Monday, December 06, 2004

Hillary Watch: The Countess Of Chappaqua Chronicles

Reporting For Duty
It can be safely assumed that former President Bill Clinton's "wife" will be a contender for the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008. But she has a problem. According to the New York Times, there are a substantial number of people that simply do not like Hillary.

What is very surprising is the fact that the New York Times can usually be thought of as friendly to the junior senator "from" New York. According to the article, it was found that about 40% of Americans "Disapprove of her."

The Times goes on to state:

"The voters who disapprove of Mrs. Clinton are numerous and unshakable, and they have been around so long that they even have a name in political circles. Hillary haters."

Here at the 'Wonks, our problem with The Countess Of Chappaqua has always been that we think she is as phony as a three dollar bill.

She can always be counted on to attend the "right parties," and support the "right causes," and be seen with the "right people." She always has nice things to say about kids, schools, grandmothers, and small fur-bearing creatures.

Hillary is like one of those colorful McCaw parrots: She makes a lot of noise, but says very little of any substance.

The Countess can also be depended on to be against all the things that it's currently fashionable to be against. She is against large SUVs, (except for her entourage) military spending, any sort of flat tax, longer prison sentences for felons, school choice, and fur.

As we said above, she is completely disingenuous, and cite the following examples:

  • Claims to be for the working class, but lives in one of New Yorks more exclusive communities.
  • Makes much noise about supporting public schools, but sent her own child to the most expensive and exclusive private school in Washington, DC. The Sidwell Friends Academy. (This is the same school that the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson sent his pampered offspring.)
  • Says that she supports the troops, but she doesn't support the war.
  • Claims that she is pro-family, but supports abortion-on-demand and single-sex marriage.
  • Favors strong gun-control for the citizenry, but surrounds herself with bodyguards.
  • Says she wants to secure the border, but will not authorize the use of our military to repel the invasion of illegal immigrants that has been occurring for years.
  • Claims to love Arkansas, but couldn't wait to leave town back in '92, and hasn't lived there since.

We have been asked under what circumstances we could support a Democratic candidate for President. That is an easy one to answer. We will back a candidate that is: a self-made man, (or woman) strong on defense, supports traditional family values, thinks playing golf is a waste of the president's valuable time, vacations in the heartland, (and not at Martha's Vineyard or some other "trendy" locale) and knows the meaning of (and values) hard work.

In other words we could vote for an authentic Democrat, not these phony liberal Hypocrats that masquerade as Democrats.

We would vote for a man like Harry S. Truman.

Mortarboard Tip: DeoDuce of The Daily Spork.
Update: California Yankee has some excellent thoughts regarding Hillary's chances. The Command Post has some great comments in Yankee's cross-posting of his piece.