CHILLARY

Chillary

by Susan Easton

“Hillary is the first choice of Martian visitors,” or so said Gerard Baker in his August 17 Op Ed piece in The Times of London. Baker, who is the U.S. Editor of the Times, reports that wherever he went across Europe this summer everyone asked him the same question: “who’s going to win the election?” Baker attributes this to a unique confluence of interest between Europe and the States. ”However briefly,” he writes, “the rest of the world is thinking the same way as America.”

Baker admits that this is not a question he would normally feel comfortable answering, especially since the election is fully 15 months away. Who among us enduring this era of the eternal campaign cannot empathize? But what do Martians have to do with anything?

The humorous galactic gambit is Baker’s way of stating the bloody obvious. If a Martian were to come down and follow the Democrat Party’s US Presidential candidates for a few days, he would wonder why there was any question at all why Mrs. Clinton should not be the anointed. “It is evident that she is the most knowledgeable, experienced and disciplined. Most of the time, like a Queen Elizabeth I or a Margaret Thatcher, she easily dominates the inferior men shuffling around her,” states Baker. He then hastens to add that she is not his favorite person. “I continue to find the ease with which she has sacrificed her principles on everything of importance, the makeover from radical feminist to soft-focused mother and devoted wife, from V-sign-waving peacenik to hawkish warmonger, all a little chilling even for my slightly cynical tastes.” Baker laments the credulity of American voters who are likely to overlook Hillary’s faults.

“To be fair for a moment,” Baker concludes, “even I would have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton’s First Lady (though, assuredly not his last), on the evidence of the campaign so far at least, deserves her lead.”

He sees the lesser Democrat candidates as merely hanging around in a tedious collective audition for spots in Mrs. Clinton’s Administration.

Baker is dismissive of Barack Obama. “To be frank,” he says, “that same Martian would have to wonder what exactly all the fuss was about with the Illinois Senator.” He rejects the endless comparisons between Obama and JFK adding: “Mr. Obama remains an oddly unconvincing world saviour.” Nor does Baker spare candidate John Edwards. He characterizes the Edwards campaign as “larded with a hypocrisy and opportunism that make Mrs. Clinton look like St. Thomas More.”

In June, another London Times reporter, Sarah Baxter, penned a book review of political consultant, Bob Schrum’s, mid life memoir: "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner." With the eye catching headline: “Clinton’s zipper problem returns to haunt Hillary,” Baxter chose to indicate the gossipy nature of Schrum’s tome by recounting the late Pamela Harriman’s fury at Bill Clinton. The story goes that he once brought a woman back to Harriman’s home to spend the night with him. Harriman, then the US Ambassador to France, had quite a reputation as what is called a “courtesan” in polite company, but even she was repulsed by Bill Clinton’s recklessness. Baxter’s slant on Hillary’s candidacy is that it will put the spotlight back on the Clinton’s clearly rocky marital history, something rhetorically echoed in the words of Michele Obama last weekend: “If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

In his August 19 commentary on Hillary, The Independent’s Foreign Editor, Leonard Doyle, asks: “Why Is She Hated By Progressives and Right Wingers Alike?” His subtitle gives the answer straightaway. “They say she is a scheming control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs. President.” For the record, The Independent is the youngest (founded 1986) of the UK’s daily papers. It was begun by former Telegraph journalists as an alternative venue for those who did not subscribe to the worldview of the Murdoch publishing cartel. It is positioned to attract readers who are politically center left, which suggests it should be aligned with Mrs. Clinton. But Doyle chose to pack his Hillary piece with rather unflattering snippets. Not least of these is his focus on how Hillary has riled America’s left wing feminists. Doyle cites best selling author and filmmaker Nora Ephron as an exemplar of this crowd. Once a supporter who said someone would have to burn down the White House to get her to say anything against the former First Lady, now Ephron is an avowed Hillary resister. Why? Because, she says, (in so many words) you can’t trust Hillary as far as you can spit. This turn hinges almost entirely on the New York Senator’s position on the war in Iraq, frequently cited as the probable source of her downfall, should it come. And here’s a slam which Doyle saw fit to print, although it is unlikely to appear in the New York Times. He quotes Jane Fonda’s description of Hillary as “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.” One could argue with the skirt comment as Hillary is always seen wearing pantsuits.

The Guardian newspaper, demographically positioned for center to left wing readers, warned its audience that whoever was elected President in 08, one regrettable fact would not change. A June 7 article remorsefully noted that, even when the evangelical Bush left office, there would be no escape from Christianity. That piece (with an embedded sigh) was entitled: “There’s one thing the US presidential contenders all have in common: God.” Two weeks later, a Guardian correspondent posted in Washington held out hope for British lefties by reporting: “Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show.” This political resurrection, should it happen, was put down to “the greatest brand makeover in history.”

For pure comic relief, the Times ran a contribution from the witty Hugo Rifkind, who specializes in writing humorous send-ups of celebrities. In this instance, Rifkind conjured up an uncomplimentary image of Hillary (and Bill) by creating a week’s worth of imaginary entries from her personal diary.

Here are two excerpts from Monday -- with the really juicy bits edited out.

“I am dressing. My husband, Bill, is still in bed, watching a women’s beach volleyball match on TV.”

“I am not one of those apple-pie women who frets over her white slacks and gingham shirt each day. Hell no. I despise those women. Although I also respect them, as Americans. Today, though, I’m not sure. Should I be Soft Hillary, in pink and beige, with a glimpse of flesh? Or should I be Hard Hillary?”

It is this impression of Mrs. Clinton which led a Telegraph writer to nickname her “the power behind the drone.”

But for all the insults and parodies being aimed at Hillary and Obama et. al, the respected European journal, The Economist, reports that 40% of GOP supporters believe the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. That is no laughing matter.

THE BW WIRETAP LAW

The president signed a new electronic surveillance bill into law yesterday. This morning the New York Times carried the story, and I think that it is safe to say that the Times treatment of this story will become the standard.

First ... why was the law needed? Let's say you have an Islamic terrorist suspect in London, perhaps a doctor, making a phone call to a like-minded Muslim inside the United States. I think that most people would agree that our intelligence agencies might have a passing interest in what is being said during that conversation. The best way to intercept and monitor that conversation would be through the communications switching facilities in the United States. But there's a small problem there. The FISA intelligence court ruled earlier this year that the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls coming through American switching centers. So, the Bush Administration asked for a new surveillance law permitting just that type of monitoring, and the Democrat congress gave him just such a bill to sign.

There's a few interesting facets to the Times reporting of this story. First ... not once in the entire article do you find the words "Muslin", "Islamic", or "terrorist." Islamic terrorism is the reason this eavesdropping is needed. There are estimates of thousands of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist sympathizers already in this country. For some odd reason our intelligence people think that it might be a good idea if we could monitor their communications with their buddies overseas. You would think that somewhere in the Times story they might make some sort of a mention as to why this new law is so essential to the safety of the American people. But noooooo.

Secondly, maybe it's just me, but if I were writing the story I would have found a way to make it clear that the people inside the United States who would end up being monitored are not just Americans – not just citizens. I would suspect that most of the people in this country who end up on the U.S. side of a monitored conversation would not be "Americans." They would be foreign nationals living in this country.

At any rate, the left will have to shut up for a few days about the evils of "warrentless wiretapping." This has been such a big deal for the Bush-haters, now he has signed a bill presented to him by a Democrat congress! We'll just have to sit back and wait for a bit to see how long it takes for the left to forget their all-important role in this new law.

NO TO AMNESTY. DO THEY FINALLY GET IT?

State Republican honchos from around the nation are going to meet this Thursday. There are 168 members of the Republican National Committee. Thus far 47 of them have signed a petition saying that they will oppose any immigration reform policy that will grant legal residency to illegal aliens.

Fine, as far as it goes. Will the petition also state support for spending as much money as is needed to close – tight – the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico? Will the petition support the denial of all federal crime-fighting grants to cities who adopt "sanctuary city" policies with respect with the illegals sucking off their taxpayers?

I'm not through yet. Here's some more ideas for the petition:

1. A change in the law to deny legal residency and citizenship to babies born to mothers who are in this country illegally.
2. Stricter penalties, widely enforced, against companies that hire illegal aliens.
3. Only emergency medical care at taxpayer's expense for illegal aliens.
4. No access to government schools for the children of illegal aliens.

But .. what the heck. I guess the denial of amnesty to illegal aliens is a start. Maybe they're getting the message.

PROTECTING OUR BORDERS

That's going to be pretty tough. Especially if our government insists on punishing any one that uses a gun to do so. And not just any one ... our own border patrol agents! They are given weapons for a reason. But when they use them against Mexican drug smugglers, this calls for time in jail. Here's the story.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were border patrol agents. They are now serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively. Why? For shooting and wounding a Mexican trying to escape after failing to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana across the border.

They are now sitting in jail. Their longest sentence is for "discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence," a violation of section 924(c)(1)(a) of the U.S. Code. The minimum is a ten year prison sentence. The "crime of violence," by the way, is drug smuggling.

But there's a catch. Simply discharging a firearm near a violent crime is not illegal. It is merely a factor used in sentencing. There is a lot of legal jargon involved. But basically these guys couldn't use their guns if the Mexican was only committing a drug crime because they are Border Agents and can only use their weapons to prevent border crossing.

Does that make any sense? Well, what the hell. We are talking about government here, aren't we?

SHEEHAN VS PELOSI

Just when we thought she was out of the public spotlight forever – yeah, that lasted long – Cindy Sheehan rears her somewhat-empty, anti-American head again. She's still on Bush's case, but she wants to reach him via good 'ole Nancy Pelosi.

Cindy says that if Nancy does not move to impeach Bush, she herself is going to run for her seat in Congress. Wouldn't you just love to see that add campaign? Endorsements from Hugo Chavez ... Jane Fonda ... and fellow travelers from around the world. If Nancy does what she is told, then Cindy said she will shut up and go overseas to do humanitarian work ... where I assume she will be joining Jimmy Carter in his ongoing effort to make statements which undermine America while in foreign countries.

The fact that this woman has any control over politicians or politics is just astounding. Hopefully the aging hollow-eyed hippie from Haight-Ashbury is laughing in her Cheerios.

TELL ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE

This time it happened in Columbia, Tennessee. Juan Villa has been in the Maury County jail 11 times. Charges? Let’s see ….. assault, public intoxication, driving without a license, contempt of court .. .the usual stuff. Eleven times since 2001.

Juan’s last visit to the local hoosegow ended last Friday at about 9:45 p.m. Less than three hours later, just after midnight, Juan celebrated his freedom (a friend bailed him out) by raping a 15-year-old girl.

You know where this is going, don’t you? Yup … you got it. Juan is most likely an illegal alien. Yeah .. the county authorities had notified the feds, but the feds were just too busy to do anything right away. They said they would deal with Juan later. Trouble is, Juan dealt with the 15-year-old before the feds could deal with him.

Well see how long Juan stays in jail this time. In the meantime, local illegal immigration advocates are voicing their concern. No .. not about Juan raping this girl, but about the fact that the Maury County Sheriff’s Department has detained about 80 illegal aliens since May. They’re yelling racial profiling.

And so it goes. The endless story.