Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Predictions about the Clinton Presidency

Another thing I predict is that during Hillary's presidency Bill Clinton is going to be caught schtupping some bimbo. It will then be politically impossible for him to continue as an adviser and he will go back to New York. Without him in the White House, her administration will begin to stumble from one ill-advised fiasco to another. If Bill leaves during her first term she probably won't be re-elected. I think he will be caught with a bimbo sooner rather than later.

I further predict that if the main bimbo scandal (there will be several, but one will be more egregious and provable than the others) happens before midterm elections, the Republicans will win control of the House in 2010.

Indeed, no matter what she does she is going to become unpopular when the Iraq War doesn't have the nice clean end the Democrats implied they would be able to deliver. If she withdraws the troops and the al-Maliki government is defeated and replaced by a militantly anti-US one, she will be vastly unpopular. If the bloodshed and fighting in Iraq escalates after she withdraws the troops she will be unpopular. If she does not withdraw the troops and continues to attempt to stabilize and pacify Iraq she will be following the same policy that has made George Bush so unpopular. It will make her unpopular too, but even more so since she has run on being critical of the war.

Even an attempt to fall back to the position that she wasn't against the war per se but only against the incompetence of its prosecution, will fall flat. Bush has been careful to be seen to delegate the conduct of the war entirely to the military. The disingenuousness of Clinton's position will become immediately apparent the moment she is inaugurated. Does she really know better how to conduct a Middle Eastern war than General Petraeus? If her administration were to be seen to meddle in the conduct of the war or to reduce its funding, every casualty thereafter will be treated by the right as though Clinton had personally murdered that soldier.

I would love to believe that Bill Clinton will be able to again perform his miracle of charming the birds from the trees and resolving the war as a special envoy to a settlement conference. The limits of that approach were shown at Camp David when Clinton was unable to get Yasser Arafat to make good on what he had already agreed to at Oslo. With Middle Eastern primitives, charm and intelligence are not enough. Iraq is one tar baby that will not go away.

She will be in an even worse position than George Bush is in now. If the army were able to win the war in the remaining year of his presidency he could justifiably take credit for the victory. If the army were to win the war during her presidency, having run against the war, her claiming credit for the victory would be ridiculous. If her administration took the position, "See, we won where Bush couldn't", the anti-war people would feel betrayed and call her a hawk.

If the war were to be lost during her presidency after she had run against it, she would be politically dead, there and then, and permanently. If there were therafter a terrorist attack against the United States originating from Iraq, she would be impeached.

If she is as unpopular as I expect, the GOP will win control of congress in 2012 in any case. After four years of her administration instinctively reaching for the hardball and the stonewall, the GOP will reply in kind as soon as they have Congress. She may well be the second member of her family to be impeached.

I reiterate that I am not for or against any of this happening. It is just what I expect will happen.

10 comments:

  1. Tahoe1:52 PM

    A couple of days ago I was watching Good Morning America and Hill-Hill-Hill was being interviewed. She described Oboma as an African American, which he is not and is not using that platform...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:35 PM

    Obamba was born in Hawaii to a parent of African birth. That does indeed make him an African American.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are 56 countries in Africa. They are at least as various as European countries. Are a Turk and a Laplander both European-Americans? For that matter are an Israeli and an Ainu both just Asian-Americans?

    African Americans in the US are such because slavery obscured the country of origin of their ancestors. But Obama knows where his father was from. Obama is a Kenyan-American for the same reason Giuliani is an Italian-American, hyphen and all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:59 AM

    Being a first generation American of black South African ancestry I have reviewed at least a dozen sites under the request of "Definition of African-American" and ALL include "An American of black African descent." That would include Obama. Sites furnished if desired.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Milo Minderbinder4:41 PM

    If this were the 50's, he would be a negro or a colored person. My daddy would have called him a schvartze. If it was the 60's, a black man or a person of color. My daddy still would have called him a schvartze. Now we have African American. And although my daddy would still call him a schvartze, he probably would vote for him.

    His reasoning (and the reasoning of a lot of people) is: "He's clean, he talks like a white man, he seems nice, like Sidney Poitier. A Schvatze you could bring home to dinner. And besides, I already get bossed around by pushy women."

    During the OJ trial, there was testimony that a hair was found on a wool cap. The hair was described as belonging to an African American. It was pointed out that there is no way to determine the nationality of a hair.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous [2] claims that African American refers only to Americans of black African descent. I cannot think of a single legitimate reason why that should be so. Are immigrants from the Arab countries of Egypt and North Africa not Africans and Americans? Are Boer immigrants not Africans and Americans? One cannot both abjure racism and practice it. Anonymous [2] and his sources are wrong.

    If one can distinguish Greek-Americans from Irish-Americans, one can distinguish South African-Americans from Kenyan-Americans. Nothing except electoral opportunism makes Obama an African-American rather than a Kenyan-American.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:31 AM

    You are ignoring the salient racial as opposed to geographic basis of the accepted nomenclature. If you are speaking of delineating subtypes within the American cultural and world academic venacular, those from the Middle East have never been considered "black" or of the Negro race.

    "Anonymous [2] and his sources are wrong."

    Why do you assume I am man? Perhaps correct, maybe not. I suggest you not throw stones at those who you view as racist or prejudiced.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous [2] is so absorbed with her political correctness that he has fallen into absurdity. She "suggests I not throw stones at those I view as racist or prejudiced". Tell it to Martin Luther King at the March on Selma, tell it to Nelson Mandela, tell it to Abraham Lincoln, tell it to the framers and enacters of the Civil Rights Act. The defeat of racism and prejudice has come precisely because good people have been willing to throw stones at bigots and racists.

    What anonymous wants is the privileged position of indulging in her own racism while condemning the racism of others. Sorry fella -- here's a chunk of good California granite right between your bigoted eyes. Bam! Take that!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:14 PM

    I suggest you take Sociology 101 before you comment on typology. You don't appear to know the difference between race and geography.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Anonymous,
    I have indeed had both Sociology 101 and Anthropology 1, albeit long ago. There were people called Caucasians, Negroids, Mongoloids, and Australoids. I don't recall Africans being a race, nor Americans. Those are continents and their inhabitants, not races.

    My clothes being ripped off now, more later.....

    ReplyDelete