes, they're ready to complete the dreams started with their garbage revolution and partially realized through Hamas and stolen elections.

Luckily for Iran, we live in an atrociously-run world where the phrase “Luckily for Iran” makes sense. Expect Obama to feign a tummy ache that keeps him from working on the day he's asked to attack the Middle East mafia's atom-splitting concerns.

It's official: the most decisive president of our time has concluded that he has an opinion about Egypt, although he's still not sure what it is. Our government's only firm stance is that they are committed to giving aid and selling fighter planes to lunatic radicals whose heads reside in the eighth century.

Unofficially, the administration is fine with letting a country that hasn't built many rectangular buildings decline from a brutal autocracy that nonetheless knew better than to bother Israel or get too Islamy into an autocratic mess that's frightened of the technology displayed at renaissance faires. Egypt's chances of ever constructing buildings that are as wide at the top as at the bottom remain slim.

If you don't want to, say, be compelled to sign up for thin federal insurance, seize a nation abroad and let it teeter into bloody chaos. For example, Libya can do as it wishes without any worry about us leading from any position. Instead, the president will act like we're embarrassed anyone in America is upset that our ambassador's blood tainted Benghazi's soil.

Respecting the life choices of non-Americans is why Obama couldn't be bothered to intervene before, during, or after the murder of four of us. We are going to mind our own business and perhaps apologize for putting our people in a foreign country and daring to call the patch of land our territory.

Meanwhile, the presidency is imposing values, but only at home. He's letting Syria's ruling gangsters perpetrate a bloodbath against citizens deemed problematic because they dared dissent against the despots. But our internationally laissez-faire leader won't let Hobby Lobby offer a health plan to employees that fails to include birth control that can be acquired at any drugstore. Assad apparently deserves more liberty than Catholic business owners.

Things won't get better now that a man who can't be trusted in matters foreign or domestic is taking over the State Department, even if he's replacing an amorally calculating harpy. John Kerry has spent his career reminding America that his time in Vietnam entitles him to tax every rich person who didn't marry a ketchup heiress. Also, he's been on the wrong side of every single foreign policy debate. It's not much comfort that he'll frequently be out of the country.

He lurches while saying sorry. Jacques is joining a humiliatingly contrite administration halfway through an eight-year apology tour. It's his consolation prize for not getting to retire to some yacht after his second imaginary term as president acting just as his new boss would.

Treating all countries as cool will totally get us invited to the best prom after parties. Kids never like adults who are a drag with rules and whatnot, which is why we have such a childish foreign policy. We don't want anyone to be made to feel unwelcome, including those who think those charming Dark Ages were way more hip than current times.

Blaming Bush? How novel. Cool dad Obama feels bad about the divorce and overcompensates by letting the brats run wild. Sadly, he slacks off at the one aspect of government that's supposed to be at least slightly active. But don't worry, as it's just our safety on the line. We're right on schedule for two brutal terms of an executive who would rather mess with six-figure-earning Americans than Iranians who think their religion requires them to point nukes at Tel Aviv.

Zero-government is nobody's answer. Even libertarians want to have a few cops about, although arming them with Nerf guns may still not be sufficient. Either way, there's a difference between letting people live their lives and incompetently failing to prevent harm. And this is the sort of worldwide mess from which it will be difficult to recover. Screwing up the economy is repairable; screwing up the globe may not. Bother Ahmadinejad, not us.

Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. Follow him at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy. Download a free ebook of his 2012 columns at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/270599.

No Room Behind the Couch

Posted on February 7, 2013 By Anthony Bialy

1 Comment

Of all the things they like to share, liberals enjoy blame the most. Nothing is anyone's fault once individuals become “we.” In present times, the collective philosophy's pet party finally own lots of one thing that they actually earned, and they want to dissipate accumulated castigations like the income of someone who worked hard.

Remember that we are the ones we have been waiting for, except when it comes to taking responsibility for what we do. Aim blame at conservatives who dare to ask the Secretary of State why she can't be bothered to clock in for work. And the economy will stop shrinking once the White House figures out how to monetize excuses.

There will be trouble for as long as the most prominent citizen's greatest skill is whining while pointing a finger. Barack Obama is of course infamous for sticking every problem on his predecessor, which is the sort of talent cultivated by those incapable of accomplishing anything else.

Count on George Bush to be ruining America in 2016, as one of his evil powers is extending financial failures one would think are caused by deficit spending on stupid crap. I can't believe the nerve some people have to suggest that the executive could be responsible for America's dismal climate. What racists.

Do your pockets feel empty? It's because diabolical tycoons want to lower minimum wage to a quarter, not due to the government spending mean rich employers' money on non-payroll items. Your upstanding president hopes you won't notice that he swiped the wallet if he offers to help look for it. The economy has been busted and presently stands no chance of being reassembled, and we don't exactly have a heartily inventive president who can fix anything with duct tape and a can-do spirit. Republicans keep the Senate from passing a budget with cruel accusations of tardiness.

Even the things he faulted are his fault. Obama inherited a crisis caused by factors he endorsed, unless he's now in favor of limiting mortgage access to those fat cat elitists who can make payments. The economy was sunk by progressives' smoldering housing principles, but at least they stabilized the misery by implementing other crucial wastefulness.

It's hard to accept the executive branch's claim that unfettered capitalism is the arsonist while they reek of gasoline. We're just past halfway point of having to listen to Wall Street hedge fund operators employing dastardly capitalism get blamed for our financial pain. Barack Obama is totally mature, best seen in how utterly presidential it is to hurl excuses.

But the good news is that we'd have recovered by now if not for their attempts at fixing, which gives us the opportunity to fantasize about the better life we could have had. They're always blaming, which is not the sort of relentless behavior of powerful people which impressionable children should ape.

This administration has lame excuses for what happens at home and abroad, and their problem is that they can't think of anywhere else to dodge. Most egregiously, the now-departed Secretary of State will remain rightfully indignant in retirement until she gets answers from whoever was running the department.

Hillary Morrissey asking “what difference does it make” constituted astoundingly sanctimonious nonchalance even for her, especially considering her department's conniving yet ingenuous policies. The State Department's ghastly behavior before, during, and after Benghazi is apparently best countered by demonizing the questioners, who are so annoying with all this “who got killed” talk.

This White House can't be trusted with power because they refuse to accept that it's possible bad things could happen as a result of their decisions. Of course, that hasn't stopped them from possessing it, an incongruity with which they cope by getting prickly any time someone points out who was in charge when the money disappeared or blood spilled. You'd get defensive if you were accused of awful things that just happened to be true.

While presidential term limits offer the only mercy on the horizon, never having to run again means Obama can barely even pretend to care. As for his chief minion, Hillary learned during her hubby's term to conflate announcing to take responsibility and actually doing it. Going through the charade is a proud tradition that manifests itself with the vaguest passing mention about feeling bad for awful policies doing nothing to stop bloodshed.

Why should the juveniles running the detention hall be responsible? Voters backed them twice, so both parties are clearly content with evasive whining. The low-standard cultists only had a flimsy excuse for doing so the first time, and they were perhaps motivated this last unfortunate election by the prospect of a standard-free existence. The only consequence is the devaluation of our nation's identity.

This accusatory administration won't take credit for the horrid results of their bad ideas. In fact, they will horrifyingly laugh it off in a noxious mixture of callous indifference and despicably transparent self-preservation. There's nothing adult about them no matter how long they've been able to buy beer, just like there's no surprise that people with disastrous approaches to life also don't have the fortitude to accept the ensuing catastrophic results.

What's important is that it's somebody else's fault that America's two biggest hobbies are joblessness and having missiles pointed at it by North Korea. Adults will have quite the mess to clean after two terms of juveniles acting blamelessly. Presuming it ever happens again, the next grown-up to win the office will take the job out of a willingness to face the accompanying challenge.

By contrast, the incumbent just wanted the limo and paid vacations. As someone who's been rewarded his entire life for shirking, Obama won't take responsibility for being irresponsible.

Neoconned

Posted on August 23, 2012 By Anthony Bialy

The lone fun part of an otherwise incessantly dismal Barack Obama presidency has been his predilection for killing terrorists. Dead enemies are the best return for tax dollars possible. We should say good for him as patronizingly as possible in a technique learned from Elizabeth Warren.

Obama is competent when he ignores his gut. If we could train him to defy his instincts, he might even be able to increase the GDP.

Of course, Obama only gets around to commanding in chief at his leisure, as he has fundraisers to attend and an economy to junk. Pulling the trigger that pulled the trigger happened in bin Laden's case on a time frame best classified as a sooner or later. Our Oval Office badass presumably waited to make the gutsy call until the fourth time just to make sure nobody thought he was too much of a hateful dispenser of death.

Being excessively interested in concepts like national security or right and wrong still ticks off his base. It's a bizarre world where we can be grateful for Hillary Clinton. But don't expect them to cease pretending he only postponed making the correct decision because he was rappelling from a helicopter into bin Laden's compound with a Bowie knife clenched between his teeth.

The crossed-off names on Obama's international hit list constitute the only time his supporters can cite a true accomplishment, unless they're now touting eight percent unemployment as a triumph. And they're forced to concede how out of character their left-wing hero acts whenever he authorizes offing a bad guy; it's so unlike trying to give everyone cruddy health insurance. There's nothing as fun as watching his supporters list his accomplishments in the war on Islamist jerks, which forces them to tacitly acknowledge that he's acting like a bloodthirsty Cheneyite.

Obama's neoconservative tendencies isn't just a fun thing to point out to already high-strung leftists. But Killy McKillerson is only a good president when he isn't being himself. Just as when George W. Bush failed when he acted liberally regarding the economy, Obama only succeeds when he ditches his principles in favor of doing what's correct.

Certainly, our president should be cheered on those remarkably infrequent occasions when he conducts himself properly. On those intermittent occasions when Obama authorizes bulls-eyes, he's making America safer while irritating the left. The hippie brigade either must condemn the man who otherwise embodies their pathetically untenable ideals or squirm while defending drone hits on our sworn enemies.

That said, killing terrorists in lieu of capturing them is the easiest way of getting around having to imprison them. Obama is so dead set against Gitmo, which by the way he is going to close any day now, that he'd rather send our enemies to roast for eternity in a place where there are definitely no virgins than let them get fat in the Caribbean while enjoying the Fresh Prince's antics. Will Smith's appalling sitcom somehow doesn't qualify as torture.

Making sure the last thing murderous Islamists see is a missile tip is a better choice than chalking up differences in ideologies to a lack of respectful understanding or some other lethally banal leftist bromide. But practical issues remain: aside from deeper implications to civil liberties and questions about whether killing bad guys is worse than dripping water on them, we can't get information from a corpse. The next president must thus cope with an empty intelligence cupboard, meaning he'll ironically have a genuine reason to blame his predecessor.

So, expect Obama to talk about his willingness to target more human demons than even evil Warmonger Bush did. What else can he run on except faded memories of phony enthusiasm and blaming his own woeful performance on the aforementioned last guy who held his job? Obama needs voters to think he's tough on something other than successful people and Israel, and it's not going to be the deficit. Yes, it's still unbelievable that this race is even close.

Watch what you tell the poll caller unless you want to be branded a bigot. Some people say they support the president in polls but will vote otherwise, as they don't want to be uncool and racist. Yet they privately weigh the historically unprecedented presidential complexion versus the unoriginal occurrence of a lousy presidential performance. Stacking the corpses of America's enemies might be the only tangible achievement he can list to counter their doubts.

But he didn't exactly have options. The staggeringly obvious decision to get the most evil man on Earth, his henchmen, and other sundry rotten dregs like Somali pirates only offer evidence that Obama is willing to take care of comically dastardly villains. We sure should be glad he's making those decisions, even if, as in bin Laden's case, they're only made eventually. But fulfilling the death wishes of jihadists serves as the lone instance where he deviates from an impossibly dull progressive script.

Charred terrorists aside, we should feel insecure, and not just in the sense of needing a hug after this brutal term. Obama remains determined to run away from victory in Iraq and is striving to do the same in Afghanistan. Slashing defense spending allows the government to focus on its true mission, namely subsidizing Amtrak.

And Iran is cheering for Obama's election so they can give him wedgies for four more years. It's all part of the incumbent's plan to try and convince enemies he's cool while blowing off lifelong buddies.

Taking credit for the work of Navy Seals is the only way he can sucker voters, and even then he can merely convince those who don't think Mitt Romney will be more interested in hunting down human monsters. Democrats slur Republicans as ruthlessly heartless then wonder why they're perpetually lagging when it comes to national security polling. Sometimes, they even lapse and call basketball players “heroes” instead of military personnel.

Obama should get as much enjoyment out of personally selecting targets for as long as he can. He'll only have Rahm Emanuel at his disposal and not flying death contraptions if he wants to take on enemies post-presidency. Maybe then he'll finally realize that the government is only efficient when it's killing people.

Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Who’s Losing Less?

Posted on June 21, 2012 By Anthony Bialy

America isn't falling for Mitt Romney, but it is failing for Barack Obama. While we can't trust Mittens to fix anything, our present repairman charges 4,900 dollars to fix our refrigerator with a blowtorch and chainsaw. You must make the best relative choice when you can only find two local Yelp reviews.

As the epitome of tepidness, Romney can only win with a horribly unqualified opponent. Lucky him. Amusingly, the incumbent is less fit to run now than he was the first time, what with all the people knowing how he'll act as president.

The lack of a worthy foe is ironically also the only thing that enabled Obama to get his current position. Getting an opportunity based on the incompetence of the fellow whose job you want is the American way, which indicates that the ruling administration's opposition to businesses firing anyone is based upon ulterior motives.

The White House's present occupant can't lean on the only man who offers hope that a Democratic president born in the 20^th century could win again. Who could believe that Bill Clinton would be undisciplined? It's happened!

Saying the economy isn't good but Romney's private sector time is amounts to a perfectly telling Clintonian moment. It's reminiscent of the exact sort of mistakenly honest remark the The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air-era president would make.

Being unprincipled is good if one's principles are garbage. America's Bubba believes everything politically that Obama does, and is also willing to abandon every bit of progressive nonsense like Obama does not. And that's why only one of the two will end up serving two terms instead of one.

The man who made the term "unprincipled ideologue" seem like it wasn't a contradiction is tremendous at faking empathy and a little lax at staying on point. Clinton noticed that Romney had a decent career outside of politics in the same way that encountering a bucket of the Colonel's chicken would lead to an irresistible inability to remember his diet.

Occasionally, the Secretary of State's husband slips up and says something truthful. No, not to her, but rather to anyone willing to hear how the present presidential challenger did well for himself. To be fair, Romney's success occurred in an era when businesses were unencumbered by the current presidential titleholder's pernicious policies.

Romney's campaign strategy should be to let Obama speak. Ceding all debate time to the man he's trying to replace would lead to twice as many ridiculous claims about the country's contemporary peachiness.

The precariously-positioned ruler can't plausibly maintain with a straight face that everything is wonderful, although it would be tremendous fun to watch him try. Some unintentional Obama-generated mirth would help us through the final brutal stretch of his rule.

Even he can't take himself seriously anymore, although he will remain humorless. What are the other options for a man bent on reelection without having done anything re-electable?

He could maintain that we're broke and broken through no fault of him, who is actually reassembling our busted nation into something more awesome Road Warrior-style. Obama could finally put his extensive practical experience as a mechanic to use.

Or he could claim that we're not surrounded by rotting carcasses. But he would merely be adding to the scent of unfathomable desperation.

There's no rosy scenario that's plausible for this White House to pitch even to people who thought Battleship was the most well-plotted cinematic masterpiece they had ever seen until Rock of Ages hit theaters. All they can pitch is the nostalgia of seeing a film about hope years ago and hope enough people remember watching the flawed cinematic landmark during their ingenuous years. Also, they can't re-watch it now.

If you think Obama knows how to organize this community, look around this neighborhood. Romney could do a better job at getting the hedges trimmed and sidewalk mended. Disaffected voters just have to convince him to pretend he's organizing deals at Bain and not in position to, say, again preserve mandatory health insurance.

Even better, President Mittens should just assent to everything a Republican Congress sends to his desk, especially the good guys as opposed to the squishes who think Obamacare doesn't epitomize everything that sucks about an ever-expanding state.

After all, doing as dominant legislators wanted worked for the submissive Clinton. He just inked whatever bill ended up in front of him so he could get back to thinking about scoring intern tail. Take the meager blessings the universe hands you, even if it's a far-left president unexpectedly ensuring welfare reform becomes law so he wouldn't have to go back to practicing law.

Mitt is slightly more attached to a belief system than the oscillating Clinton. And neither of them approach the stubbornness of an incumbent who's determined to lose as a leftist.

Like Clinton, Obama is prepared do almost anything to be president instead of having to work. The only thing the later-model Democrat is unwilling to do to keep his place is make the country better.

He thinks America will be exceptional once it's egalitarian. Accepting that America is great despite the government and not because of it would require the ability to understand it. Like Clinton, Romney doesn't have to believe it to sign it.

Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The Point-Shaving President

Posted on October 7, 2011 By Anthony Bialy

Maybe Barack Obama is in debt to gamblers. His term has always seemed like a cruel joke on anyone who thinks that screwing over the poor isn’t the way to become rich. It’s at the point where suspicious types sense that his thorough incompetence almost indicates he’s throwing the game.

Aside from the Wall Street slacker squatters who want jobs as long as they don’t have to work, Americans are largely unimpressed by Obama’s efforts to Euro-Quebecize a country he maintains to like. Conspiracy theorists may have our president pegged as a super-secret Republican collaborator. But he’s really nothing more than a classroom genius unleashed on reality.

Obama’s only proficient at handing a win to his antagonists. No, it’s sadly not the Iranians or Palestinians, as he wouldn’t want to irritate his partners in pieces.

Rather, his chronic failure is the only proof he likes conservatives, as he’s handing them a victory by habitually disproving liberalism’s tenets. A man who doesn’t know how to like businesses, much less run them, has shown how Obamanomics makes unemployment and debt grow while the GDP does not.

He’s had so many chances to parachute, but he’d prefer to hope that the engine fires extinguish themselves. Obama has declined to Clintonize his positions. That’s Bill-style, not Hillary: while the incumbent’s Secretary of State is steadfastly left of liberal like her boss, the male Clinton would alternately have sold his ancestors’ souls if it meant gaining a dozen electoral votes.

The president apparently never noticed that Clinton’s stock improved when he betrayed his principles. Most notably, the economy prospered thanks to Clinton joining with congressional Republicans to reform welfare and cut capital gains taxes.

By contrast, the only thing Obama believes in more than leftism is himself. Teach your children to eschew self-esteem, parents.

So, he’s not changing his vector. The president could have admitted that he tried to lose weight by adding a breakfast buffet to his diet. But he hold an odd affinity for the unhealthy scheme of trying to fix a government-caused crisis with more government. Even a little more is too much, so he may as well try a lot more.

He’s unabashedly indulges in everything that Alec Baldwin believes. The approach has led to an emaciated economy that does not at all resemble the rotund 30 Rock line-reader.

But conservatives don’t ostensibly have the option of hiring the sort of head coach who would inspire the roster to turn from worst to first. That’s especially so with a prominent Facebook user and Tea Party favorite out of the race.

The country is begging for an alternative to everything that’s happened since we realized that we were pumped full of everything but hope. Now, they just need a ticket-topping candidate.

If we could find one, that would be just great. But the selection is largely disappointing in a McCainesque manner, especially with the blowhard maverick’s running mate choosing to keep cheering from the sideline.

What’s frustrating is knowing how easy winning this election would be if only we could unearth a competent opponent who isn’t on Obama’s side for three or four issues. Instead, we’ve been presented with a choice of squishy conservatives. Conservatives are left trying to pick who has the least deviations.

The leadership vacuum explains Herman Cain’s sudden appeal. Republicans wish that Rick Perry was only inarticulate while discussing his detours into liberalism. Instead, he’s clearly explained only the policies that he would hold over upon defeating the incumbent.

By contrast, Cain is connecting with voters despite his support for TARP and lack of foreign policy opinions, much less experience. Such lack of proficiency explains his questionable endorsement of, say, a trial for an American citizen who took up arms against America. The only controversy about Anwar al-Awlaki revolves around whether we should hit him with a second missile just to make sure he’s been banished to a place with zero virgins.

Cain hasn’t dealt much with foreign interests, aside from the stereotypically Italian fellas at Godfather’s Pizza and the Burger King. Regardless, he remains undeniably appealing for his mixture of intriguing proposals, professional experience, and genuine optimism. Such a cocktail could topple a president known for inspiring hope that’s as phony as it is fleeting.

But he should be focused upon spicing up his ideology. Like the other Republican presidential hopefuls, Cain is best advised to address lapses while excising deviations. Voters want the contender who is most unalike the man they’ll face in the boss round.

Obama is handing them, and us, a win. We face a historical opportunity to make him the first African-American incumbent to lose a presidential election. He’s beating himself, but his foes still have to make their free throws.

The seeming dearth of a thoroughly conservative hopeful serves as a reminder to profess loyalty to ideals, not people. But this isn’t the best time for a practical example.

Yet there could be good news if a relative unknown can shore up his credentials starting right now. As a rocket scientist, Cain just has to hurry and prove that he can expose how Obama’s no brain surgeon.

Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Will The Media Support A Run By Hillary In 2012?

Posted on September 29, 2011 By CCR

1 Comment

There is a malaise permeating the political punditry world these days. Whether it’s an Erick Erickson trashing most everyone in or not in the GOP presidential race even as he begs them to raise his visibility by sitting down with him and other CNN sycophants for lengthy interviews, or the MSM doing its best Dug impersonation as evidence of President Obama’s malfeasance grows, it is as if no one has the will to speak plain, honest truth. Instead, it’s “look at me — SQUEE!” playtime all the time. Thrillsville.

While there’s nothing to be done about the Ericksons of this world other than call them out for their pathetic act, the MSM’s silence on such matters as Solyndra and Fast & Furious is easily attributable to its incessant love affair with Obama. Plain as day.

Or is it?

A hypothesis.

Even the most sold-out liberal (pardon the redundancy) MSMer is fully aware Obama is a miserable failure. However, the liberal mindset is such that it cannot admit the failure of its beliefs. Any shortcoming is due to sabotage by those dastardly tea partiers and/or the ineptitude of those executing the plan. The latter is the albatross hanging around Obama’s neck.

This leaves the media in a quandary. If the economy, and global distress, remain as is or worsen, no amount of disingenuous reporting on their part will return Obama to office next November. The idea of a conservative, any conservative, occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is anathema to them. Therefore, for the MSM there is but one hope.

Hillary Clinton.

There are immediate problems with such a notion. First, the media would have to somehow compensate for the thorough trashing of Hillary they carried out in 2008 while raising Obama to the status of lightworker. Good luck with that apology.

Next, there is the minor problem of her not running. Ah, but wait…

As of late, Bill Clinton has been making noise, none of which can be music to Obama’s ears. He has a book on the economy coming out this November which will doubtless remind all of how the economy was humming when he was in charge. He’s damned with faint praise Obama’s latest tax-the-rich proposal. Overall, he’s adopting a significantly higher profile even as Obama has been steadily shrinking in the public eye as someone worthy of re-election.

What better way to lay the foundation for a run by Hillary? “Remember how good it was with me in charge? Well, here’s the real sequel!”

Yes, Hillary has said before she’s not running. She’s said nothing about this as of late. And we are talking about politics, which is governed by the same principal as Indiana weather: if you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes and it’ll change.

Back to the MSM. At its core, it faces the issue of needing an alternative to Obama if it wishes to see a liberal remain at the head of the country. Hillary is the sole viable option.

Hence, the crux of the hypothesis.

The media is holding back on issues such as Solyndra, Fast & Furious et al in the hope that Hillary will enter the race. At that moment, the MSM will go all out with trumpeting everything it can find negative about Obama. Everything.

As an aside, should the above take place it sets up a fascinating possibility: what if Sarah Palin decides to run?

The GOP establishment would be cutting its own throat if it trotted out Romney or variation thereof against Clinton. Not like they’ve never thrown sacrificial lambs out there before because said candidate had “earned” the right to run; Republicans have long treated the nomination like Hollywood treats the Best Actor and Actress Oscars, handing them out for a body of work rather than to reward a specific performance. This duly noted, the GOP’s best bet in 2012 against Hillary would be the “yes, we can nominate a woman too” candidate. Michele Bachmann has been trashed too routinely by friendly fire to be considered. That leaves Palin. The Beltway bozos would choke, but they serve no useful purpose anyway.

It accomplishes nothing for the media to report the negatives about Obama now if he’s all they’ll have in 2012. But if there is a viable option, they’ll do whatever it takes to promote that alternative. Even if it means doing the hitherto thought impossible:

Report the facts.

Obama’s Hometown Newspaper Urges Him Not To Seek Re-election

Posted on September 19, 2011 By Bruce McQuain

Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board, has penned an article which can only be described as a nice way to say to Obama, “hey, do us a favor and let someone else take the reins before you totally screw up Democrats chances of ever getting the White House again for decades”.

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

What is remarkable about this is it is finally being said out loud, and not just whispered in conversations among Democrats. It is starting to emerge as a mainstream idea, Chapman among the first to put it in writing. Obama has become a political liability and most of the rational on the left realize that. All the hype has deflated and all the glitter fallen off. This, it is increasingly apparent, is a failed presidency.

Oh, certainly, the economic circumstances haven’t helped, but neither has the Obama administration. In misstep after misstep they’ve compounded the problem. And, of course, as I’ve been saying for quite some time, Obama’s real problem this election cycle isn’t that he doesn’t have a record to examine. Instead his problem is he does have a record, for the first time, to examine, and it is not a good one.

So Chapman, like the chief of staff who tries to convince his incompetent boss its time to step down, comes up with a list of excuses with a positive spin that make it sound like a good idea:

It’s not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, “Second-Term Blues,” that “their second terms did not measure up to their first.”
Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment.

They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by.

And besides – Hillary is ready:

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover.

That’s all true to a point, unless the current foreign policy, like everything else this administration, collapses in the interim. And it is fraying around the edges fairly badly. Arab spring has turned the clock in the Middle East back 40 years, Turkey, a NATO member is rattling its saber at Israel and there seems to be a very good chance that it may go the Islamist extremist route as well.

However, again, this is one of those read between the lines columns that tries, in a nice way, to say “you’re a loser, step aside”. It broadly hints that Obama just isn’t up to the job. It makes the point that there are a growing number on the left who feel that keeping the White House is much more important than who it is actually occupying the Oval Office. Chapman is saying “take one for the team, please” or it is becoming increasingly clear that the team may lose.

I wonder if Obama will actually listen?

Secretaries Panetta and Clinton talk to America: Leave our budgets alone.

Posted on August 16, 2011 By Dacia Nichol

This morning, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat down at National Defense University in Washington, DC to have a “conversation” with America. With two wars, a “non-hostile, non-war” in Libya, and increasing concerns around the world such as Russia, China, and Syria, Washington leadership decided that it might be a good idea to remove some formalities and explain what the DC mindset is about our global position.

Right off the bat, it was obvious that Hillary owned the show. Panetta was just there for token presence and talking points, apparently.

If I didn’t know any better (which I don’t), I’d say Hillary had an axe to grind. She wanted to be sure we all knew how small the State Department budget is, especially compared to the behemouth budget at the Defense Department, and also point out how vital State’s role is to national security. So the defense hawks want to defend it, too. Get it? She made the case that our national security initiative is essentially three-pronged: Military, diplomacy, and development. I’m inclined to agree with her to an extent. Obviously, we can agree or disagree over how those three balance out.

Hillary actually impressed me more than once during the event.

First was with her position on our continuing role in Iraq, which Panetta was also in agreement with. She made the case that we are fulfilling our obligation in ending our combat role in Iraq in December. Any continuing role after that isn’t an “add-on” to our previous agreement. It would be a diplomatic request for assistance just like we receive from our partners all over the world such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. We would be having a normal relationship with Iraq and it would actually be irresponsible of us to not help if asked. This is a talking point I can agree with.

Second was her position on the importance of American leadership in the world. I can’t disagree with her when she says that part of leadership is getting other players on the field. I also can’t disagree with her when she says that we can’t just “pull out” of any of our positions around the world. We are a global power, and there are a lot of issues that affect our long term security that won’t be making headlines. Panetta followed up this point by reiterating that just because al Qaeda is weakened, that doesn’t mean we should let up – quite the contrary. Now is the time to really put the pressure on and get rid of what’s left with the intention that it stays that way.

Hillary reminded me however, that she’s still a Democrat at home. Discussing the budget issue in the beginning of the event, while complimenting Leon Panetta’s long history in Washington, she took care to point out the important role Panetta had played in balancing the budget in the 90s. She honed in on the fact that tax increases were part of what it took to get that balance, and made the assertion that if we had stayed on the trajectory set forth in that budget, we wouldn’t have all the spending problems that we do now.

Yes, I do find it ironic that she’s making this statement while part of a team (Clinton-Panetta) that was responsible for reducing our military capability to barely being able to handle the terror threats that attacked us in 2001, and now says we can’t afford to do that again. Just to make that clear, she’s defending the cuts that created the military problems which demanded increased defense spending, while defending against cutting a budget that wouldn’t be as big as it is should we have followed the budget she says we should have followed.

You’re right Hillary. We wouldn’t have all the spending problems we have now. We’d have even bigger ones.

Here’s a quick summary of what the secretaries had to say on the big issues:

Pakistan: There’s nothing new to report on how frustrating this relationship is. The point to note is that Pakistan has a habit of bucking any and all of our advice, even when it’s in their best interest to follow. Our big no-budge issue is supposedly that we don’t make deals with terrorists, but that’s only been an effective stance when it came to the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan continues to have a relationship with the Haqqani network, which is a terrorist organization making a lot of trouble for us in Afghanistan. Panetta wouldn’t comment much about the Chinese being given access to the stealth helicopter used during the bin Laden raid citing “classified information” issues.

Afghanistan: We’ve made decent progress in the southwest and the west, but the east is still a problem. Nothing new there. Hillary seemed to have a little impatience with the outrage over Karzai’s corruption, doubling down on the fact that she deals with leaders all over the world, each with their own domestic issues that we don’t have to face in our country. She had a pot shot for the Bush administration, claiming that we weren’t listening well enough to Karzai about the problems he had with our mission there, which just led to problems between him and the U.S. She didn’t comment on whether we should pay attention to grievances on or off his medication. One thing to look forward to: Karzai will not be seeking a third term, so there’s potential for new leadership that could relieve some of the legitimacy issues that plagues Kabul in the eyes of Afghans.

Libya and Syria: It’s not news that we don’t have a good relationship with Syria. Best question from the event: Do our responses to Libya and Syria indicate that America is no longer able to underwrite security in the world? Hillary stated that she believes our responses there are an exercise in “smart” power and “strategic patience”, essentially that we’ve done well with our intentions. She pointed out that in Libya, we didn’t even have an “address” for the people we were supposed to be helping, and now there’s a council and infrastructure is growing. The defections are a sign of growing weakness of the Ghaddafi regime. In Syria, there’s an international chorus growing against the regime which includes the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperative Council, and even Turkey trying to use its influence, which it has said is not working. She didn’t say what our role would be in the removal of President Assad, but just that our actions and rhetoric are establishing our position. Essentially, we have a NATO-Arab alliance in these parts of the world that should be celebrated because we’re all defending universal rights together. I’ll just let the irony pool on that one.

Overall, I’d say I was almost impressed with the focus on American interests coming from the team that makes many of us on the right doubtful. If there’s one thing that this event pushed home in a surprising way, it was how similar Leon Panetta’s position on defense spending seems to be in line with that of his predecessor, Robert Gates. Something may have happened during his time at the CIA that changed some gears. Or maybe after signing those condolence letters as the Defense Secretary, he realized the very real implications that bad policy at the top can lead to. It’s one thing for soldiers to give their lives fighting for victory; an entirely different one when “victory” isn’t in the mission vocabulary.

Hillary said something else that that I agree with, but I think the irony works against her for defending her husband’s budgetary actions: Our national budget is a values statement. Cutting resources from our ability to lead in the world makes a statement about what we feel our position is in the world and what we feel our role is going forward.

Hear that Obama?