There is a cabal of Readers of this
Blog who are redundant in their annoyance; they have annoyingly lobbied for the MAXEY
CHRONICLES to read and review the book HARD CHOICES by Hillary Clinton. To that
end, they even sent this
Blogger a copy of said book. This Blogger attempted to read HARD CHOICES but failed to finish HARD CHOICES. HARD CHOICES commits
the sin of being self serving, sobeit, a lot of biographies are self serving.
What is worse, HARD CHOICES makes the mistake of being BORING.
How boring is it?
MOBY DICK is livelier; in truth
reading everything you never wanted to know about whales in MOBY DICK is
livelier than reading HARD CHOICES.
When this Blogger conveyed his
failure to finish the book to his annoying Readers, they asked for a compensatory Blog, a prognostication
on the viability of Madame Clinton’s preordained Presidency.
The odds of Madame Clinton winning
the Democratic Party’s nomination for President are 90% to 10%.
The odds of Madame Clinton winning
the American Presidency are 52% to 48%.
The odds of Madame Clinton having a
successful Presidency are 9% to 91%.
How did this Blog reach those odds?
By looking at History, the person Hillary Clinton, and the future.
History has produced great female
leaders- Queen Elizabeth I, Czarina
Catherine the Great and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Great female leaders
had one thing in common, they were not boring. They also had imagination, and inspiring personal authority.
Female leaders who have failed like
Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi had personal authority but no imagination. Angela
Merkel will eventually also fail for she too lacks imagination.
Margaret Thatcher spent her childhood living
above her father’s grocery store.
She was poor.
When she grabbed for power in
1975, there had never been a woman elected to lead a great political party in England, nor in France, nor in America, nor in the Soviet Union. In her grab for power, she needed a
majority of the 249 Conservative MPs to become head of the Party. In 1975, Thatcher
was asking a majority of 249 chauvinist pigs to vote for a woman as leader. She
was asking men who had served in World War II, who had served the Empire, warriors and imperialists to vote for her. And
they did.
"On 4th
February Thatcher defeated Heath by 130 votes to 119 and became the first woman
leader of a major political party. “"
The party against change
changed for one woman, why?
How could one lone woman
make a passel of men go against 5,000 years of training and vote for her?
Those 130 antediluvian male pigs saw qualities in Thatcher that made them rise above their prejudices, what were those qualities? Does Hillary have those qualities?
Thatcher did not
nickname herself the Iron Lady; Thatcher got her nickname the old fashioned
way, her enemies named her. She had a conference, with the Leadership of the Soviet Union, Communist men who had made their bones
slaughtering fellow Russian citizens. After the conference, those cold,
heartless, dangerous conspiratorial men nicknamed her-THE IRON LADY. In HARD CHOICES,
Madame Clinton labeled Russian President Putin, an ex-KGB agent, a “hard man”. Clinton
implies that Putin was too hard to deal
with during her tenure as Secretary of State. For the Iron Lady, there was no man extant too
hard to deal with. There are women leaders and then there are women poseurs. To
lead one must deal with, and perhaps break hard men, by use of iron if necessary.
One day, Prime Minister
Thatcher was to give an esoteric speech about some esoteric public policy. The
rising Labour MP, the brilliant and slashing Tony Blair, read the prepared
speech beforehand and noticed that Thatcher had failed to mention an obscure
but important thinker on this particularly obscure topic.
So he pulled the
thinker's essay on the obscure topic, and prepared to show Thatcher up, by
ambushing her with her ignorance.
After Thatcher's speech,
Blair ambushed her in the hall, waving the copy of the thinker's essay; with a
smirk, he presented it to the IRON LADY.
She smiled, opened her
ubiquitous handbag, and triumphantly pulled out the same obscure essay by the
same obscure thinker.
The Iron Lady then told
the brilliant Mr. Blair, "I read it and rejected it."
“HILLARY CLINTON is a big fan of briefing books. As Barack
Obama’s envoy to the world she devoured great, thick binders on every subject
imaginable, she writes in “Hard Choices”, a new memoir published on June 10th.
As she worked tirelessly to prepare for summits and official trips to 112
countries, she admired the expertise of her diplomats. Only one thing bothered
her. A few months into the job she asked the State Department to be more creative
with graphics, after envying the flashier briefings carried by Pentagon brass.
Soon, she beams: “there were plenty of coloured maps and charts to go around.”
What nickname will Madame Clinton’s
enemies give her ?
What nickname will fit her abilities?
Her world view?
Hillary Clinton is THE BABBITT LADY:
“The
word "Babbitt" is from the novel by Sinclair Lewis, it is a professional
who conforms unthinkingly to prevailing social standards".
Hillary
Clinton has not had one original thought in her entire life. That shortcoming may not have been debilitating if one is a big shot lawyer in a backwater state governed by your Governor-
husband, or being First Lady, or being Senator from the “rotten borough” of New
York State, or even being Secretary of State. However that short coming is an
absolute invitation to disaster in the Presidency.
America knows or
should know that imaginative thinking is a skill needed for the Presidency; because for the entire
21st Century, it has been governed by limited, small minded Presidents
(W Bush and Obama). They were Presidents without fresh ideas, approaches, or solutions in their entire skill set of Leadership.
Hillary Clinton will be the third lackluster thinker in succession as President
if she is elected. Logically that is a Bridge too Far for the Republic to
navigate successfully.
This Blogger finds it telling, that though Madame Clinton came
from a well to do family, she never went
to Europe until she was First Lady. That is revelatory; it shows a complete
lack of curiosity, a lack of adventure, and a lack of confidence in conquering new
situations, unless your larger than life husband, Bill Clinton has laid the groundwork for your win.
.
She will run for President, for she needs pomp and circumstance
to feel complete as a person; she needs deference to feel complete. She needs
the color of authority to feel complete, whether it is as the Governor’s Wife,
or the First Lady, or the Senator from the rotten borough or the Secretary of
State.
Behind the public facade of Hillary Clinton is a woman who lacks the
confidence of individuality, and abhors the male gender for their abundance of
self confidence, and sense of adventure. She hates Shackleton rather than admires Shackleton.
George W. Bush, as President, governed as
a Wilhelmine Infantile; Obama governs as a Marginal Man seeking revenge
on the society he never feels he belongs to; Madame Clinton will govern as the
high school girl who never was noticed until she married the hottest and
smartest guy in the room, Bill Clinton.
If Madame Clinton is elected, the psycho drama which is the
decline and fall of the American Republic will continue, as the best Reality
show/soap opera in town.
The odds of Madame Clinton winning
the Democratic Party’s nomination for President are 90% to 10%. That is because
Madame Clinton stands for nothing that the herd does not stand for. She is for
Same Sex Marriage because the herd has changed its mind on Same Sex Marriage.
She will present herself as the embodiment of women’s fulfillment of their
thwarted ambitions.
She will present herself as Joan of Arc, without the burning
stake. She will present herself as Evita Peron, “the people must adore me”.
In reality, she is and has always
been Isabel Peron, a total creature of her husband’s intellect and vision, with
as much independent thought as the last Mrs. Juan Peron.
Madame Clinton will be nominated by
the Democrats; since the Democratic Party has transformed itself from the party
of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy into an American version of the Mexican PRI,
a party of sub cultures and their rotted, vested, selfish interests, without
any concerns for the larger American commonality or community. Madame Clinton
will win the Democratic nomination because the American Democratic Party is now
the American PRI, and will pick her via the DEDAZO, the big finger, in which
the interest groups determine the candidate not the people.
The odds of Madame Clinton winning
the American Presidency are 52% to 48%. Those are short odds, because Madame
Clinton can be beaten. You can give Madame Clinton a million man army like the
Persian King Darius III had at the Battle
of Gaugamela, and she will still lose to a younger, more nimble, more
imaginative Republican, just as Darius did to Alexander. The Republican candidate must wage a campaign of American Interests above the parochial interests that Madame
Clinton will be forced to champion.
To beat
Madame Clinton, the Republican candidate must lead with his right, go southpaw
in the fifth round, use rope-a-dope, be unorthodox. Madame Clinton is mentally lumbering,
partial to sociological jargon rather than real solution(“It takes a village.”). If the Republicans win a thousand minor
skirmishes, they will win the war against her. She is mass and throw weight.
The Republican candidate must be a Giap guerrilla, clinging to her belly with flexibility
and initiative. She is a grinder; she will go to her grave without having one
epiphany in her life, for the simple
reason epiphanies are not in briefing books but in the soul.
Madame
Clinton is soul less, like all modern Liberals. Like all Liberals, she is a
soulless compendium of statistics and jargon, nothing more. She is incapable of
asking for greatness from the people, for the people know Hillary Clinton is not great.
Madame
Clinton can be had, Barack Obama did not win the nomination in 2008, Madame
Clinton lost it. She is quite capable of losing the 2016 election.
She does not
look like Thomas Dewey in a pants suit for nothing.
The odds of Madame Clinton having a
successful Presidency are 9% to 91%.
Argentina was the richest nation on
earth during the 1920s. Now its claim to fame is that it was the first post
modern country, currently preparing to default(for a second time) on its debts.
During the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, a Southern Democratic Congressman, Taylor from Mississippi, voiced his fears about the Latin Americanization of American politics.
Madame Clinton's presumptive election would confirm Rep. Taylor’s fears.
For many Americans, the only reason to vote for Madame Clinton would be to have another Bill Clinton term.
Well that rationale was tried in Argentina with Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner. She is the “52nd and current President of Argentina and widow of former president Néstor Kirchner. She is the second woman to serve as President of Argentina (after Isabel Martínez de Perón, 1974–1976), the first directly elected female president; before that she served as Senator for both Santa Cruz and Buenos Aires provinces.
“…. Fernández is a graduate of the National University of La Plata. She met her husband during her studies, and they moved to Santa Cruz to work as lawyers. During Kirchner's presidency (2003–2007) she acted as First Lady. Fernández was chosen as the Front for Victory presidential candidate in 2007”.
She won.
Cristina was elected President because the Argentine people wanted another term of Nestor Kirchner’s Presidency(sound familiar?). Alas, toward the end of Cristina’s term, Nestor had a heart attack and died(Bill Clinton has had significant heart issues). Cristina was re-elected as the Widow Kirchner; her second term, without her husband’s guidance, has been a disaster.
“Times have turned tough in Argentina,….. Pessimism is rife as prices rise, purchasing power erodes and people prepare for the possibility of another economic crisis — ….inflation is accelerating and projected to hit 40% in 2014…USA TODAY”.
If Madame Clinton is elected President of the United States, it will be a replay of the Kirchner/Fernandez catastrophe in Argentina. People will vote for Hillary to get another Bill Clinton term.
In a cosmic joke, worthy of America as Argentina, Bill Clinton will pass away from heart trouble like Nestor Kirchner, leaving Hillary to stare at dazzling graphics as America collapses.
Welcome to the future, Hillary voters.
Comments
Post a Comment