American Elephants

What Does Hillary Stand For? by The Elephant's Child
April 13, 2015, 10:19 pm
Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , ,

Hillary Clinton announced, well, not really. She will have a big deal announcement later, but for now, her people issued a video of the ‘things go better with new Coke variety’ in which she appeared for a moment at the end claiming she wants to be a “Champion for the Middle Class” which seems to be the Democrats’ theme of the day.

Hillary has passionately wanted to be president for at least 23 years when she entered the White House with Bill, fully intending to be the co-president.The American people then said, um, we didn’t elect you— just Bill. But she has never given up on her intention to be the first woman president. One would assume that after 23 years and seeing the presidency from the inside — she would have some pretty definite ideas about what she wanted to do as president. Apparently not. She just wants to be.

Over at Breitbart, Roger Stone writes that  “Hillary’s imminent campaign will lack an agenda, platform or a vision for the country. This is by strategic choice.” i guess that if you are bland and uninformative, nobody can criticize you for anything. She’s running, but we don’t know why.

Hillary supporters have obligingly provided a long list of words that may not be used in reference to Hillary because they are “sexist”— actually they seem quite descriptive. The sexist words are: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over-confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, and out of touch. I don’t know about inevitable, but the rest seem to fit.

The campaign seems to believe they can buy their way into the White House. They are talking the first $2.5 billion campaign. The Clintons are practiced in money-grubbing, whether from Hollywood and Silicon Valley or among the Arabs and the Chinese abroad.

I don’t get the “first woman” thing. I didn’t get the “first Black” thing either. That is no reason to elect someone to office. The presidency is not an award for novelty. We select a president on the basis of their accomplishments, and what we perceive are their strengths and abilities. Color and/or sex or ethnicity should have nothing to do with it, though Democrats attach great importance to race, gender and national origin. We are already seeing people celebrated as the “first openly gay” and the first “transgendered person” cannot be far off.

Many women have been heads of state, prime ministers and Queens in many different countries, some successful and some not. Queen Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Golda Meir spring to mind. Hillary has had important positions in which to demonstrate her skills and accomplishments, but other than holding office, there are few accomplishments and some really big scandals. Bill Clinton had excellent political sense, and was able to ease out of problems that would have sunk others. He’s still credited for the successful economy in the 90s  that was pushed through by a Republican Congress. Hillary just does not have the political instinct that her husband had in such abundance. She’s always stepping in it.

ADDENDUM: Hillary’s campaign war chest is aiming for $2.5 billion, not $1.5 as I stated. Corrected. She also attacked CEO pay in a message to supporters. This is the woman who demands $200,000 for a speech.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on events in Iraq, Negotiations with Iran, and Life in the U.S. Senate. by The Elephant's Child
April 13, 2015, 6:47 am
Filed under: Middle East | Tags: , , , , , , ,

This young Senator is going to be President of the United States one day. This episode of Uncommon Knowledge was published on April 8, 2015.

ADDENDUM: President Obama was mightily annoyed by the letter Tom Cotton and 46 other Senate colleagues sent to the Ayatollah Khamenei simply explaining that any agreement reached by the president could be revoked by the next president or modified by Congress. Obama attempted to say such interference was uncalled for, and detrimental to the national good. Today, the Center for Security Policy sent a thank you letter to Senator Cotton and the other 46 senators containing the signatures of more than 150 security experts, including a former United States ambassador, multiple high-ranking military officials and other security experts. The letter read in part:

“Given the chimerical nature of the so-called framework agreement—which is, at the moment, being characterized in wildly different ways by the various parties, raising profound uncertainty about the nature and extent of the commitments Iran is making, their actual value in preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the timing and extent of sanctions relief, etc.—the need for congressional oversight, advice and consent concerning any accord that flows from that agreement can no longer responsibly be denied.“

“It would be a serious affront to the Constitution and to the American people were an agreement of this potentially enormous strategic consequence not to be submitted for such action by the Congress.  Grievous insult would be added to injury should the United Nations Security Council instead be asked to approve it.”

%d bloggers like this: