The Rejection of Hillary Clinton
Politics Brian Cherry, Associate Editor
January 7, 2008
Print page sponsored by
BasicsProject.org

Hillary Clinton declared her crushing defeat during the Iowa caucus as a "great night for Democrats." She followed this up by declaring that the high turnout of Dems in the Hawkeye state was a clear sign that liberals would take the White House next November. This was, of course, a lie. It wasn’t one that was quite as big as her husband trying to pass off an intimate sexual encounter with an intern as nothing more then a casual mentoring session to help an overweight young lady with her self esteem issues, but it was up there. Like everything else in the Clinton world, reality is usually the exact opposite of the calculated words that fall out of their mouths. The truth of the Democrat Iowa Caucus is that this was excellent news for Republicans.

 

It is impossible to hide the fact that Hillary is about as likeable as a premenstrual badger that is out of Midol. This fact aside, the media has done its best to show her in the best possible light by ignoring just about every one of her many gaffes.

 

In recent weeks this foreign policy genius suggested to the voters in Iowa that Benazir Bhutto was killed so that Musharraf would be unopposed in the upcoming elections. She seems to have missed the fact that Musharraf was not on the ballot. He is serving a five year term, and the Pakistani elections are for parliamentary seats, not the top job in the country. So much for her "experience.” Next we should see how she feels about the elevation of Fred Flintsone to the position of Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos. It was up to the new media to point out this moment of ignorance.

 

The main stream media pretty much ignored these statements and did their best to help her write herself into the life of the late Benazir Bhutto as some sort of close confidant of the slain former Pakistani leader. They also did their best to hide the fact that it took her at least five guesses before she figured out what her position was on giving illegal aliens’ driver’s licenses. You can’t fool everyone forever though. Democrats may have come out to support their candidate of choice, but they also showed up in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton.

 

When Mr. Clinton took the idea of a stimulating conversation with an employee to a new and disturbing place, he had the ability to deny the whole thing until a dress stained with the genetic byproduct of his excitement showed up. Senator Clinton may try to pass her Midwest caucus humiliation off as a Democrat triumph of epic proportions, but this is exposed as pure spin when she is faced with the well coifed stain on her primary dress named John Edwards.

 

Being referred to as a stain is probably nothing new to Mr. Edwards. Watching him, one might even be tempted to theorize that he is also no stranger to dresses, but the success he enjoyed in Iowa on Thursday is probably new territory for the former ambulance chasing lawyer. His message is the same as it was in 2004 when he only scored half as many votes during the Iowa caucus as he did this year, even his hair was the same, so what changed?

 

There are only two differences between the 2008 Iowa caucus and the 2004 event. This year he is no longer a member of Congress, and Hillary Clinton was one of his opponents.

 

In 2004, saying the exact same things that he is saying during this election cycle, approximately 31,800 came out to support John. This year 66,897 Democrats came out to vote for somebody who was not only voted out of Congress but also whose hair care bill dwarfs most of our car payments.

 

In 2004 though, he was running against John Kerry; a man who inspires about as much raw emotion as a box of Malt-O-Meal. This year Hillary Clinton was one of the candidates at the Iowa caucus, and she is a figure that most people have very strong opinions about. Many will cite excitement around Barack Obama as the reason for the people coming out to caucus, but this doesn’t explain the strong the turnout for Edwards. The Iowa caucus seemed to be as much a violent communal retching by Hawkeye Democrats at the idea of another Clinton in the White House as anything else. It seems that they couldn’t get out fast enough to vote against the coronation of Queen Hillary. More voters cast their lots against Mrs. Bill Clinton on Thursday then the total number of people who voted during the 2004 Iowa Caucus.

 

Iowa Democrat voters discarded Hillary like a healthy body rejecting a kidney transplant from a baboon. This was in a microcosm what can happen when Hillary is running in the general election against whoever the Republican’s choose as their nominee.

 

During the 2006 mid-term elections Republicans stayed home for a number of reasons. They were depressed by Congressional Republican’s spending money like a Kennedy at the Mustang Ranch; they were weighed down by a President who acted more and more like the leader of Mexico then the United States, and many were simply fooled by the Conservative talking candidates that the Democrats found to run for House and Senate seats. With Hillary on the ballot though, apathy will simply not be possible, and even many of the Republican voters who take issue with candidates like Giuliani over his opinions on abortion will come out to proudly put a nail in Hillary’s coffin. In short, the Clinton’s will have to find a way to deal with a Republican and Conservative voter turnout that will probably happen in unprecedented numbers. No wonder Hillary is all for importing the entire population of Mexico and giving each of them a driver’s license. That way they can also get a voters card combat the avalanche of opposition voters she will be contending with.

 

There will be those who take issue with what I am saying based on the idea that Hillary may not be the Democrat nominee. Despite her loss in Iowa she will probably bounce back and may very well be saved by the coasts and by states like Michigan where Obama and Edwards pulled themselves off the ballot because the mitten state moved their primary up against the wishes of the DNC. If she is still behind after Super Tuesday, there is always the possibility that Barack will be found face down in his morning bowl of Count Chocula with six bullet holes in his back and a suicide note written in same handwriting that was found on the Vince Foster suicide/resignation letter. She becomes the nominee by default in the case of this unfortunate accident.

 

In the end, when it comes down to a civil war in the Democrat party, the average liberal voter simply isn’t bright enough to mentally overcome the media, pro-Hillary blitzkrieg that will be coming in the next few weeks from ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. I am guessing they will pound away at the topic of whether or not Obama is electable in a general election at this stage in his life while the Clinton camp trots out a parade of African American’s to attack Senator Obama and talk about how wonderful Hillary is. This two prong attack will brainwash the Dem voter base and may well be too much for the Barack to overcome. In the end the Republican’s will still probably be facing Hillary Clinton. With Iowa as a flyover country microcosm, this is good news.

 

When it comes to the general election the media losses much of its power because they have to try to brainwash informed, conservative and Republican voters that know exactly who Hillary Clinton is. In his Iowa victory speech Barack Obama talked about people coming together for a common purpose. He just didn’t know he was talking about people uniting for the purpose of denying Hillary the White House.

Brian Cherry is an Associate Editor for The New Media Journal. He was born, raised and lives in the state of MI and from his home in the far north pursues the two passions that have driven him since his high school days, writing and the study of Scandinavian history...

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review