Tuesday, July 26, 2016

il miglior fabbro

Reporting from exotic Wichita, our man Bud Norman provides a tidy summation:
Trump prevailed with such unprecedented tactics against a crowded field of better-funded and better-organized Republican challengers, who varied in quality but in every case were more appealing public figures than Clinton. What those pleading-for-calm pundits won’t tell their readers is that Clinton is such a thoroughly awful candidate in every way that her unfavorable ratings are now even higher than Trump’s, which is saying something that should provoke a widespread and bipartisan panic throughout the land. Her tenure as First Lady was mostly spent enabling her perv husband’s sexual assaults, which Democrats at the time applauded because at least he was pro-abortion, but these days the feminist wing that was supposed to go all sisterly solidarity for the First Woman President are carrying mattresses around campus to protest a mythical “culture of rape” with the Republican nominee praising the good works of Planned Parenthood and quite obviously insincere about his recently acquired anti-abortion principles nobody’s all that anxious about the looming theocracy these days. Her brief and inconsequential time in the Senate was mostly spent plotting her presidential run, which she lost to an even more junior and inconsequential Senator, and her run as Secretary of State was one disaster after another. She’s humorless, apparently in ill health, and every bit as mean and morally compromised as her more entertaining and robust opponent.
Emphasis mine. Yes, I know, entertainment shouldn't be a factor, which Sarah Silverman conclusively proved last night. Trump may have a bizarre orange glow, but he's otherwise healthy. I continue to think Clinton is not particularly healthy. Her moment was eight years ago, but unfortunately for her, she ran into Barack Obama. And now she strides on stage as a political Miss Havisham.


Bike Bubba said...

Makes almost a case for what Brian was trying to claim; that she'd be status quo, with my basic objection that the status quo appears to be a criminal conspiracy in a lot of places. One might even add that if she is indeed in ill health--I'm in no position to judge--she could end up being ineffective, which given my view of her politics, would be a good thing.

The flip side is that when you get that 3am call and there is no YouTube guy to blame, such lethargy can be deadly to a lot of innocents, and history (Harding, Wilson) suggests that Presidents in ill health are easily manipulated by their handlers as well--Teapot Dome, etc.. Combine that with at least 34 Senators who will not vote to convict, it's a dangerous situation.

Gonna take my risks with the guy that has pissed people off from both parties. Either he repents and gets something done right, or he doesn't and things don't get done, and if he misbehaves, he's gone. Would be a nice change from 1993-2000 and 2009-2016, to put it mildly.

Mr. D said...

Perception is reality and the perception about Hillary's health is out there. Trump's "low energy" shots at "Jeb!" were effective and the Clintons both look pretty ragged. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

jerrye92002 said...

"...Clinton is such a thoroughly awful candidate in every way that her unfavorable ratings are now even higher than Trump’s..."

Fascinating, but there are two differences. First, Trump's unfavorables are largely media-manufactured, while Clinton's have been rising despite media whitewashing. Second, Trump's story about helping America is real, and Hillary's is as phony as a three-dollar Bill.