Is Obama More Afraid of Hillary. Or His Wife?
This article is brought to you by the Sore Loser Department of the Jim Greenfield Show (www.jimgreenfieldshow.com)
“The prince should seek to be loved and feared. But if he has to choose between love and fear, it is better to be feared.” Machiavelli, “The Prince”
Hillary supporters have been all over the airways and the internet venting their rage and outrage at the way the Democratic party has treated their candidate. Their righteous indignation is expressed in resentful feminist terminology about how Hillary was cast aside by sexism as the party chose a less qualified black man over a more qualified white woman. These old gals thought their day had finally arrived and they’re furious that Hillary has been treated so badly. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives watch gleefully from the sidelines as the identity based race/gender politics favored by Democrats plays itself out to its self-destructive logical conclusion.
What is really going on here? What is really going on is that Hillary is manipulating the feminist movement to fire a shot across the bough of the Obama campaign. The message to Obama: either put Hillary on the ticket as vp or you lose in November.
All the feminist rhetoric about how the obvious choice for the nomination was cast aside in favor of a less qualified man is, of course, totally inauthentic and bogus. Everything the cunning Hillary Clinton does is coldly calculated to achieve a single goal. This woman hasn’t had a spontaneous moment in public in 20 yrs.
The truth is that Obama’s rise and Hillary’s demise has nothing to do with sexism. What happened is very simple: the voters liked Obama better. And why the hell shdn’t they? Hillary’s a nasty, power hungry witch, and Obama is a likeable, eloquent young man who knows how to sway the masses with lofty, euphonious, speeches that are completely meaningless. So a majority of the voters chose him and therefore he wins. This is called - democracy.
Hillary is manipulating feminist irrationality, exploiting her hormone driven enraged feminist followers into a fighting force which can’t win an election, but which can cost Obama an election. Is it really a surprise to anyone that these feminists could become so irate, screaming their charges of sexism, merely because their girl lost? Obama won fair and square but don’t tell this to these angry women. Hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned.
But the fact that the paranoid fury of her feminist followers is unreasoning doesn’t mean Hillary can’t exploit it to fuel her unbounded drive for power. Her followers can threaten revenge by not voting in November, or even voting for McCain. Feminists are an important Democratic constituency, along with all the other disgruntled losers who make up the base of the Democratic party, and if they stay home Obama loses.
Obama’s dilemma is that after the dirty Clintonesque campaign she ran against him, he undoubtedly hates Hillary. Even more significantly, Obama’s dominatrix wife Michelle hates Hillary. Michelle Obama certainly doesn’t need competition from another dominatrix. Michelle has reportedly told her husband that if he takes Hillary on the ticket as vp, she, Michelle, will refuse to put on leathers and spank him or whip him for an entire year.
And if fear that Michelle will punish him isn’t reason enough for Obama to not cave in to Hillary’s demand for the vp spot, there are also political risks. Obama knows a lot of voters hate Hillary‘s guts. Not to mention the risk that Republicans will bring up even more dirt from the mountain of dirt from H’s sordid career.
Even worse, Obama may be smart enough to realize that if he wins the election, with Hillary as his vp, the Clinton daggers will be drawn from inauguration day on, assuring he won’t survive his first term in office. Obama will have to watch his back every second. As even the usually mealy-mouthed moderate David Gergen said, with uncharacteristic poigniancy: if Hillary is vp Obama will have to hire a food taster.
Actually I suspect that, unlike the never subtle Lyndon Johnson, the Clintons are more likely to resort to character assassination rather than physical assassination. But one way or another, by hook or by crook, this vicious meglomaniacal feminist witch will await her opportunity to destroy Obama and bring him down, as this is the only path left to fulfill her insatiable lust for the Presidency.
Which brings us back to the opening quote from Machiavelli (the Karl Rove or James Carville of his day). Hillary knows she can’t make Obama lover her. (Hell, she couldn’t even make Bill love her.) But she can make Obama fear her. Her strategy: force him to put her on the ticket out of fear of losing if he fails to do so. The only question to which we don’t yet know the answer: which powerful female is Obama more scared of his domineering wife or his domineering enemy?
Given that McCain is likely to run, at best, a barely competent campaign in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic year, McCain’s best hope for victory is that Obama is more afraid of his wife, and refuses to put Hillary on the ticket. Hillary then retaliates by leading her legions of irate feminists in open revolt against her party’s candidate, throwing the election to McCain, in the hopes that if she destroys Obama she can rise from the ashes and live to fight another day, i.e. in 2012. Of course Hillary is delusional. Such a strategy is doomed because Democratic voters won’t forgive her in 2012 if she keeps their boy from winning in 2008. But she might sabotage Obama anyway. Desperate housewives do desperate things.
One last thought. As Americans head into the election this fall, if Obama wins, has it occurred to you that after he serves eight years, Michelle’s gonna want her turn as President? Oh my God, here we go again.
Serving all of humanity, but mainly serving myself, this is Jim Greenfield