Track-A-’Crat: The Roll Call of Democratic Delinquency

My God.

I don’t think that I’ve ever seen Hillary Clinton do a passable impression of a human expression or emotion.

How about that one time… or that instance when… surely she did at…

Hmmm.  Nope, never seen her successfully pull it off.

It’s like she realizes her own inability to empathize feel and thus massively overcompensates every time that she calculates herself to be in a situation requiring some kind of “emotional” output.  Look at her face!  Her sinews must be on the verge of snapping!  It ain’t normal.

And that might be the lesser of two evils, as her other programmed response is the infamous Hillary cackle, which is really just an acceptable way for Hillary to say f*ck you no matter what the occasion.

Hillary’s questionable status as a human marionette being has little to do with the subject of this post, though, which is her promise of an Israeli capital in East Jerusalem.  Without delving into the mechanics of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which, in essence, is that the Israelis are right), this statement reveals a lack of comprehension that is impossible to overstate.  If she cannot wrap her mind around the least complex part of the problem, then I don’t much like her chances of grasping its most intractable aspects.

Luckily for her, she massively misspoke during a television interview, and so simply re-did it.  But what happens when she declares something of equal stupidity outside of the tv studios?  Is that when the “overcharge” button comes out to play again?

Coming from a Secretary of State, it’s almost certainly the most ignorant statement in Creation.  It’s along the lines of forgetting that Jews were the victims of the Holocaust, claiming that Chinese cities were nuked instead of Japanese metropolises, or mistaking France for a country that’s won a single military engagement since the discovery of gunpowder.

Smart power, ahoy!

Is that Hillary Clinton could be sizing up another lunge for the reins of power.

David Huhn, author of the piece linked to above, ponders the possibility of her standing in 2016.  Seems to me that 2016 is looking too far ahead, though.  Hillary, if nothing else, does possess something of a political instinct and by 2016 she will almost certainly be eclipsed by another up-and-comer within the party, as per Barry Obama in 2007-08.

If she does still harbor her mad power-lust (and who believes that she doesn’t?), then her one and only chance remains 2012.  Which, if she pursues it, would lead to the mother of all civil wars within the party.  Unless, of course, the feeble Obama has had a breakdown before that point, but let’s exclude that eventuality for the time being.

One rumor that I’ve heard – and, really, if it’s made it so far down the ladder as to reach me, then it’s pretty much discredited from the get go – is that Hillary could slyly resign next year, setting herself up for an intra-party slaughter of Obots.

The resignation part, at least, could be on the money.  Barry is keeping a tight check on her as secretary of state, seemingly not allowing her the freedom to do or say anything without his prior approval.  Think of the number of foreign policy announcements that Hillary should’ve made, but which Barry snatched for himself (in order to both steal some favorable coverage and diminish Hillary), and Barry’s tendency to send other people abroad to do her job – such as the working-class aristocrat, humble billionaire, man-of-the-people John Kerry to Afghanistan recently.

Though I fail to see precisely how Hillary as POTUS would be less bad than what we have now – with the obvious exception that we conservatives wouldn’t be slandered as racists quite so often in that scenario -, you know what they say about the enemy of my enemy.

We know what type of people the Clintons are.  They have mastered the dark art of revenge and they do not hesitate to unleash it – they do not forgive and they do not forget.

Hillary Clinton, legend killer?

Just in case it were not already clear enough, a Taliban spokesthing has rubbished Sec. of State Clinton’s “honorable reconciliation” as a “lunatic idea.”

Nice to see someone talking some sense, at least.

It’s beyond me how this could be misinterpreted, but no doubt the administration will find a way.

How can this be possible, though?  According to The Sheriff, only 5% of the Taliban is truly bad.

Which should we trust: what the Taliban say themselves or Vanity Joe’s deep analysis?

To begin, a confession.

I have kinda tired of looking frequently at Hillary Clinton’s mugshot, so here’s Famke Janssen instead.  Is she a conservative?  No idea, but I’m just going to tell myself that she is until proven otherwise.

Putting a photo of smokin’ hot hottie Famke in this post also qualifies my blog for a mention over at The Other McCain.  Having already whored myself out a little bit (is that even possible?), I’ll go further and say that it’s a great read and you should visit it.  You really should.

Now, finally, back to the post about Hillary Clinton (my apologies for showing you Famke and now talking about Hilldog):

Looks like “smart diplomacy” is running on empty, already.

Fresh from wowing the international community with her intricate understanding of multiparty democracy and the State Department’s flawless Russian language skills, Sec. of State Clinton has now offered her keen insight into religion.

While visiting the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico yesterday, Clinton saw the famous image of the Virgin Mary that Catholics believe was divinely created.

Except nobody had told her that.

So, she asked rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy, “Who painted it?”

Blame can be shared between her staff and the Sec. of State herself (I know, my magnanimity is boundless), who had visited the Basilica before.

How did she miss this small detail?  It’s like visiting the Vatican and returning without knowing who the Pope is.

This is what I’m talking about.

Sec. of State Clinton had no hesitation in dumping the blame for the violence raging through Mexico squarely on the shoulders of the US.

But she’s not quite so forthright when it comes to dealing with countries run by the Democrats’ ideological cousins.

Such as North Korea, which is preparing a(nother) missile launch.

Kim Jong-il does this from time to time to remind us that his pathetic excuse for half a country hasn’t been swallowed up by the Earth itself.

Clinton deferred the problem, announcing that, “This provocative action in violation of the United Nations mandate will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences.”

Bet they’re quaking in their boots now.  North Korea is the most closed society on the planet – threatening them with something they neither want nor value will change nothing.

It’d be like threatening Sec. of State Clinton with spending a lifetime married to a pathological liar and adulterer.

Sec. of State Clinton, who is never prone to abandoning all principles and saying what people want to hear, has stated that Americans’ “insatiable demand for illegal drugs” fuels violence in Mexico.

Her words certainly are courageous when the target is America.

Here’s a novel idea: why don’t we blame other countries for their own problems?  I know that has no appeal to the think tank community, but c’mon.

How can Democrats stand being American, knowing that they are responsible for the world’s ills?

And do the bleach showers hurt?

I know, I know, I’ve already posted about this.

But I’ve only just now seen the “overcharge” button that was exchanged.

And it is the cheesiest thing I have ever seen.  Before you ask, yes, I have seen Titanic.

What was going through her mind, thinking that giving a cheap, plastic trinket to the Russian Foreign Minister was a good idea?  How many apparatchiks gave this stellar idea their nod of approval?  Is this the level of creativity we can expect from the Clinton State Department?

Plus I bet it wasn’t even made in the USA.

Except that she can’t quite grasp the concept of a “multiparty democracy.”  Or get her hosts’ names right.

Sheesh, quite an admission there, Secretary of State.

I can empathize.  I applied for a job as a mechanic once, went along to the interview and confessed that I really had no idea how a car worked, just that I thought it’d be fun to play mechanic for a while.  Y’know, lifting cars up and down on hydraulic platforms, driving other people’s vehicles and telling them gravely that, “It’s gonna cost ya, guv.”

Time to hit the “overcharge” button again.

*Sigh*

No on-the-job training necessary, eh?

When negotiating anything, you do not begin by revealing your ace.

[Unless you're playing poker against me, in which case feel free to start grinning as soon as you've looked at your hand.]

Russia already supposed, thanks to campaign rhetoric, that an Obama administration would not be big on SDI.  That supposition is now certainty.

And with the cat out of the bag, what can we expect in return?  Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, jack, rien.  We’ve been pwned.

Bear with me on this one.

Iraq (supporter of the invasion though I am) fatally undermined confidence in the quality of American intelligence.

To the point we’re at now, whereby it will take nothing less than an overt nuclear threat or detonation for any concrete action to be taken against Iran.

And something like this only worsens that impression.  As topdog at the State Department, how could this mistake be made?  Was it carelessness or lack of knowledge?

Either way, I imagine that Russia is having a good laugh at freedom’s expense.

(PS – Can’t say I entirely disagree with her statement that American democracy is older than the European variety, though.  From its inception, and never more so than during the entire 19th century, the US has always had a far fuller democracy than any European counterpart, the UK included.)