« Gutenberg "sort of okay," say monks | Main | From Boxer to pit bull »

Hillary: Joe Lieberman in drag

By Michael J. Smith on Monday July 17, 2006 10:37 PM

I know, I know, I keep going on about this. But it never fails to amaze me. For a New York politician, fellation of Israel is, you should pardon the expression, de rigueur. But Hillary is not just a New York politician -- not just a Weiner, or a Schumer, or a Nadler, or (may he rest in boiling sulfur) a Moynihan. She expects that some day she is going to go to people in, like, Ohio, and ask them to vote for her. Presumably she thinks that this kind of whoring won't be noticed, or won't bother 'em: from the New York Times:
Speaking at a... rally for Israel... this afternoon, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said she supported taking "whatever steps are necessary" to defend Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria....

[She] said the United States must show "solidarity and support" for Israel in the face of the "unwarranted, unprovoked" seizure of three Israeli soldiers by members of Hamas and Hezbollah, which she referred to as among "the new totalitarians of the 21st century."

"We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones" ....

"It is a message that we want not only those in the Middle East to hear, but the world, because no nation is safe from these terrorist extremists," she said. "They do not believe in human rights, they do not believe in democracy. They are totalitarians, they are the new totalitarians of the 21st century."

Terrorists, extremists, totalitarians -- Hillary m'dear, once you've pulled all the stops out, how do you get any louder? The only item missing is "Nazis", and I bet we hear that analogy from you before the month is out.

Amazing as it may seem, Hillary is not a lunatic. Lieberman is, of course, but I give Hillary more credit -- even though this carpet-chewing word-salad from Hillary is, on its face, no less crazy than Joe's new-caliphate reverie, discussed here a few days ago. Maybe I'm giving Hillary too much credit, but I just can't bring myself to think that she believes this stuff -- in fact, I can't bring myself to think that she believes anything at all. Joe, alas, believes every word of it, I'm afraid.

No, Hillary is reflecting Democratic Party orthodoxy here. That orthodoxy holds that there is and can be no downside to doing and saying whatever Israel wants, because the American people are too stupid to wake up and realize that the candidate seeking their votes has far more loyalty to a foreign power than he or she will ever have to them.

P. T. Barnum once observed that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the public, and Hillary is obviously practicing the Barnum principle. Well. Barnum was no fool, and the cynical view has a certain privileged status -- you might almost say it's the null hypothesis.

Few people who know me well would call me a giddy optimist, but I can't quite embrace the full Barnum/Clinton view. I think the public is going to wake up one of these days -- and I just hope I live to see it.

Comments (9)

js paine:

hill the shill

"They do not believe in human rights
they do not believe in democracy. ...."

ergo they are not jeffersonian liberals ????

no to hill

"They are totalitarians..."

like the ghost of big brother and dr mabuse
hannah arendt
only to hill
since their ...different

"they are the new totalitarians of the 21st century."

(notice she don't say
totalitarians for the 21 st century there's
a whirl pool of bad faith here f ing the meme flow
i suspect )

i am a totalitarian
yes t'is true
i was a 20th century brand

i worked for pol pot

pol pot
in my heart once was
a friend of mine

let me tell u hill
what i 'm sure you know
so where inside that vast sphere of a head
of yours

these hamazzers
and hezzy wezzys
are no totalitarians
what about em
us euro trash out ...
the last thing about
em you'd productively call something "new" to the planet

something 21st century

anymore then a "new" blend of wine grapes

in fact
their faux avatars
using the symbols of the past
to penetrate into the future

self concious
old garb /costume wearers

like the jacobins
dreaming of themselves
in roman togas

they're like
our cromwell
wishing to
stur up
biblical clouds
of righteous thunder
and just like cromwell
its true
they aren't like anything we've scene much of
in euro culture
in a few centuries

our production
of this wine
peaked after all
in the 16th

and respect this reality

despite the fraud and fizzle
of a falwell
or an oral roberts
compare them not to these titans in the desert

why ?

today looked at
as a cracked cultural totality

we euro trash derivatives don't
take the threats
our own very special personal god
seriously enough

Arthur Gilroy:


The public is most likely NOT going to wake up. The ones that ARE awake are not by any means numerous enough to get anything done, and no sea change seems likely in the near future. A sea change depends on the action of a moving force on a given object, and there is NO movement in American politics today. The right remains the right and the left remains the left wing of the right. There is no truth telling going on at any public volume whatsoever, no concerted attempt to form a coalition of working people and minorities to ally with the 48% of voters who voited Democratic last time...there has been no "movement" since the '70s, really. Blogs are all talk, no action, and that's all she wrote.

We have a null, void, no win system going on here, I am afraid, and it is leading straight towards unimaginable tragedy.

The only thing that could possibly awaken the American people is a huge shock of some kind, and the only possible shocks on the horizon short of an act of God that would dwarf Katrina (which did absolutely nothing in the realm of long-term awakening, you will notice) are those that can and most certainly will be blamed on "the enemy".

But belief in the (currently designated) enemy is the state from which Americans need to be awakened.

Catch 22, game over, Vice President Null and President Void remain in power.

Now they may be Democratic Nulls and Voids in the near future (4 to 3 against, at present. Could happen, though.), but the only major figures in American politics who have the temerity to suggest that WE might be the bad guys to some degree are immediately swept under the rug. They are confined to their room like crazy Uncle Ross or Cousin Russ while the guests are in the house. At the 2008 Dem Convention they might just as well go out into the protest pen and join the other loonies for all the attention they are going to get.

The public will "wake up"...too late...as they see the disaster unfold in their bank accounts and/or emergency rooms.

Until then...hunker down.

After...too late.

Bad position.

The ONLY possible light at the end of this evil tunnel through which we are presently hurtling...and it is a dim light which just leads into another tunnel...is the possibility that the Ratpublican war machine which is presently grinding up Lebanon through the bad offices of its attack dog Israel in preparation for an all-out war on the entire Arabian Peninsula will fail to produce enough votes to maintain a majority in the House and/or even the Senate in November.

That is the Ratpub goal.

What matters to BushCo is:

1-Having eventual absolute control of the Arabian Peninsula and the oil that lies beneath it.


2-Having the votes to stay in office so that they CAN exert that control.

In their considered...and on the evidence, quite accurate...opinion, further war is the best way to achieve BOTH of those goals.

We shall see.

Hillary Clinton...at least in piublic...agrees with those goals. She is, just as you say, playing politics. She thinks that she needs the support of the the pro-Israel/anti-Muslim bloc...Jews and non-Jews alike. She is an equal opportunity taker. She may be correct. If she is, she will be our next President, and just like JFK, there she will be, having made promises that she quite possibly either does not mean to keep or flat out CANNOT keep.

And these people PLAY for keeps.

God help her if she finds herself in a position like that. Even a grandmaster chess player eventually cannot see enough moves ahead to win.

God help us pawns and rooks as well.



Duncan Black at the "leftist" weblog Atrios seems to have jumped the shark into the pit of utter dishonesty. As much as he tries to hide it, the fact that he's nothing but a pro-Hillary sycophant comes through louder every day.


While other "progressive Democratic" sites like the Daily Kos have had extensive debates on the invasion of Lebanon and even right-wing pro-Israel hacks like Michael Totten are having second thoughts, Black's said almost nothing about the invasion or Hillary's support for it.

In fact, he's currently engaged in a petty vendetta against Anne Kornbluth for "misquoting" one of Hillary's speeches.

OK, so he's a Democrat, not a leftist and he makes no efforts to hide that. But he's also one of the biggest voices behind the Ned Lamont challenge to Lieberman in Connecticut and doesn't quite seem to be able to admit it to himself that Lieberman's policies and Hillary's are almost identical.

So much for class climbing "progressive Democrats" and their eternal hard on for "country club" centrist Republicans and the WASP democratic elite.


Here's the lead editorial the New York Times would have run on September 12th had it been Israel and not Al Qaeda that attacked the WTC.

September 12th, 2001

The tragic cycle of violence between the American and Saudi people took on a new urgency yesterday as forces allied with Osama Bin Laden entered American airspace in retaliation for the close proximity of American troops to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

A number of casualties were reported in downtown Manhattan and Northern Virginia but the infrastructure of both cities was reported to be largely intact as Al Qaeda's precision missiles hit their targets cleanly. Public transportation in both cities was up and running and Internet and phone services were reported to be getting back to normal.

While most of the world clearly believes that Al Qaeda "overreacted" in response to the continuing occupation of the Arabian Peninsula by heavily armed American militants, the question remains. Osama Bin Laden has repeatedly offered to end hostilities if the American government withdraws from his homeland but up until this point there has been no response from President Bush or Majority Leader Daschle. In fact, President Bush chose to dramatically escalate the tensions by declaring that he would get Bin Laden "dead or alive".

Clearly this is a dangerous time to be engaging in this kind of inflammatory rhetoric and President Bush would do well to moderate his tone, as would mayor Guiliani.

Sheik Bin Laden also has a fair share of the blame and we call on all of the parties to come to the negotiating table to help resolve the situation. This is no time to be talking about getting people dead or alive, Jihad's, Caliphates, or the will of Allah or Jesus. This is a time for hard-nosed, realistic negotiation. The people of New York and Washington as well as Kabul and Riyadh owe it to us.

Tim D:

The problem MJS, as it almost always has been, is that the Palestinians are mostly Muslim. That doesn't earn them much sympathy amongst the masses here, especially in the Red states, where Zionist Christians cheer Israel's ethnic cleansing of the infidels from the Holy Land. In any event, the Israel lobby has rather successfully linked Hamas/Hezbollah with Al-Qaeda and suicide bombings in Israel with the 9/11 attacks (remember that famous line after 9/11: Now we know what it's like in Israel everyday). Lastly, those who might care only ever read/hear about suicide bombers and Islamic militants. Rarely are people of real conscience exposed to the kinds of bone chilling reports from Amnesty, HRW and B'Tselem on the IDF's barbaric and cynical operations in the Occupied Territories. Finkelstein himself pointed out how astonished he was to have his book Beyond Chutzpah meet complete media silence after Dershowitz's highly published campaign to prevent the book from coming out. So what to do?

By the way, anyone happen to read Ralph Nader's letter to Bush on Lebanon?

And the same day Hil making party plans with Rupert the Magnanimous,
Could the the Montagues and the Capulets have agreed on a consensus candidate for 2008?


This Saturday will mark the 60'th anniversary of a terrorist bombing atrocity in the "Holy Land". Curiously, the perpetrators--coyly called 'militants' here who went on to garner Prime Ministerships, Nobel prize, etc.--are regarded as anti-terror fighterspar excellence in liberal circles here.

Arthur Gilroy:

FearlessLeader writes:

"Could the the Montagues and the Capulets have agreed on a consensus candidate for 2008?"

My take ?



TWO consensus candidates.

Just like last time.

John McCain + Hillary Clinton.

Plan A and Plan A Lite.

That way, they CANNOT lose.

Unless one of the candidates tries to pull a doublecross.

And then...well, there's always Dealy Plaza.

Let's Make A Dealy, Pt. II.

The candidates understand this, and like good boxers, they play by the rules.

Or get disqualified.

So it goes.


Tim D:

SK - good point. You know, I was reading an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun after Hamas gained a majority in the Palestinian parliament, in which some woman working for the American Jewish Congress (or some such organization) was chastising the West (read: the U.S.) for not having cut off funds to the Palestinian government after the election of Mahmoud Abbas to the presidency of the PA. Abbas was a terrorist and his election should have triggered sanctions long before Hamas was ever elected.

A few months before I read that, the Guardian featured an article about the legacy of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who had just suffered a massive, incapacitating stroke the month before:

Ariel Sharon was only 25 when he first attracted attention and controversy - and at the very highest level. It was October 1953, and the young army officer was summoned by David Ben-Gurion, Israel's then prime minister.

Lieutenant Sharon had just commanded a raid against a West Bank village called Qibya, a reprisal for the murder of an Israeli woman and two children. Uproar had broken out after his men dynamited 45 houses and killed 67 Palestinian men, women and children, many of them buried under the rubble.

I considered writing a corrective letter, but I knew it wouldn't be published. After all, I am not a member of the Israel lobby - the only credible authority on the Israel-Palestine conflict...

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Monday July 17, 2006 10:37 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Gutenberg "sort of okay," say monks.

The next post in this blog is From Boxer to pit bull.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31