The Hillar(it)y of it All

Here's a fact: Hillary's tears were choreographed. You may not know that, but I do. That's because A) she's never come close to crying before, and B) She's acutely aware of what happened when Muskie cried.

Now I know what many of you are thinking – "I didn't know fish could cry?!?"

Oh yes, if it's a liberal fish.

No but seriously, it's : "Ted, wouldn't that be a reason to suck it up at all cost?"

Yes… if she were a Muskie – not the fish, the Kerry precursor.

See, nothing happens by accident with the Clintons and Hillary was desperate. A man in tears looks weak, but we never had a viable female candidate before, so no one knows what to expect – except Hillary, and she knows that a teary woman will appeal to other women – because it worked for Ellen! And it worked great for Hillary – this time. Which has to be the one and only time.

But it shouldn't be necessary again anyway.

Another reason you know it was scripted is, what was with the guy yelling "Iron my shirts?" I mean, who would have set that up but the Clinton campaign? Don't even try to say it was initiated by some right-wing group, that's absurd. Equally absurd is that someone from the Obama camp did it.

Of course it could just be a lone Hillary hater, but it would have to be a leftist lone Hillary hater, because it's not the right style.

Now the Obama campaign is on notice: be ready for anything. They were a bit naive, as is Obama himself. I saw him on Fox & Fiends today, and he was delightfully -aracial-.

That is to say, he appeared human and genuine. many of his proposals and pronouncements are awful, but one would hope that his team and the rigors of the campaign will set him straight should he be elected.

Don't get me wrong though, he would still be a terrible choice, but most because he would be a terrible risk and Bob McManus wrote a column today detailing that risk, but you don't have to read it, all you have to do is listen to Obama speak – lofty words that literally say nothing.

So now he's got his hands full, and it appears at this point in time that Hillary has the ability to muscle her way to the nomination – with muscle tears.

And I don't know about you, but I feel this was worth it just for that play on words?!? Hey, it's as least as meaningful as an Obama speech.

Another delightful aspect of the Clinton win is that pollsters were so amazingly wrong. can you remember the last time they were that far off? And you know they are frantic to find out why lest they be come to be regarded as unreliable.

Interestingly, last night, Michael Barone was in charge of calling the election for Fox, and at one point, Brit Hume questioned a bit after the race had been called for McCain, "We still have nothing on the Democrat side?"

Barone came back with, " Our models just aren't reflecting anything that's accurate enough to provide anything definitive."

Did that just trigger any thoughts for you? because I immediately thought about "global warming." here' we can't even get our model to reach a determination about facts and numbers and trends in which we've had many, many years of actual experience, the alarmists want us to accept "pseudodata?"

I'd sooner accept Hillary's tears.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Hillar(it)y of it All

  1. Urban Lenny says:

    whoa– you came out of left field with the climate change part at the end take on hillary showing some actual emotion is sightly different and– i'd posit– even more damning:the wet eyes (there were no actual tears) and the hitching of her voice was real. but the reason for the emotion is the illustrative part. she never got emotional or cried about anything, until she thought she was going to lose. she was crying for herself.Conservatives everywhere are sighing in relief. Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters nails the obvious: Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, know why the
    GOP wants to face Hillary in November. It's not because they like the
    Clintons, but because the Clintons unite the Republican base like no
    other Democrat — and perhaps like no other Republican. Hillary will
    star in thousands of mailers, television ads, and websites, all
    cajoling Republicans to open their wallets, organize, and get to the
    voting booth.

    And — it will work. Even in a year where the fractures among the
    Republican coalition have been painfully evident, everyone will unite
    to keep the Clintons out of the White House. While Obama may have won
    some moderate Republicans to his side just based on his personal
    appeal, none will endorse the Restoration. Fredheads, Log Cabins,
    evangelicals, small-L libertarians, and hawks will all find a truce to
    battle Hillary to the last vote.In this post, Captain's Quarters is home to Captain Obvious.

  2. TedWest says:

    OK, I hope you understand that this is just in the interest of helping you be a better pundit:
    "she never got emotional or cried about anything, until she thought she was going to lose."
    Isn't that what I said? Or did you want to indicate that you understood my point?
    Then, you say that guy was stating the obvious.. but… you're quoting him?
    And in fact, didn't I also say as much last night? Let me check…
    Well, OK, I said I would do everything possible to undermine her, I suppose I could do that without uniting with anyone?!?
    And about the warming thing, see this goes to the crux of the matter; you're supposed to make observations that others may not have considered, or at least try to provide a different perspective. If you say what people already know, you're not really a pundit, you're more like a reinforcer or an enabler… which I'm sure a lot of people need, but this isn't about them, it's about us.
    Besides, if I would need to see what other conservative bloggers are saying before I comment, I should get out of their way unless they are always and completely incorrect – which Captain isn't because he's stating the obvious.

  3. Urban Lenny says:

    nah– we have a disagreement here. i was disagreeing with you about motive– i dont think it was a conscious effort to woo women– i think it was genuine– and that made it worse in my opinion. if she put on the water works purposefully, than she's just pulling a naked political ploy. my contention is that it was not choreographed, but was rather an actual view into her craven and narcissistic mind. re: the obvious part– i've said so as well– in another of your posts in fact– i suppose i was just "reinforcing" it with the opinion of a well-known (and more-respected than me) blogger.

  4. TedWest says:

    OK, I get it, and either way, it's ugly. However, I say it again categorically – it was not spontaneous. There is nothing they do that's not calculated, and since our last exchange, I've seen some tangential reinforcement.
    It turns out that she was on one of those media tabloid shows the very night before she had her breakdown, and the questioner specifically asked her about crying, to which she answered that men can do it but she can't.
    But the next morning, she could. So she had to be conscious of it, even if it wasn't pre-planned, but since she was conscious of it, and her words were that she couldn't do it and survive, did the damn just break because of a structural flaw?
    No, not only was it planned, it was also determined how far she could go – a whimper, but not a tear. Then they'd feel her pain.
    What's more interesting to me though is that the left is suddenly aware of how conniving and calculating the Clintons are, something we've all known since 60 Minutes in '92.
    "i suppose i was just 'reinforcing' it with the opinion of a well-known (and more-respected than me) blogger."
    Don't sell yourself short, I respect you every bit as much as I do What's'isname. Although it's "than I."

  5. Urban Lenny says:

    "It turns out that she was on one of those media tabloid shows the very
    night before she had her breakdown, and the questioner specifically
    asked her about crying, to which she answered that men can do it but
    she can't."what? no way– you got a link, or the name of the show, or something– i've heard nothing about that!

  6. TedWest says:

    What you have to understand is that I only lie when it suits me. In this case, I saw the clip, and I believe it was on Glenn beck on Headline News which will be repeated in a half hour and about every other hour thereafter.
    I'm pretty sure that's where it was, but if I'm wrong (which I'm not), this is one of those times I'm going to ask you to trust me because I don't l lie when there's a chance to catch a liberal by surprise.

  7. Urban Lenny says:

    only for something so fantastic as this would i even consider suffering through the third-rate banal crapfest that is the Glenn Beck show.

  8. TedWest says:

    Well, you won't have to wait long, since it's near the top of the show, and there's a very good chance you may have already seen it by the time this posts – which would have been a lot sooner if I didn't have to address some apparent misconceptions on your part.
    First, I am not a major fan of Glenn Beck, he's just lucky to be between Hume and O'Reilly. I I liked Beck at first, but now he often rubs me the wrong way. However, I believe he is the third highest paid radio guy in the universe, so somebody likes him
    Second, you have to ask yourself why a crapfest has news that you can't get from your media and then you have to wonder if this isn't the first time.
    Third, am I correct in thinking that you have very low regard for Beck, but Keith Olberman is enlightened commentary?
    Fourth, Nothing could get me to sit through his show.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s