Sunday, April 5, 2015

Let's take it easy this Easter Sunday — I'll only bring up something about Hillary that you might have missed — And a few jellybeans about the "Raging Bull" too


A BRIEF RETROSPECTIVE ABOUT A KEY BOOK REVIEW AND COMMENTARY CONTAINING  DAVID AXELROD’S PITHY VIEWS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON, THE CANDIDATE AND THE POLITICAL PERSONALITY

IT SEEMS LIKE    YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PROGRESSIVES AND ALL OF THE LIBERALS ALL OF THE TIME


AS HILLARY CLINTON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR DAMAGE CONTROL EFFORT OVER HER E-MAIL AND BENGHAZI PROBLEM[S], GENERALLY IS TRYING TO FEND OFF THE “VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY” AND OTHER CLINTON HATERS IN THE MEDIA, GETS READY TO ROLL OUT YET ANOTHER RUN FOR HIGH OFFICE, APPARENTLY HAS HUMA ABEDIN SCOUTING OUT LOCATIONS IN BROOKLYN FOR CAMPAIGN OFFICES, AND AGAIN HAS HER OTHER AGENTS WORKING HARD TO CREATE A NEW IMAGE FOR HER  —  DON’T FORGET THAT MANY WHO CONSTITUTE THE BACKBONE, MUSCLE AND SINEW OF THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE NO LOVE FOR HILLARY


Over a month ago, there was a very interesting post that was put out there by “Slate” right before Hillary fell flat on her face over her public E-mails on her private server (See “Liberal Amnesia –  Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton ?” by Alec MacGillis, 2/20/15, Slate [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/obama_s_supporters_may_have_forgotten_how_much_they_despised_hillary_clinton.html]). In that article, Alec MacGillis discussed David Axelrod’s then-new book “Believer,” and quotes Mr. Axelrod quite often with respect to his views on Hillary Clinton.

SOME OF WHAT AXELROD HAD TO SAY

Here’s some of what MacGillis had to say about Axelrod talking about Hillary: “...Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a ‘fresh start.’ ‘For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure,’ he continues. ‘The more she tries to moderate her image … the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.’...”    YES, THAT’S AXELROD ON HILLARY – according to Slate’s Alec MacGillis.

MACGILLIS’ ANALYSIS OF AXELROD’S POINT ABOUT HILLARY

MacGillis also said this: “Axelrod’s book, ‘Believer’] is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clinton—and how much they’ve allowed themselves to forget along the way....  The result is a sort of collective amnesia among Obama supporters when it comes to their former estimation of Clinton—a reluctance to reckon fully with their aversion to her then and what has come of it since. This amnesia may seem harmless now, but one can’t help but wonder if it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election if it is not confronted more fully before then....

IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT AXELROD, AND THE OTHER LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES, WHO ARE “SUPPORTING” HILLARY ?

With respect to the Obama-Clinton wars of 2008, “... unlike [other] Obama 2008 veterans, [Axelrod]  has not signed up with Clinton this time around, and is willing to recount the grand clash in clear-eyed terms. He recalls Clinton’s weakness for gun-for-hire consultants like the ‘bloodless and calculating’ Mark Penn, who ‘saw his mission as quashing any liberal impulses’ and  ‘justified himself with fuzzy polling numbers and a smug self-assurance that made everything grating.’ [Axelrod] distinguishes Obama’s offer of change in Washington from Hillary’s copy-cat rhetoric: ‘The “change” Hillary was offering was not much change at all — certainly not a move away from the raw, divisive politics that had come to define Washington. Rather, she seemed to revel in those politics....  The change she was offering was not away from Washington’s habit of parsing words and passing on tough issues. (She habitually sought safe harbor.) The change she was offering was not away from a system dominated by PACs and corporate lobbyists. (She had taken their money and defended their work.)”

And, Alec MacGillis concluded his February 20th article about Axelrod’s book with this: “... [M]ake no mistake — Axelrod has not forgotten what the differences were that motivated him, and millions of other Democrats, to come to Obama’s side instead of Clinton’s not that long ago. And it would be better for their party’s sake if those [Democratic activists and] voters grappled with those memories and realities sooner rather than later.

AND ABOUT THE DE NIRO THING....

Before I go any further into the DeNiro "endorsement" of Hillary, let me remind you of a couple of things that Alfred Hitchcock had to say about actors, because they are particularly relevant to Ni Niro’s oh so public embarrassment about and for Hillary Clinton.

First, there are several iterations of the great director’s opinion that  –   “...[a]ctors are cattle! They should be treated as such!”  The Second quote, is a particularly insightful observation by Hitch, which, if you look deeply enough, is likely to disclose the real “motivation” behind the DeNiro endorsement of Hillary  –   “When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, 'It's in the script.' If he says, 'But what's my motivation?, ' I say, 'Your salary.'...”

Now what is it that this “Raging Bull” had to say ?   In an interview about the 2015 Tribeca Film Festival (now let's look for some Clinton-style "motivation" going into that DeNiro venture,  hmmm!) something a little odd and out of place came up.  In answer to a question about whether he supported Hillary, the now -elderly actor said this  –  AS IF ON CUE:     “Hopefully it will be her, yes,” said De Niro. “I think that she’s paid her dues. There are going to be no surprises, and she has earned the right to be president and the head of the country at this point. It’s that simple. And she’s a woman, which is very important because her take on things may be what we need right now.”

This pathetic trained-seal performance was as non-spontaneous and inauthentic a moment as anything else having to do with the clunking Clinton juggernaut.

NOW I PUT IT TO YOU !   WHO WROTE THOSE GAWD-AWFUL LINES ?  AND WHO DIRECTED DE NIRO TO DEAD PAN THEM ?

12 comments:

Galewyn Massey said...

BACKFILL: THE “NOW, THAT’S THE REST OF THE STORY — OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY’S VERSION OF IT” EDITION

ED KLEIN REPORTS THAT HILLARY E-MAIL LEAKS CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AT OR VERY NEAR THE TOP

WHEN THE DAVID AXELROD PIECE AND THE VALERIE JARRETT PIECE ARE PUT TOGETHER, DOESN’T IT START TO LOOK LIKE A BARACK OBAMA PIECE ? — THAT’S WHAT ED KLEIN THINKS

According to long-time Hillary-basher Ed Klein, “It’s the vast left-wing conspiracy. *** President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me. *** But she did so through people outside the administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House. *** In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at [the State Department], including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation....” (See “Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal” by Edward Klein, 3/14/15, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/obama-adviser-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-e-mail-scandal/]).

Klein then went on to say that “... [s]ix separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been going on at the State Department.... [and] that the email scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president....” He ominously added that “... there’s more to come.”

On a more internal Democrat “political front,” Klein made note of the following: “Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House [has told Klein]. “The [Obamas] believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.... With Obama’s approval... Valerie [Jarrett] has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley... and... Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination....”

Anonymous said...

Hillary hasn't delivered that "fee" to Axelrod yet.

Obamas guys are what one may call Ben Franklin democrat$

Anonymous said...

Hillary has the Black vote - which is crucial. In 2016 we'll see her get over 95% of the Black vote. Between now and then there needs to e an effort to get more people registered - which her campaign will do

Valerie Jarrett is irrelevant.

Btw, another GOP contender is throwing his hat in the ring this week- Rand Paul. He's the one who does not believe in vaccinations I think or maybe he's the one who believes feminists caused 911 or is it he who said gays should be put in camps - oh no, that's Ben Carson. He's running too.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE “THE MEDIA IS SAYING THE EMPRESS HAS NO CLOTHES — AND SHE AIN’T NO LADY GODIVA” EDITION

THE POST–E-MAILS–HILLARY LOOKS ANYTHING BUT INEVITABLE AND UNBEATABLE — PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO NOTICE

AND NOW, NY MAGAZINE SAYS OVER AND OVER THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE

THEN AFTER MAKING THAT POINT, NY MAGAZINE TRIES TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAKE THIS COUNTER-POINT ---> BUT MAYBE, IT WON’T MATTER THIS TIME <--- WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT ?


New York Magazine political writer Jason Zengerle did his best to thread the needle of critiquing Hillary Clinton in no uncertain terms, and still saying positive things about her and her prospects. Nonetheless, Zengerle’s article was very clear about what many of her problems really are — pretty much starting off with this: “... [O]ver the past few weeks, the country watched as Clinton dealt with the fallout from the revelation that she used a personal email server while heading up the State Department.... Her supporters worry that, even if Clinton’s private email was legal and innocent, it was a self-inflicted error that has needlessly handed her enemies yet another cudgel to wield against her. But the glee and regret among Republicans and Democrats have been most pronounced over the disastrous press conference Clinton held at the United Nations to try to put the matter to rest, which served to remind them of something many had forgotten: what an abominable candidate she can be....” (See “Is Hillary Clinton Any Good at Running for President ?” by Jason Zengerle, 4/5/15, NY Magazine/ Intelligencer http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign.html]).

Zengerle quoted a Democratic operative who said, “I’m a huge Hillary Clinton fan. I hope desperately she’s the next president of the United States, because I think she’d be a great president. But after that press conference, I do have major concerns about her ability as a campaigner and to get elected.” According to the New York Magazine “intelligencer” — “The performance made a host of other recent Clinton missteps — seemingly minor at the time — suddenly loom larger in the minds of anxious Democrats....”

Any long article that gives us chapter and verse about Hillary Clinton’s faults and foibles as a candidate for president, can’t really be saying anything good about her when it concludes like this: “The question confronting Clinton now is not so much whether she can withstand the scrutiny but the degree of the scrutiny itself. Are we so fixated on diagnosing and dissecting her weaknesses, on scouting all the ways in which she isn’t a particularly gifted political athlete, that the effort becomes, in a sense, self-fulfilling?... In the end, the strength Clinton will need most, and on which the fate of her campaign may rest, will be her ability to make us stop dwelling on her weaknesses.”

Oh, I think I get it. Stop looking at what is wrong with Hillary Clinton and her shortcomings as a candidate for president — just make her the President of the United States, regardless of all that.

Anonymous said...

"HILLARY HAS THE BLACK VOTE"! "HILLARY HAS THE BLACK VOTE"!

After telling everybody how "hipster cool" she is, are you serious?

"Hipster cool" means white people taking black neighborhoods away from black people and thinking that's good for the blacks.

The commentator above takes the "Black Vote" for granted, but so does the rest of the Hillary crowd.

Everybody knows that Hillary will tri-angulate away from her black-voter base as soon as she has to. Just like hubby Bill did when he was Governor of Arkansas and again as President of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Well there is an excitement and energy that the impending Hillary candidacy is generating that we haven't seen in politics in years. It is something our country needs. Even locally the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce is geared up and local merchants in Brooklyn are excited. Once her campaign is in full swing this enthusiasm will expand nationally. As Robert DiNiro said Hillary has earned the presidency and she is certainly more qualified than any potential GOP candidate. She is also more qualified than any one who has ever run in our nation's history.

Anonymous said...

The commentator above has become unhinged with Uncontrollable Hillarity Syndrome.

Anonymous said...

...make that "Uncontrollable Hillary-ty Syndrome"

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE “GARY HART WANTS NO ‘MONKEY BUSINESS’ FROM HILLARY CLINTON” EDITION

FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GARY HART WARNS THAT AMERICA NEEDS TO BE “FRIGHTENED” ABOUT A “BILLION DOLLAR” CAMPAIGN BY HILLARY CLINTON

HART POINTS OUT THAT 50% OF DEMOCRATS ARE NOT FOR HILLARY — AND ASKS: GIVEN ALL OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN CLAIMS, WHY AREN’T 95% OF DEMOCRATS ON HER SIDE

“I’m now told the Clinton campaign intends to raise $1 billion. Now, that ought to frighten every American,” Gary Hart said. According the senior statesman and former Democratic Party superstar, speaking to interviewers from Politico, “... the post-Citizens United campaign finance environment has sullied the presidential process, [Hart] said, benefitting establishment politicians who cater to financial backers....” ( See “Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans” by Jonathan Topaz, 4/5/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html]).

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate is alarmed by current ‘dynastic’ politics. Although he also mentioned both the names “Bush” and “Clinton,” make no mistake, good old Gary Hart was clearly speaking with an anti-Hillary voice in this interview, saying things like this: “The role of money in elections, the 78-year-old Hart said, is a driving force behind the current ‘dynastic’ nature of American politics.... If you’ve got to have a billion dollars to run for president, how many people can do that? Only the Clintons and the Bushes and one or two others.... This country is 330 million people, and we should not be down to two families who are qualified to govern.... When you create dynastic networks, you shut a lot of people out....”

Here’s what Hart said about Hillary the candidate: “The job of a challenger is to force specificity: Here is my plan, now let’s see her plan....” When he was asked whether Clinton has not been adequately specific — he answered using the words “specific” or “specificity” ten (10) times in the half-hour interview; and the former senator said she hasn’t been “pressed” for specificity.

His advice to prospective challengers to Clinton, like O’Malley? — Be specific on policy, play up the generational divide and aggressively court small-money Internet donors. *** Time and again, Hart spoke to the notion of 50 percent, roughly the percentage of Democrats Hart says are not supporting Clinton for president. — “If the polls say she has 50[%], there are 50[%] that she doesn’t have. … Why isn’t she at 95[%]?’...”

Hart also went on at some length extolling Martin O’Malley, a former Hart operative from the Gary Hart good old days. Hart emphasized that O’Malley needs to run a very specific generational campaign against Hillary just like President Obama did in 2008.

Anonymous said...

Gary Hart is irrelevant and his opinion of Hillary means nothing. Presently Hart is the U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland and he obviously has done absolutely nothing to facilitate peace in Belfast if last nights 60 minutes is any measure. So tell Gary Hart to shut up about Hillary and go do his job in the North. He can start by helping to bring to justice the murderers who made the ten McConville children orphans.

Anonymous said...


It's odd that the commentator above would make an issue of such things.
Bringing justice to the murderers of Jean McConville would mean putting, Gerry Adams, Hillary Clinton's table mate at her Honorary Irish Award, on trial for Mrs. McConville's murder along with Ivor Bell.

Anonymous said...

Martin O'Malley will be the next President.