Features

The real winner at the US mid-terms: Hillary Clinton

8 November 2014

9:00 AM

8 November 2014

9:00 AM

The American election cycle is beginning to resemble the 1993 comedy Groundhog Day. In the film, you may recall, Bill Murray plays an egomaniacal Pittsburgh weatherman named Phil Connors who discovers that he’s stuck in a time loop in which the same day repeats itself over and over. He goes bonkers, driving a truck over a cliff in a suicide attempt, only to wake up again the next morning. Substitute the American public for Connors and you have a sense of the prevailing political atmosphere in the US.

Ever since 9/11 shattered its illusion of omnipotence, the United States has been unable to escape its troubles. Instead, it has been subjected to a series of psychic blows, large and small. The most recent ones have been the fumbling attempts of the Centers for Disease Control to contain Ebola and the spectacle of a knife-wielding Iraq War veteran vaulting over an iron fence past the Secret Service and entering the White House through the front door, until he was serendipitously tackled near the staircase leading to the Obama family’s private quarters by an off-duty officer. Add in a struggling economy that, despite recent hints at a real recovery, has wiped out much of the middle class, and you have a recipe for perpetual discontent and partisan sniping.

The Republican party won back the Senate in this week’s midterm elections, but not because it is offering something that voters are actively hankering for. Quite the contrary. Just as Barack Obama really won election in 2012 because the Grand Old Party brand had become so tarnished by George W. Bush’s ineptitude, so the Republican party is on the comeback trail solely because the Democrat one has become so tarnished by Obama’s bungling. But since angry voters ricochet from one party to the other in successive elections, the GOP’s victory could prove a poisoned chalice.

xCruz
Senator Ted Cruz talks to the Washington Post Photo: S. Payne

For one thing, a Republican triumph does not necessarily strengthen the hands of seasoned pros such as the next Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, whose political dream has finally been fulfilled. Instead, it will represent a fresh infusion of radical conservatives and Tea Party types in both the House and Senate. Already the Texas Senator Ted Cruz (who gave House Speaker John Boehner fits during the last debt ceiling crisis by privately meeting with Republican House members in February 2014 to encourage them to rebel against their leaders and push for fiscal collapse) has said that he will once more seek to push the GOP sharply to the right.

He wants the GOP, in other words, to remain an insurgent rather than a governing force. He told the Washington Post in an interview on the eve of the election that he had no intention of deferring to McConnell and that a Republican Senate should start its session by ‘looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration’.

He also says that he wants to force lawmakers to vote to repeal the almost 1,000-page Obamacare act — provision by provision, if necessary. Sound familiar? It’s the sort of shenanigans that helped propel Bill Clinton back to popularity in the last years of his presidency as the GOP lurched out of control and impeached him. But in the new political environment that prevails among the Republican base, Cruz is astutely positioning himself to grab the nomination for the presidency. He is set to accelerate his takeover of the party. To paraphrase Saul Bellow’s Herzog, if the Republican party is going out of its mind, it’s fine with him.

Mitch McConnell Campaigns Across Kentucky As Midterm Election Nears
Republican Party leader Mitch McConnell Photo: Getty

Another important area in which a newly dominant Republican party might well run amok is foreign policy. To be sure, Senator Rand Paul has been exhorting the GOP to pursue a more restrained foreign policy, in line with the moderate Republican tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush. But the hawkish wing of the party has never repented, let alone acknowledged that the Iraq war was a fiasco. Instead, it’s been revivified and emboldened by the rise of Islamic State. New members of the Senate such as Tom Cotton, an Iraq war veteran and fan of the political philosopher and neocon guru Leo Strauss, will push for a renewed military surge in the Middle East — an idea which has little appeal to the American public, even after six years of frustration at Obama’s dallying on the international stage.

It’s all good news for Hillary Clinton, the ever more likely successor to Obama in the White House. The Republicans won’t have the advantage of being the ‘not-Obama party’ in 2016; if anything that trump will be Hillary’s to play. In these groundhog days, the very thing that will ensure Republicans falter at the next — and more significant — US elections is two more years of an empowered and impetuous GOP.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Uncle Brian

    Miss Benghazi 2012 is by no means the ideal American president and Jacob Heilbrunn is being a very silly boy.

  • this is not a very strong argument – by the logic here, the only thing the GOP could have done is make sure they didn’t win these elections. let’s see what happens in the next two years.

  • Rush_is_Right

    Are you aware that every single candidate that she and her husband supported went down to defeat? To most people, she’s toxic.

    • Exactly

    • Callan

      Especially after her performance over Benghazi.

      • kingkevin3

        she will though get the female vote. So it will be a close call.

        • Bruce Lewis

          Obama’s Party’s failure mostly had to do with his refusal to “rally” his “base” in favour of anything he may believe in. Hillary will not make that mistake, and she will use her “toxicity” with right-wing voters to her advantage.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Obama is a 6th year president, and this recent election is what often happens to those types. Perhaps a bit more harsh for poor Barry, to be honest, but the economy is poor and such was inevitable.

            Hillary’s goal is to attract rural and surburban voters, and those are exactly the “right-wing voters” you seem to be describing. For her then, there’s no “toxicity” to be proven or leveraged. In fact, she has to bring them in, and that’s her problem. They won’t come, not after 2 recent flings with the same failed team. Worse, the racial minority magnet that is Obama is history.

            The real odds are 3-2 for the R’s right now, I’d guess, although the bookies have that swapped, no doubt.

          • Bruce Lewis

            She got “rural and suburban voters” in many of the primaries against Obama, and she’ll get ’em again–mostly on account of her husband, who the masses know would be co-president, and whom the masses trust–much more than any other politician in America, because their country was prosperous under him.

          • Shorne

            I don’t want to trivialise the discussion but when Hilary, hopefully, wins what will Bill be called?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yes, but you were first claiming that those rural and suburban voters are to be turned into a toxicity that she’ll leverage to win the WH. Sorry, but now you’re claiming that she’s going to take them. Which of your fantasy stories are you going to settle on here? It cannot be both, unless you’re purely fantasizing.

            Sorry, but that’s exactly why Hillary lost. She got smoked in Iowa with these rural and suburban voters you fantasize that she “locked up”. She didn’t. She assumed she could take them for granted, much like you are right now. But Obama took them. And that was in a primary for goodness sakes. And you fantasize she’ll take them in the general against an R, after 2 terms of her party? Dream on.

            Der Slickster can’t drag a deficient candidate across the finish line. He couldn’t in 2008, and he won’t in 2016. You seem to be making up your own version of reality here.

            Your analysis is quite facile.

          • Bruce Lewis

            In modern America, the cities are more populous than the countryside or most of the suburbs. Among the suburbanites who are “millenials” or who depend upon the “new economy,” the Clintons (I use the plural, because the Republicans will be up against BOTH of them), will, indeed, “smoke” the Republicans. However, I admit, I can’t be so sure about rural, gun-totin’ ex-farmers, but, population-wise, they’re not significantly numerous any more. They CAN swing a state with very few electoral votes, admittedly, but, nowadays, they can’t even “swing” a state like New Mexico, for instance.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            It doesn’t matter your disjointed blather, lad, so spare us the lectures about “modern America”. You’re quite ignorant of modern America, clearly.

            The cities go to the Left always, if the voters show up, and with Obama gone, they won’t to the overwhelming degree they did for him. Strike one for D failure in 2016. You didn’t know this. Now you do. Pay attention. Your post is blathering gibberish unrelated to US electoral politics, and it’s boring too boot.

            Your gal Hillary must take the rural and suburban votes, which she couldn’t take in 2008’s primary, and you still expect they’ll come flowing in come the general? Or are you still claiming that they’re poison and she can reject them?We haven’t established which of your fantasies you’re going with here. We should do that before we get to the “merits” of your argument.

            Kid, if you’re being paid, you’re an awfully dumb paid agent. You know nothing and I mean nothing about geopolitics or US electoral politics. It’s not even facile, now that I’m seeing more of it. It’s just worthless.

        • Grace Ironwood

          Obama’s & Hillary’s contest in the last primaries was said to have established that race trumps gender.
          I hope women aren’t as blindly sexist as blacks were blindly racist but I fear I may be wrong about that !

  • davidofkent

    Hillary does that wide open mouth pointy thing to make-believe she knows the people in the audience and loves them all dearly. Theresa May has started to do the same thing. Both women are pointless. The USA does not deserve Hillary Clinton as the next President and we do not deserve Theresa May as the next leader of the Conservative Party.

  • Naes1984

    Given that this is the 2nd time you’ve posted this article on your website, I will post my comments again with additions:
    The thesis is utterly delusional. Clinton allies lost. As some examples, Pryor lost in Arkansas and Landrieu has a 99% chance of losing her runoff in Louisiana. Jason Carter (Jimmy Carter’s grandson) lost as did Nunn in Georgia. Allison Grimes lost badly in Kentucky. These are “Clinton” Democrats. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigning was impotent where they deigned to press hands with the proles in support of flagging candidates. As for Republican “radicalism,” the new Congress will be regularly presenting bills to Obama that will humiliate him and his party and, more importantly, bills that have 60%+ support among the American populace. Some of these include: approval of the Keystone pipeline,a travel ban to West Africa, more border enforcement, repeal of the insurance mandate, and tougher sanctions for Iran. These are not radical propositions, and Obama will bleed the Democrats every time he vetoes them… and his rigid ideology and far-left base requires that he veto. These bills were previously killed by Harry Reid before they could be voted upon. Over 300 bills were killed by Harry Reid since 2010. He will no longer be Majority Leader of the Senate come January, so Democrats can no longer hide through parliamentary maneuvers. The Republicans will be more disciplined over the next two years. There will be no government shutdowns or impeachments this time. It will be about setting the 2016 agenda.

    Hillary Clinton is not 1/100th the charismatic politician her husband was. Remember, she was a “sure thing” in 2008 and lost to a freshman senator with no qualifications. If she runs again, Hillary will be challenged from the left by Senator Warren during the primaries. She won’t be challenged from the right of the party, because there is no centrist core of the Democratic party anymore. They’ve all either retired, died, lost, or become Republican. A solidifying trend is that political independents (who are mostly centrists or right wing) have voted strongly for the Republican Party in the last three elections (2010, 2012, 2014), and Obama only won by getting huge turnout from blacks and millennials. Hillary won’t be able to do that for a lot of reasons, so she has to attract the 1/3 of the electorate that is independent. Problem is, she has no capacity to attract independents and has never needed to do so; her Senate seat was in uber-left New York, not in a swing state like Arkansas (Arkansas was a swing state when Bill Clinton was running for President but not anymore). The problem for her is that the electorate looks more like Arkansas than New York. The real winner of the US midterms was the party that won the midterms.

    • Uncle Brian

      Apparently the Speccie took it down with all those pages and pages of comments, and then posted it again this time without any. I wonder why. Have they given any explanation?

    • CEdward Pars

      republicans and their party ,are war mongers,they own all the arms manufacturing,every time the republican wins the presidency,they starts a war ,which the whole world does not need or want.

    • Grace Ironwood

      Very literate comments, I’d like to hear what you have to say on gaming out Elizabeth Warren’s chances.

      • Bruce Lewis

        Warren has said repeatedly that she won’t nix the possibility of “the first woman President,” and I believe her. There will be no challenge to Hillary on the Left.

    • Bruce Lewis

      Here’s why you are dead-wrong, in a phrase:

      The Republicans will be more disciplined over the next two years.

      The divisions in the Republican right over ideology are absolutely insurmountable; a great many of the libertarian-leaning FAUX-“conservatives” (“FAUX-conservative” by your British standards) are now unwilling to cooperate with the neo-cons and the corporate business-class that used to dominate Republican politics. These libertarians and “Tea Partiers” BLAME the “corporate business class” for the influx of un-assimilated immigrants (for NAFTA and the like), for the foreign adventurism, etc., whereas the “corporate” types wish to continue the off-shoring of the working class’s jobs to the Third World. Also, the “culture wars” over religious-state-separatism and “education policy” and “same-sex-marriage” have finally come home to the Republicans, with the libertarians’ demands that these things be abandoned as causes, in order to attract the “millenials” (who WILL vote in 2016, along with the majority of women, for Hillary). It seems to me that you’re attempting to read American “conservatism” by the far more traditional and sensible lights of the British conservative tradition. Sorry, but it ain’t the same animal anymore.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …you’re describing what has always been, for going on a century .

  • The Great Satan™

    “”Revived Republican radicalism “””

    Ignorant leftwing author, you fail to realize the democrats got crushed because of their leftwing extremism and hardline ideological positions. “Republican radicalism” is inane babbling from you leftwing kooks.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    Censoring comments again, Speccie kids? Tisk tisk. It won’t do you much good climbing down into the bunker, you know.

  • Innit Bruv

    The lesser of several evils. The Americans (and the rest of us) deserve better.
    PS: the illusion of American omnipotence was shattered in Vietnam.
    I agree with davidofkent. Her habit of pointing to someone in the crowd as though she knows them is so toe curlingly phony and her grin/smile whilst doing so is hideous.

    • Bruce Lewis

      Agreed; she’s thoroughly Machiavellian, like her husband–and almost as masterful a politician.

  • What’s up with the fascination among Europeans with a fascist woman? Plus every candidate her and her lying husband endorsed lost to Republicans. She won’t be the DemRats candidate in 16.

    • Bruce Lewis

      Want to place bets?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …if he does, he’ll get quite friendly odds, because the suckers are all throwing down on Hillary right now.

  • Preposterous. The woman is the worst campaigner in memory. Her only victories were in cobalt blue New York where she ran against two nonentities with so little name recognition they couldn’t identify their own images in mirrors. She got slaughtered in her only presidential bid by a one term Senator in a year the Democrats could not lose. In her current incarnation–Rosa Luxemburg played by Imelda Marcos ?–every candidate she backed lost by huge margins. She is making money for Clinton Inc. Period. She’ll never run. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the lackey who wrote this tripe forwarded it with his cv attached. Word is Chelsea just fired her “deputy’ chief of staff. These people will never , ever go away as long as there’s a buck in it.

    • Connecticut Farmer

      Couldn’t agree more and I truly hope you’re right. Unfortunately the media love her. And The Left controls the media and thus the agenda. I suspect that the more perceptive of their group can see through the phoniness and feigned solidarity with “ordinary Americans” (as condescending a phrase as you’ll ever see), but they have no one else to whom to turn. America is all about “celebrity”–and no one in America is a bigger celebrity than The Rodham Woman.

      • Mike

        The media love Cameron over here but hate Ukip but it hasn’t stopped Farage gaining more and more support. America is following the UK’s footsteps in being p***** off with both parties but having no alternative (T party collapsed) it comes down to the lesser of the two evils which is the Republicans.

        • Bruce Lewis

          Nope, the lesser of the two evils is Hillary, because the Americans are tired of neo-con wars and of the widening gap between the 1% and the middle classes. True, Hillary IS a “neo-con,” but she will be more restrained to not be an interventionist by her party than a Republican would be. Also, although a bad campaigner, she will know how to win this time, because she will listen better to her husband’s former advisors. I wish that a moderate Republican of the Eisenhower-, H.W. Bush-stripe COULD be elected this time, but the incredibly divisive struggle for the nomination between the Rand Paul faction and the Cruz faction will tear the Republican Party apart BEFORE the general election, whereas the Democrats’ coalition will pull itself together for Hillary Clinton. Unless her health prevents it, she’s inevitable.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            So Hillary is a neocon, but you’re claiming she’s going to be restrained?

            How does that work exactly?

            So she’s a bombs away neocon, but she’s not going to go bombs away, even though her husband went bombs away in the Balkans without the UN, without Congress, without anything, and she’s displayed nothing but bombs away policy and rhetoric since then .

            Do you make this up as you go along or what?

          • Bruce Lewis

            Nope, she’ll be “restrained” by an increasingly non-interventionist mood among the PEOPLE of the U.S., same as Obama was, when he wanted to bomb Syria.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            She wants to go bombs away in Syria right now, and in Ukraine and Iraq as well. She’s a proven neocon bombs away nutter, fully card-carrying and on the record.

            Do you just make this up as you go along, lad?

            She and Obama both are bombs away nutters. Obama just finally figured out that he was helping the islamofascists in Libya/Syria, because there was absolutely nothing restraining him and he was acting unilaterally in both cases, before his late realization. It was only this sudden realization that kept Hillary and the neocons from continuing their bombing like they always do. Neither gives a rip about the people, as they proved when they declared war unilaterally, without Congress.

            Your analysis is quite facile, lad. Do you actually follow this stuff? Are you a young kid reading through current events in university or something?

          • Bruce Lewis

            You write like a true ideologue. In fact, there are times–very few, admittedly–when “bombs away” is the correct, and, indeed, necessary modus operandi (in philosophical/theological terms, it used to be called “just war”). I happen to agree with Mrs. Clinton that Assad should have been destroyed by aerial bombardment as soon as it was determined that he was using chemical weapons; that would have forestalled the Syrian Rebellion being re-created as a jihadist campaign, because the original rebels were mostly secular. I also strongly approved of Clinton’s AIR war in the Balkans; it stalled Serbian genocide of the Bosnians.

            Obama is by instinct the very opposite of a “neo-con,” but lacking, as he is, in any consistently defined goals for his foreign policy–making it up as he goes along–he can be bamboozled by REAL “neo-cons” into doing some “stupid wars,” as he called them.

            If you are wondering what MY version of a “foreign policy,” particularly in the Middle East (where I live) would be, I’ll just tell you that it would be: CONTAINMENT of the Islamic threat to the West; severe limitations on Muslim immigration to Western capitals (because I think that Muslim fundamentalists, who are the majority of Muslims, are un-assimilable in the West; gradual divestiture from the Zionist apartheid state, combined with efforts to EDUCATE Western Jewry about the Likudniks’ BETRAYAL of the original Zionist scheme of equal partnership with the indigenous Muslim peoples.

            As far as the rest of the world would be concerned, I’d offer reassurances to Russia that “encirclement” is NOT the game, and I’d be preparing for the moment that China pulls the plug on the American economy by advocating the purchase, world-wide, of energy resources in “baskets of currencies.”

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Somebody is censoring my posts, apparently. I guess you ideologue lefties have your means, eh lad?

            Your hero Hillary goes bombs away all the time. Not some of the time. All the time.

            Yes, you are obviously a neocon nutter, like HIllary. Again, her failed islamofascism snuggling act in Libya is a disaster. Only Obama’s recognition that you neocon nutters are an ongoing disaster kept us from involvement there.

            I’m just amused that you are a neocon nutter like her, you admit you and she are, and yet you also somehow fantasize that she’s not a neocon nutter .

            I’m skipping the rest of your gibberish, lad. You’re obviously a dumb kid, with little understanding about all this. I’d question whether you’re an agent, and whether the disappearing posts are related to that agency.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yeah, I thought so. Some paid operative, maybe you, is deliberately censoring my posts.

            Don’t worry, lad. Tell the payer it’s all going to come to naught. Hillary is a neocon nutter and hasn’t a snowflake’s chance in Hades of becoming president. She failed in Libya and exposed herself as an incompetent neocon, and that’s all she wrote for that .

      • If the media insist on ending every story, including field hockey scores , with “What will this mean for Hillary ?” I’ll buy a Play Station or, worse comes to worst, go outdoors. I am not alone .The media never loved her, they feared her. Her slide from grace in 2008 was reported with glee. Now , with Benghazi under her capacious belt, expect schadenfreude plus

        • Bruce Lewis

          Benhazi is a non-starter; maybe you Brits think that the American public are exercised over it, but you’re wrong. And much of Obama’s troubles have been caused by the fact that nobody EVER “feared” him. Study Machiavelli; in order for any politician to be successful, he must be, at times at least, feared by his enemies. Obama NEVER was.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Guess again. Benghazi is going to be a nice acid bath, now and again, to keep the anti-war Left hostile to Hillary. The slicksters don’t care if those types vote Green, as long as they don’t vote Hillary.

            Obama is an idiot, with no experience. Nobody feared him because they know he’s going to hurt himself every bit as much as he hurts anybody else.

    • Grace Ironwood

      I’d say of your characterisation of the current Hillary incarnation (very funny !)that the state the Democrats are in with Obama, and his Team (both in media and politics ) Rosa Luxemburg seems mildly centrist. Hill’s just a politician that is “listening”.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    …but since the censors seem to have censored my post, let’s recreate much of it. It is historical reality, so unlike this blogger’s drivel, many would probably like to read it.

    Hillary Clinton has only a small chance to win the White House in 2016. She will find it incredibly difficult to shed her connection to Obama, which is always the problem in these cases.

    In the American system, very rarely does a political party win the White House 3 consecutive times. George H. W. Bush managed it in 1988, but that was truly Ronald Reagan’s third term, and Bush would not have survived had he been standing on his own. As proof, we see how Bush get whacked in 1992, once he was left to his own devices.

    And algore would have had a chance in 2000 to follow up on Bill Clinton for a third term, but, well, he suddenly morphed into a raving populist numpty, shrieking about global warming, rather than following Bill Clinton’s steady lead. I don’t think he would have won in any event, but his mistakes ensured he wouldn’t.

    Like algore, Hillary’s mistakes cost her in 2008, for the D nomination. No way should she have lost to that inexperienced lump Obama, but she was afflicted with self-entitlement disease, much as may occur this time, and that would be just as fatal this time as last.

    The R’s have the advantage this time, as is always the case after 2 presidential terms from the opposing party. The smart money would take the R field over Hillary, while the odds hold up.

    Oh, and ignore this blogger’s jabbering about the Republicans losing the other day. This guy, whoever he is, knows very little about American electoral politics.

    • Grace Ironwood

      What are your picks for GOP presidential candidates ?
      Can’t help noticing they often hobble themselves for the Pres and at the primaries stage with florid exhibitionists.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        This far out, picking presidential candidates isn’t of much value.

    • Bruce Lewis

      much as may occur this time

      It won’t happen this time; this time she knows and admits that she’s a bad campaigner, and is much chastened. Also, you would be absolutely right about the historical advantage to the opposition party, but for the Republicans’ strong and growing ideological civil war. Take a closer look at the principles of Rand Paul and then compare them to those of the Straussians’ or the neo-conservatives’. Those people will NOT unite this time, and it’s to their credit that they won’t. The largely unprincipled Democrats WILL unite behind Clinton, and the Republicans will not win back the Presidency until one or the other faction within their party prevails.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        That same prediction has been made every election since forever, it seems. The factions in the R party have been the same forever, and they fight the same battles over and over. This time won’t be much different. They never “unite”, they either win or they don’t. Romney was just the latest “man on top of the wedding cake”, as Dewey was 64 years previously. Some things never change .

        The D’s may be unprincipled and united, but they still face the fundamentals as previously described. It’s the R’s race to lose, as normal after 2 terms of a president. And Hillary is still Hillary. She’s just tone deaf. Under pressure, she’ll slip. She always has.

        Now, if the D’s dump Hillary or she can’t/won’t run, then all bets are off. To your point, the moneyed powers-that-be won’t mind Hillary winning, and might be tempted to sit it out and give her a free rein to the WH, but they won’t want an unknown to take it, particularly not that Fauxcohantas woman from Massachusetts. In such a case, look for them to push hard to buy the R nomination for one of their favs, whoever that might be, and look for that candidate to take it handily if they succeed.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    “Another important area in which a newly dominant Republican party might well run amok is foreign policy”

    .

    Goodness, I came across the above nugget in our lefty blogger’s drivel. When youi say “run amok”, are you drscribing a situation where they might stumble into Libya and ally with islamofascist murderers, providing them with an air force and weapons, in order to overthrow a stable government and install murder and chaos? You know, smart non-amok foreign policy like that, like your heroes Hillary and Barry did? Is that what you’re worried about, lad?

    How about doubling down on the above splendorous foreign policy, in Syria and now Iraq, like Barry and Hillary want and are doing? Is that what you have in mind as non-amok running foreign policy, lad? Siding with islamofascist murderers, sometimes, sometimes not?

    You best run along to your friendlier salons, lad. This isn’t the place to broadcast lefty numptyism.

    • Mike

      I think its fair to say that Bush the younger got it wrong with Blair but Obama got it wrong even worse when he originally wanted to arm ISIS not even knowing who they were. At least events moved quickly enougfh in Syria and Iraq so that the west could see where the real threat is but now there’s claims that Obama is doing back door deals with Iran by supporting their nuclear program for having them sort out ISIS. Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

      • Grace Ironwood

        Oh he knew who they were. Just as he knows that Islamic Sate is an Islamic State.

      • Bruce Lewis

        Rightyo, but Hillary is also absolutely correct that all of this might have been staved off had Obama acted quickly, ruthlessly and decisively at the beginning of the Syrian Rebellion, to overthrow Assad and confront the Russians with a fait accompli.. In geo-politics, timing can be EVERYTHING.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          You mean, if they had acted out just like you neocon globalists did in Libya, lad? Provide the islamofascists an air force, and watch the sweet democratic goodness flow?

          Sorry, but the choice is Assad or islamofascists. The Russians knew this all along, unlike you globalist types.

          Facile. You may not pass this term, lad.

  • madhatter46

    Fired from Watergate Commission for dishonesty by her boss, Jerry Zeifman. Cattle futures, anybody? Stands in front of 4 coffins and the parents of the dead heroes, shamelessly blaming the deaths on u-tube videos? Stands in front of students at UNLV and talks about the high cost of college–oops–got her check for $250,000 for that appearance. Bad mouths Wall Street as she accepts fees from Goldman Sachs. Judges the women for having sexual relations with her cheating, disgusting husband—cigars as sex toys? Russian Reset? How did this amoral couple become millionaires, part of the elite 1%ers that they demagogue daily? What has Bill ever done other than play at politics as he chases self gratification and attention? Both of the Clintons remind me of Gollum in Tolkien’s Trilogy of the Ring—chasing the power and addiction of the “Precious.” Rubbing their hands coveting the opiates of greed , fame, and power. The ends justify any means!!!

    • Connecticut Farmer

      Bravo, Madhatter! And what has the Wife of Record ever done except ride his coattails? It’s all about power–and money. I can only hope that the rest of the fawning, celebrity-addicted electorate get the message. But that may be a little too much to ask in a society that’s spinning down the toilet.

    • Bruce Lewis

      You’re absolutely right in all your details. So why hasn’t all of this killed her off? It WOULD have killed off an ordinary politician. But just like Reagan, the Clintons are “teflon.” All of your details actually PROVE what kind of masterful politicians they are.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Well, matters never “killed off” John Kerry either, but that never meant he’d be advancing anywhere beyond where the Kennedys sent him.

        Hillary is anything but masterful. She’s ridden on the coattails of a master, no doubt, but that’s not the same as being a master. It may be enough for her to assemble a pile of cash, but that’s not the same thing as winning. Winning requires more than that.

        • Bruce Lewis

          What you ignore is that the Republicans will be running against both her and the “master” behind her.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Sorry, lad, but that same situation existed in 2008… and she was running against a clueless stooge, with nearly zero qualifications for the job.

            You don’t follow this much, or you’re very, very young and lacking in knowledge.

      • madhatter46

        Do you actually believe St. Peter at the “pearly gates” will see Reagan and the Clintons as 2 peas in a pod—-the Clintons and John Gotti are a much better comparison—but now a days character has a different meaning, everything has become relevant–as man loves playing God. Where’s the “precious ring,” Gollum? It does make a difference, Hillary.

  • Mike

    Correction, Obama won the 2008 election on a race card just as much as the republicans lost it on lack of inspiration as he promised his black supporters all manner of inducements to harvest the ethnic votes. That has failed as we all knew it would and they are just as p***** off with him as republican supporters are of republicans.

    However, unlike LibLabCon where there’s no distinction in their left wing liberal polices of mass immigration and membership of the EU, there is a real difference in policy if not in style between Democrats and Republicans. Just on immigration, Obama & Democrats want mass immigration and armistices on illegals much like LibLabCon but Republicans are exactly the same as Ukip, controlled immigration of those we want.

    This mid term election was tarred with the same racist cards & added a sexist brush this time but not from Obama. He was treated as a toxic plague by many democrats who didn’t want him anywhere near their canvassing but it still didn’t work for them. This time we had Democrats Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) playing a race and feminist card that went down like a lead balloon .

    Meanwhile, Clinton is far from secure in getting nominated as a presidential contender and very unlikely to win the presidential vote after her claim that business´s don’t make jobs but government does. Sounds a bit like LibLab & Con, where tax payers dollars are used to make artificial jobs to reduce unemployment levels rather than producing real jobs.

    It will be interesting in 2 years time but my monies on Rand Paul from Kentucky !

    • Grace Ironwood

      Agree on the racialism of the “NGO President”.
      What does the win say on the much-vaunted “necessity” of the GOP to vote for Amnesty/open borders in order to be capable of winning ?? Certainly will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if tens of millions of Democrat voters are imported.

    • Bruce Lewis

      Sorry, but in America the “business class” exports the jobs of the working poor overseas, and the “working poor” know it–and also know that they have nobody to turn to but “race-baiting” Democratic candidates. And those “working poor” plus the “minorities” (and there are more than just blacks, by the way) and the “millenials” will be turning out en masse for Hillary Rodham in 2016, and they will continue to be turning out for the “race-baiting” Democratic Presidential candidates until a REAL “conservative” (in the “wet Tory” tradition of your country) wins the the Republican nomination. “Corporatism” and “buddy capitalism” are NOT “entrepreneurial capitalism” and even the “Tea Partiers” in America now know it. The “recovery” in America has only benefited Wall Street, and the huge segments of corporate America that are in bed with the government; it has completely left out the “working poor” who ARE definitely “socially conservative” in their temperament and political instincts.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        You’ve got much of it, you’re still missing on the Hillary prediction though. It just never works the way you’re describing.

      • Mike

        The perversity of the recovery in the UK and the USA is that in both countries it was the socialists & democrats who bailed out the banks in the UK and Wall Street & corporate America on the other side of the pond to the detriment of the working poor.

        One is mystified why some turkeys vote for xmas every time an election comes up however the mid terms last week sent a clear message to the Democrats that the working poor are deserting them in droves.

  • Lasagna42

    Have to agree with most of the comments below. You see a lot of articles like this everytime there’s something close to a landslide: “How Winning the Presidency is Bad for the Democrats” or whatever. You know what would have been good for Hillary? If her party was more popular than it is, sufficient to win elections.

    And my take on Hillary, and I’m a lifelong Democrat: I will vote for anyone else but her. 2016 might be my first time voting Republican in a national election. And I’m pretty comfortable I’m not the only one. She’s a toxic candidate to a lot of us – a warhawk, another politician who got her position by having a famous last name, can point to little or nothing as accomplishments and on and on and on. No way.

    • Bruce Lewis

      You will have no choice but to vote for her, if you are a principled Democratic “conservative,” unless the Republicans nominate Rand Paul, and that is unlikely. You will have to “hold your nose” once again.

  • LarryInIowa

    I recall Hillary as the presumptive president back in 2007.

  • I daresay those who are mourning the loss of the Senate to the Republicans, are the EU and their lackies.

    UKIP, like other parties who pay more than lip service to self government, is feeling good because this phenomenon is not just limited to India, the UK, and the US.

  • oregun

    I am going to have to put on my hip waders after reading this article. I have never read anything that is so full of it. This is a liberalized viewpoint of American politics and exactly what we have had to deal with on a daily basis. Somehow the idea that you can’t spend money you don’t have and follow the rule of law as dictated by the constitution is a radical idea. It is only radical to a socialist and the constitution is a big thorn in their spending spree behinds. Their idea of wealth redistribution is to take the working stiffs money and give it to their friends by mandating policies that force you to buy their friends over priced green products. Obama is not an inept bungler. He is doing his best to decimate the largest free society on the planet.

    • Grace Ironwood

      Well said, especially your last two sentences.It is most certainly deliberate, as is his Foreign Policy which seems to have white guilt as the centrepiece doctrine. See my response to “where’s the Christian Ethos” ? question from Shorn.

    • Bruce Lewis

      Obama is the best Republican the Democrats ever elected, and THAT is why he is “an inept bungler”—you’re absolutely correct. He stands for nothing and threw his most loyal supporters under the bus constantly. Like American “conservatives” (I would have expected better from a British “conservative”), you mistake “buddy capitalism” and “corporatism” for genuine entrepreneurial capitalism. There are plenty of the hardworking poor in America who would LOVE to see a kind of traditional Tory conservatism over here that they could believe in–one that would restore American jobs, regulate a predatory financial system, restrain bureaucratic tyranny over small business owners, etc., but we’re not going to get that from the kinds of Republican Party leaders whom the banks and the insurance companies and the arms merchants would allow to win the Presidency under that party’s banner.

  • Shorne

    Regarding The Affordable Care Act there is something which genuinely puzzles me. I understand that 83% of Americans profess to be Christians. What could be more in line with the Christian ethos than ensuring that sick people do not suffer more through not being able to afford treatment. After all when Jesus sent his disciples out to heal the sick he didn’t say ‘But make sure they can pay first.’ As I said I genuinely don’t understand this…unless of course there is a great deal of hypocrisy involved(?)

    • Grace Ironwood

      The answer to this question is, very broadly :
      1. Means. not necessarily ends.
      3. Historic American culture of self-reliance and freedom from state interference. Different culture from post war EU.
      1, What kind of healthcare model? Do you nationalise huge slice of economy, introduce Federal government compulsion & micro manage/destroy citizen’s choices a la 1950’s Europe? Do you look at the many alternative models that are less intrusive, allowing as much market operation as possible ?
      States are actually responsible for health in constitution. Could the states/ citizen have been required to do it and have competing models?
      2. Americans are being brought under the sclerotic, intrusive welfare state model that has failed in Europe. Citizens encouraged to vote themselves more and more cradle to grave benefits. Big state produces small citizens (or clients of the state by this stage) Unprecedented debt & burden on next generation. Economy eventually collapses.
      Many Americans have found they can’t have their own doctors, the plans that they used to have are now out of their reach once invalidated by Obamacare. The impact on personal choice hasn’t finished working through.

      • Shorne

        The fact that you wondered if I was serious shows perhaps how alien my question is to some (most?) Americans or, if you are not American, people who think like them
        A ‘Christian culture of self-reliance’ is a massive contradiction as is amply demonstrated by Matthew 25:31-46. (There’s ‘a blatantly redistributive system’ for you) It is comparable to the fact that about a third of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” were slave owners.
        I am sure I am not the only person to have observed that the worst thing you can be in America is a loser and the poor are seen to be losers because it can then be seen as their own fault.
        I was able to walk upstairs to our study and type this because of treatment I received for a congenital condition under the NHS in the 1950s. My hardworking farm worker parents would never have been able to afford it, their ‘citizen’s choices’ were not destroyed by the NHS they were enhanced. I was given the choice walk or be in a wheelchair and thousands were given the choice live or die.
        ” intrusive welfare state model that has failed in Europe” you say
        “The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.
        The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst of the 11 countries it looked at. Despite putting the most money into health, America denies care to many patients in need because they do not have health insurance and is also the poorest at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found.
        The report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries’ health systems.”
        A final thought,
        List by the CIA (yes it’s that CIA)World Factbook Infant mortality (deaths/1,000 live births)
        United Kingdom 4.5
        Cuba 4.76
        United States 5.2
        And before you take refuge in calling a me a ‘Leftie’ or similar I voted Tory in 2010 and retired from my job in a prison (not exactly a hot bed of Socialism) a few years ago.

        • Scott R. King

          As an American (New Orleans & New York homes), and a Christian (Episcopal/Anglican division), I would point out that Jesus did not demand the Romans increase taxes to provide health care. He told those who listened to him to love are care for widows or orphans. A difference there.

          • Shorne

            True enough however He did say ‘Render unto God the things that are God’s’ and made it abundantly clear in His words and actions that this included caring for the sick, at no charge. This is why for example the great religious houses of past centuries did so. I am not trying to start an argument or be deliberately polemical, as I said I am genuinely puzzled why American Christians seem happy to embrace the tenets of Christianity save for this one. I was Christened, Confirmed and, at Primary level, educated (including Sunday School)in the Anglican tradition and the need to do this was emphasised throughout.

          • Bruce Lewis

            And, you know what, Skorne, your fellow Brits writing here, are unable to recognise that you are PROBABLY a genuine “conservative” in the Disraeli-Newman-Chesterton tradition, who actually GAVE a damn about the “working poor.” Most of those commenting here are “FAUX-‘conservatives’ ” of the Thatcherite brand whom Macmillan and Heath and Churchill would have spat out of their mouths. “Patriots” (that is, people who care for the masses and for the “traditional culture” of the masses) they genuinely are not!

          • Shorne

            I wouldn’t argue with that for a minute Bruce, particularly about Churchill who, when he was a Liberal, was part of the Government elected in 1906 which introduced the first ‘old age’ pensions. I also recall Macmillan in later years describing Thatcherite privatisation as ‘selling off the family silver.’

          • Grace Ironwood

            See my response to Shorn above as to why American Christians are not Nature’s Marxists.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          The US infant mortality statistics will always be skewed, because the rest of the world sentences struggling newborns to death, rather than spending excessive medical costs to keep them alive. The US will spend out that cash to keep struggling infants living. They don’t do that in Europe or Cuba. They let them die quickly, and those aren’t counted in the infant mortality statistics.

          • Shorne

            Evidence? especially considering how predominant Catholic ethics are in many European countries.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Dream on, Europe has been post-Christian for some decades now. They sentence struggling infants to death, while the US takes great pains to save them.

            Find your own evidence, but best not look in CIA infant mortality statistics, as reported by your post-Christian buddies. Look in the post-Christian socialized medicine policies in those countries, and let me know how many physically handicapped and premature children are allowed to live, by your post-Christian socialist buddies. They’re not. They die quickly, by policy. And they don’t count in your numbers.

            Death is their policy, as with all socialists, ultimately.

          • Shorne

            As usual you make something up and when asked to provide evidence you can’t so you tell others to prove it for you, well here’s some evidence but not what you are looking for, it’s from last month’s Washington Post (no doubt in your fevered mind to the left of The Daily Worker)
            “Despite healthcare spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland or Slovakia. Or in Belarus.Or in Cuba, for that matter.
            The U.S. rate of 6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births masks considerable state-level variation. If Alabama were a country, its rate of 8.7 infant deaths per 1,000 would place it slightly behind Lebanon in the world rankings. Mississippi, with its 9.6 deaths, would be somewhere between Botswana and Bahrain… “the US has similar neonatal mortality but a substantial disadvantage in postneonatal
            mortality” compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably…To put it bluntly, babies born to poor moms in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in their first year than babies born to wealthier moms…Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts.”
            What makes this even sadder is this bearing in mind the recent success of the Republicans
            ” Obamacare contains provisions to expand post-natal home nurse visits, which are fairly common in Europe.”

          • the viceroy’s gin

            As usual you plaster up some leftist propaganda and blather how wonderful socialism is.

            Sorry, lad, but you’ll have to account for the dead newborn infants your socialist pals sentence to death.

            Let me know if any of your socialized medicine countries pay as much to save the lives of newborn and preemies as the US. You socialists just kill them, or allow them to die.

            But then, socialism is about killing as we know historyically.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Oh, and we could ask the thousands of people of Mid-Staffs about it… but oh I forgot again… they’re dead… you socialists killed them.

          • Shorne

            It’s getting extremely amusing now, information from the US Centre for Disease Control is ‘leftist propaganda’ and you act as if you haven’t read the conclusive evidence. I think I know why you mention gin in your nickname as your rantings call to mind the Father Jack character in ‘Father Ted’ only you shout ‘Socialist!’ ‘Lefty!’ ‘UKIP!’ ‘Lad!’ …I wonder if there’s a physical resemblance too?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            The CDC doesn’t record the number of infants your fav Eurosocialist countries allow to die, lad. You’re quite confused on all this.

            But we do know you socialists favor death… we know this historically. It’s what you do.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …oh, and let’s remember the thousands of dead at Mid-Staffs, and the thousands of child s e x slaves in Rotherham. Those are your socialist handiwork as well, lad.

            And they’re only the tip of the iceberg, as we well know. Your socialist madness is compounded many times over, with the same brutality and death as in those 2 cases.

          • Shorne

            What ‘thousands of dead’, bad as it was it might have been as low as 200 ,any way thanks for confirming my assumption…
            ‘Socialist!’ ‘Lefty!’ ‘UKIP!’ ‘Drink!’ ‘F*ck!’ ‘Arse!’

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yes, you socialist nutters always seek to minimize the numbers you murder, as we know historically.

            And let’s make no mistake, lad, you socialist nutters killed those thousands at mid-Staffs, which are only a portion of the many thousands you’ve killed with your splendid NHS socialism.

            And then there’s Rotherham…

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …and let’s remember, lad, what the Bible tells us: “Thou shalt not kill.”

            As you seemed to bring up the sanctimony first, it’s probably something we need to throw back in your face. You socialists kill. You always have.

          • Shorne

            I’m going to stop trying to confront you with irrefutable facts because you will just keep retreating back into your fantasy World. You have to as it’s the only way you can avoid cognitive dissonance ‘ mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.’ in a way you are to be pitied.
            By the way the Bible also says ‘Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor”, another ‘Socialist nutter.’

          • the viceroy’s gin

            You have provided no “facts”, lad, just repeated socialist nuttery .

            Remember… the Bible commands us: “Thou shalt not kill”.

            You socialists kill. You always have. It’s what you do, as we know historically.

            Unfortunately, we can’t ask the thousands of patients of the NHS at Mid-Staffs. They’re dead, because you socialists killed them.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …by the way, you may want to consult the thousands of dead at Mid-Staffs, that the marvelous NHS killed, before you pronounce sentence on another health care system.

          Oh that’s right… those people at Mid-Staffs are dead .

          • Shorne

            This is pathetic even for you, the highest estimate, I stress estimate, of patients who died in the 50 months of the Mid-Staffs business was 1200, the NHS treats 1 million patients every 36 hours. Using your criteria one could say for example if one UKIP member is a racist dingbat then they all are.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Again, you could consult all the thousands killed at Mid-Staffs, but well, they’re dead. Your vaunted NHS killed them.

            And that’s just at one hospital. It’s just like the child rape gangs in Rotherham. That’s just one location. Imagine if we extrapolate the death and violence, how prevalent the misery of your socialist madness, eh lad?

            You socialists kill, lad. It’s what you do. It’s what you’ve always done, as we know historically. You kill in volume.

          • Shorne

            The key word here is ‘imagine’ most of what you say springs from the weird world of your imagination. I have concluded that if you think I’ m a socialist you really don’t know the meaning of the word.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            No imagination required, lad. Your socialism killed thousands at Mid-Staffs and is still doing so elsewhere, most likely. Your socialism turned children into child s e x slaves in Rotherham, and is doing so elsewhere now, as the report told us.

            It’s what you socialists do. It’s what you always do historically. It’s proven fact.

        • Grace Ironwood

          Sorry for late response Shorne, I’m not getting notified properly by disqus.
          I’m not about to take refuge in calling you names as I despise ad hominem attacks unless no substantive argument is available. 🙂
          I think the Pope may agree with your general drift, having emerged in all his glory as a Marxist Liberation Theologist.
          It is better to understand the differing attitudes of various religious brands in the US and their contributions to the American national character is by reference to their broader outlines of ideology/history rather than duelling with specific scriptural quotes in an ahistorical manner.
          It is undeniable that Americans have self-reliance and freedom from interference at the center of that national character. American’s also have a higher degree of religiosity than Europe.
          Until the recent President the left in the US has never been as socialist as the “European” left. It is a truism that is correct in his case. Another truism is that the welfare state has failed. Saying it’s a great success don’t make it so.
          This is not the same thing as saying the US healthcare system is socially satisfactory. I am not American myself and I believe in a social safety net. I also believe in responsibilities balancing rights and that there are dangers in enfolding citizens in a cradle to grave massive welfare state. Passive citizens being transformed into dependents & ministered to by an enormous nanny state can and has destroyed whole peoples.
          MY argument above was about the manner and model of introducing better coverage at the same time being consisitent with the most freedom of choice for citizen and market.
          Obama chose the most centralised authoritarian and schlerotic model possible.
          Reasonable aims: appalling means modelled on the worst aspects of the socialist state.

          • Shorne

            You see ‘dangers’ in two of FDR’s 4 Freedoms, namely Freedom From Want and Freedom from Fear. (Mind you I suspect you regard FDR as a dangerous Marxist)
            You have taken a long time to basically say ‘Never mind what the immutable dicta of Christianity are our version means we can hang on to as much of our money as possible.’ Here’s something from the US Centre (sorry Center) for Disease Control for you to ponder.
            “Despite healthcare spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland or Slovakia. Or in Belarus.Or in Cuba, for that matter.
            The U.S. rate of 6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births masks considerable state-level variation. If Alabama were a country, its rate of 8.7 infant deaths per 1,000 would place it slightly behind Lebanon in the world rankings. Mississippi, with its 9.6 deaths, would be somewhere between Botswana and Bahrain… “the US has similar neonatal mortality but a substantial disadvantage in postneonatal mortality” compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably…To put it bluntly, babies born to poor moms in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in their first year than babies born to wealthier moms…Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts…. Obamacare contains provisions to expand post-natal home nurse visits, which are fairly common in Europe.”

  • david

    Nonsense!

  • Scott R. King

    The only reason Ms. Clinton has a chance is the Dem party is devastated right now. I just looked over Mr. Heilbrunn’s last 5 articles in the Spectator and wonder if he actually knows anything about the US. (Oops. Just looked at his Wikipedia: New Republic Editor. That explains it.)

  • rudebaldguy

    This unintended consequence might come true, only might, if she runs. She will not run. Her PR people are positioning her for an exit. Remember the pictures of her looking like an old lady with a Zimmer frame (walker). Etc. etc. pictures like that are not allowed to be released unless there is a purpose. She is not a healthy person and it may well be that the powers have told her that she will not seek the nomination as she will not be allowed to run. She will still be allowed the limelight for about a year or so while she collects money and influence. She is much more bankable as a potential contender. Then, for health reasons, she will withdraw. She will still be the darling of the convention, but someone like Elizabeth Warren will get the nod.

    That’s my guess.

    • Bruce Lewis

      You may be right, but the ONLY thing that can prevent her nomination right now will be her health.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        The same money that destroyed her in 2008 can do so again. You don’t seem to follow US politics much, lad.

        • Bruce Lewis

          So long as she doesn’t freak out, as she did in 2008, it won’d destroy her, and her political genius of a husband will be beside her, holding her hand, and making sure that she doesn’t “freak out.” Face it, bud, unless the Republicans resolve their ideological civil war in favour of one side or the other, they’re toast. They’ll be running against enormous demographic trends. These mid-terms, which suffered from enormous–and probably illegal–voter suppression in places like Colorado and North Carolina, won’t be anything like the general election of 2016.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Why do you fantasize about what will happen, lad? You don’t need to fantasize .It’s happened before, and that same group wants it to happen again. She’s a dummy and never held a job her husband didn’t set the table for. Except he can’t set the table for this one, as proven in 2008.

            Your fantasies don’t enter into it, lad.

            And your fantasies and hopes about the R’s looming destruction show a historical ignorance that makes you a waste of time, lad. You don’t know, and you don’t know what you don’t know. You’ve now demonstrated yourself to be a lefty ideologue, and a neocon nutter, and with that let me say I hope you enjoyed the vicious beatdown the American electorate put on you lefty zealots last week. Fantasize yourself out of that, lad.

  • Grace Ironwood

    A disclaimer advising readers that the writer is a Democrat may have been appropriate here.
    Does the he already have a campaign role or is this just an audition ?

  • davidofkent

    I do wish the Spectator would take this picture off the website. Every time I see that staged, recognition-in-the-audience wide-mouthed pose I want to throw up.

  • Bruce Lewis

    HERE
    and
    HERE
    are a sufficiency of reasons why there’ll be no Republican
    Presidency in January of 2017.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      There can only be a Republican president in 2016, lad. That’s how American politics works.

  • Terry Field

    The above is a load of faux-sophisticated drivel.
    There is only one thing that matters – only one. It is the response we now make to real climate change.
    The new idiot in charge in the Senate will kill a rational response.
    Climate change will let rip across the world over the next full generation.
    All the other trivial garbage a US government tries to do is utterly inconsequential by comparison.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Brilliant satire, lad!

  • MathMan

    I recall seeing Hillary on TV saying she didn’t want to run for President. I also recall her saying she was in NY during the 9/11 attack. Porkies President?

Close