What, exactly, is 'HillBilly' up to?

Incidentally, whilst referring mainly to Hillary Clinton, I link the first names of her and her spouse because I suspect that despite all the blood that has flowed under their particular bridge they still remain grappled together as a couple and their joint dynastic and political ambitions easily sweep aside multiple infidelities.  She has begun her run for the presidential election in 2016 but the first few months of it have been eccentric, not to say, bizarre.  She began by offering her enemies a club with which to beat her by uttering that unfortunate and chilling quote at the Benghazi massacre hearings:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

How many times will that feature in Republican TV ads?  Then she launched herself on a book tour to promote a tome allegedly written by her but which quickly ended up on the 'remainder' tables in almost every American bookshop.  The tour itself was a mini-disaster with several glops and glitches on her part which again have been seized on by her opponents.  Then, in the last few days she launched a vitriolic attack on Obama's foreign policy which was a bit rich seeing as she was his Secretary of State for four years!  So vicious was the attack that a hasty peace conference supper party had to be arranged between the Clintons and the Obamas at the rich man's playground, Martha's Vineyard, where America's wealthy radical socialists love to holiday!  It ended, if not with a foursome sex party, then with smiles and photos and multiple 'mwaa-mwaas' all round.  All about as convincing as a blancmange replica of the White House!

HillBilly's strident call for what R. Emmett Tyrrell calls in The American Spectator,  her new "neocon foreign policy" is something of a surprise to everyone:

Now just last weekend she has made the final leap. She is a neoconservative. She derided Obama’s, dare we call it, foreign policy doctrine, “Don’t do stupid s---”? Said she, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” How very neocon! She sneered at Obama’s “failure” to supply the Syrian rebels. She spoke in tough terms toward Iran and took up the cause of the Israelis against Hamas. All Obama could do is play a couple of rounds of golf, hit the beach, and head off for a fundraiser.

This has caused consternation inside the Democrat party which, like political parties everywhere, is actually a coalition of groups with very different outlooks.  What I might call the 'Really Left' are aghast at 'HillBilly's words.  Support from them to her has always been lacklustre but they have kept schtum on any direct criticism not least because of the failure of any true Leftie to run against her.  However, much more of that Obama-bashing could change things quite quickly.  Aaron Goldstein, also in The American Spectator, finishes his brief commentary with some dry humour:

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren is smiling.

She, of course, is otherwise known as 'Fauxcahontas' and is a true soppy socialist with the brains of a microbe!  She is the darling of the 'Really Left' but has spent the past six months telling the world that she has no plans to run - which is about as reliable as her claim to be a Commanche, or a Sioux, or whatever it is.  I reckon that if 'HillBilly' continues to upset the Lefties then 'Fauxcahontas' will run against her and thus satisfy my erotic longings for the political equivalent of women wrestling in mud!

Some Leftie blogs are wondering why 'HillBilly' is making all this trouble for herself and her party?  Why, they ask, doesn't she just sing from the usual hymn sheet and keep everybody on the Left happy?  My, admittedly unique, theory is that 'HillBilly' detests the Democrat party.  They did little to stop Republican attacks on Bill when he produced that, er, stain on his character - and Monica's dress.  Then, when it was 'her turn' to run for the White House, the party ditched her for some totally unknown 'community organiser' who, it now transpires, is incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery!  One always gains the distinct impression with 'HillBilly' that no slight is ever forgotten and a constant seach to wreak revenge is very high on her list of priorities.

Roll up, roll up, the women's mud-wrestling competition is about to begin!

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

David, your read on The Red Queen is pretty good. Clinton inc. never forgets anything. She has no positions, just continuous positioning. Maybe she gives an opening to that other female favorite- Princess Running Bare....or Running Empty. Whatever.

[Backofanenvelope]

In politics image is everything. Warren has one big advantage over Clinton - she isn't an ugly old woman!

[Dom]

"she isn't an ugly old woman" -- Warren isn't? Elizabeth Warren? Those high Cherokee cheek bones look pretty ugly to me.

[backofanenvelope]

I thought Warren was a Comanche!

[Michael Adams]

Well, she's neither, except that, in the South, nearly everyone is part Cherokee or Choctaw. They were farmers, enthusiastically adopted the plow and mules brought in by English settlers and intermarried all the time. I'm fairly typical, having lost count of the number of Indian ancestors I have.

Comanche? Nah. The Comanche were in the Midwest, and, when they discovered the horse, became a real threat to Spain in Mexico. That was why the Spanish and later the Mexicans encouraged Scots-Irish settlers from the upland South to immigrate. We fought the Indians, and usually won.Being part Cherokee or whatever, did not make us any friendlier to the Comanche. They were some rough customers. Spanish maps of Texas in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries just labeled Texas "Comancheria." Warren claimed that her family had been deported to Oklahoma from western Georgia on the "Trail of Tears." Actually, her only connection was a mulit-greats grandfather who was a sheriff, who helped round people up to send them west. BTW, the President at that time was that great democrat, Andrew Jackson, who gave the developed farms, taken from the Indians, to his cronies. Texas was an independent Republic in 1837, when all this disgrace took place. President (of Texas) Sam Houston was one of many who vehemently opposed the Indian Removals, and the controversy probably delayed admission of Texas to the Union by several years.

And, BoE, if you were being facetious, please accept my humble apologies for literalizing your humour.

[Whitewall]

Michael, true about the widespread Cherokee. The HQ of the Eastern Band is about 4 hours south west of me. My mother-in-law's family settled land near there in the 1830s that had been nearly emptied of Cherokee by Andrew Jackson. North west Georgia is literally in walking distance of their homesteads.