America’s right still hates Hillary Clinton. And it still can’t stop her

The next president and the people she drives crazy

8 February 2014

 Atlanta, Georgia

Who thinks Hillary Clinton is the nastiest woman in the world? The American Spectator once called her ‘the Lady Macbeth of Arkansas’ while US News and World Report described her as ‘the overbearing yuppie wife from hell’. But that was back in the nineties. Surely such vitriol is a thing of the past? No. The founders of ‘StopHillaryPAC’ say on their website that they want to ‘save America from the destructive far-left liberal cancer’ that Mrs Clinton represents. Do they wish her actual harm? Well, they plan to ‘STOP Hillary dead in her tracks’ but, you know… just politically.

They’re not the only ones. The similarly named group ‘StopHillary2016’ is equally keen to deal out at least a metaphorical death, as is the Republican dirt-grubbing group AmericaRisingPAC. Republican National Committee leader Reince Priebus said on a radio show last year that AmericaRising was searching the record as far back as it could: ‘I think that there’s a lot of rough stuff coming out on Hillary that . . . you know, it doesn’t just come out of thin air. It comes from somewhere. And sometimes, it comes from us.’

When the networks CNN and NBC considered making documentaries about Mrs Clinton’s extraordinary career, Priebus blustered that these would be, in effect, campaign commercials for the next Democratic candidate. He then orchestrated passage of a Republican resolution to boycott the networks as carriers of the 2016 pre-election debates if they went ahead with the documentaries (they didn’t).

President Obama Awards Presidential Medal Of Freedom

Claim your gift

How don’t Republicans love Hillary? Let me count the ways. She has a long record of being pro-choice on the abortion question and of favouring gay marriage. She favours a comprehensive national healthcare system, much stricter gun control, effective trade unions, an amnesty for long-term illegal immigrants, and deficit spending in recessions by a strong federal government. But what Republicans hate most of all is that she’s the overwhelming favourite to win the White House in 2016.

Mainstream pundits credit Mrs Clinton with improving her public image during her four years as Obama’s Secretary of State and achieving the aura of an elder statesman. The Hillary haters, by contrast, argue that she was a hopeless diplomat. They single out the 2012 killing of Chris Stevens, America’s ambassador to Libya, as a national disgrace, and say it was her fault. The terrorist attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi that September offers a rich vein for conspiracy theorists to mine, and there are plenty of politically motivated miners ready with their picks and shovels. Clinton herself accepted responsibility for the tragedy and admitted to a lack of foresight, but no serious evidence supported her enemies’ claim that she was recklessly naive or negligent about the Libyan situation. When she went to hospital with a concussion near the end of her term of office, Tea Party publicists sneered that she couldn’t take the political heat and was really suffering from ‘Benghazi Flu’.

Women have come a long way in public life even since 1990. It’s no longer permissible to say that you don’t like Hillary because she’s a woman, but there are ways of finessing the point. Some Tea Party writers argue that by standing by Bill despite his White  House shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky, she sullied the image of American wifeliness. She was openly political from the beginning, where most first ladies adopt uncontroversial good causes. Only Eleanor Roosevelt, another liberal ex-first lady, has provoked such passionate opposition from the right.

The real issue is that Hillary Clinton is such a powerful frontrunner. Current polls among Democrats and independents give her about 73 per cent of their votes. Joe Biden, the current vice-president and (in theory) a likely successor to Obama, gets 10 per cent. Ironically, Democratic ‘progressives’ aren’t too sure about Mrs Clinton because they think she’s too much of a centrist, too well connected with the various establishments of government, corporations and the military. They’re keen on Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who’s markedly more liberal. On the other hand, they share their Republican antagonists’ view that Clinton, if she does in fact run for her party’s nomination, will be very hard for any Democrat to beat.

The Republicans are making matters no easier for themselves, because every time they find a potential new David to challenge the Hillary Goliath they have, almost as quickly, to abandon him. New Jersey governor Chris Christie is the latest casualty. No sooner had he developed a golden reputation for high-mindedness and skill at bipartisanship than his presidential aspirations turned to dross. Rivals leaked the story that his lieutenants created traffic jams on the overburdened highways into New York City in retaliation against a local Democratic mayor who would not support him. Result: weeping schoolchildren stuck in their buses and a very hard-to-remove blot on Christie’s escutcheon.

Hillary herself, meanwhile, is in a terrific position. She has been avoiding the question of her candidacy for a year now, ever since she stepped down from State in favour of John Kerry. She hasn’t been an active politician since 2008, when her apparently certain ascension to the White House was snatched away by Obama. For the last five years she’s been able to pose first as a loyal Obama lieutenant, then as a political elder, standing above the fray.

If and when she returns to the arena, she’ll calibrate her statements to suit the moment. Her potential Democratic rivals, by contrast, are current office-holders who have to make statements and take positions every day, some of which are likely to come back to haunt them. Although she carries plenty of baggage from her days in Arkansas and in Bill’s White House, it’s baggage so old by now as to seem a little threadbare — no longer likely to damage her cause.

That’s an impressive advantage, all the more gratifying for someone who has no need to worry about name recognition. Hillary’s antagonists are doing much of her work for her — keeping her name in the news while telling cheap and implausible stories about her. Almost another three years must pass before the next presidential election. But will she run? Groups like ‘ReadyForHillaryPAC’ keep up a steady patter of seductive murmuring, telling her every day how marvellous she is. It’s hard not to believe that in the end Mrs Clinton will be like Byron’s Julia, who, ‘whispering “I will ne’er consent” — consented!’

Patrick Allitt is Cahoon Family Professor of American History at Emory University, Georgia. His book A Climate of Crisis: America in the Age of Environmentalism will be published in March.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • zanzamander

    Personally, I despise all Democrats, but anybody who can bring US down on its knees in front of islam(ists), then it’d have to be Democrats. Anybody who cannot capitulate to Islamist terrorists fast enough, then it’d be your Democrats. Anybody who can destroy the US economy and its so called military might without even trying, then it’d be Democrats.

    So as someone who would dearly love to see US destroyed, I sincerely hope this woman wins and continue the great work Obama has done so far on that score.

    • Clay Poupart

      Hysteria is an unbecoming quality in a grown person. Assuming you are one.

      • LieutenantCharlie

        As a lifelong Democrat who loved his Party,…….. today’s Democrat Party has gone so far left, that the Communist Party is now to their right.
        The correct name today is “THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY,…….which was, and is in Germany still called the NAZI Party.
        Which explains, of course, why the Democrats are using Lies, Misinformation, and Political Propaganda to berate all real Americans.

        • RightwingPhallacy

          yay! Socialism time!

        • Newcombe

          Which explains, of course, why the Democrats are using Lies,
          Misinformation, and Political Propaganda to berate all real Americans.

          And almost the entire US media is in their pockets. Journalism, if it meant fighting for the common Joe, protecting him from the excesses of the government, is a joke is US. They’re all dancing to the tune of Obama, giving him free pass every time – all because they want to be liked by Arabs and Islamists. US media is a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

        • Fraz Glencross

          Sorry, but that really is utter rubbish. You clearly have no clue as to what socialism or communism really is to say such a thing. If i lived in the US i would be inclined to vote republican but they are now so far to the right and full of religious maniacs that would turn the US into an intolerant christian version of Iran that i would be scared to. Until the republicans distance themselves from the christian right and the nut case tea party types i will always be rooting for the democrats.

          • James Hedman

            Don’t believe all the propaganda you hear on CNN. The Tea Party are nothing but traditional Republican middle class fiscal skinflints. Which considering the imminent bankruptcy of the US government maybe isn’t such a bad thing.

            To get back on an even keel any combination of tax hikes and/or spending cuts totaling 35% would do it. I’d start with a 75% reduction in military spending to get the ball rolling.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Well, I am an American, and a Jew. I fail to see how advancing the islamic Sharia agenda forwards US interests.

          • James Hedman

            American Jews are for unrestricted immigration into the US including Wahabist Sunni Muslims.

          • Occam’s Tool

            No, they aren’t. Thanks.
            Incidentally, I attended the same high school Hillary Clinton did. I know the area she grew up in intimately. I shudder to think that she will be MY next POTUS.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            But Democrat vs. Republican – isn’t it a depressing choice to make? Oddly enough, as politics of both parties become more unreal their supporters insist ever more strongly that theirs is the only reasonable outfit

    • HookesLaw

      You are a nasty thick prat.

      • Newcombe

        You are a nasty thick prat.

        Funny, I always bark that at the TV when I hear a Democrat speak.

    • PeteMJoy

      20 upticks for this drivelling shite? Jeez…. The US economy was busted by the time Dubya left office, though Reagan’s deficits laid the groundwork. Bill Clinton, by contrast, ran a surplus. And if Obama and Kerry are on their knees to Moslems, you ass-scratching redneck oaf, how come he’s mashing dozens of them – men, women and children alike – in drone strikes every week? What do you want? Mass nuclear strikes on the entire Moslem world from Morocco to Indonesia, I suppose, and Paris for good measure?

      Guest, are you by any chance David Frum?

      If only the US State WOULD capitulate, shove off home to its own secure, continent-sized homeland and focus on fixing its own very real domestic problems. Fat chance of that, under Obama, Clinton or any other Democrat you care to mention. Rand Paul might just manage a small step or two in that direction, though it’s a longshot. I can’t see AIPAC allowing him to win the Presidency.

  • Bobby Mac

    Of course they hate Hillary. They also hated Bill and then Barack Obama even more. The hatred – not just disagreement – is the clue to the Republicans electoral problems. They are unpleasant, extremist ranters who lack the intellectual discipline to understand why a majority of Americans preferred Bill and Barack to their own flawed candidates – twice in both cases. I’m afraid that until the Republican party rejoins the rational world, they will continue to be haters and losers.

    • La Fold

      Just like they preferred Bush Jr, twice as well if my memory serves me right.

      • Bobby Mac

        Yep, and ended up bitterly regretting it judging by his second-term approval ratings. But at least George W, was a self-proclaimed compassionate conservative – you can’t find many of those in the Republican party today.

      • LieutenantCharlie

        Bush should also (just like Obama and the Clintons), should be tried for War Crimes against the Sovereign Country of Iraq.
        It is truly time to rid America of the Criminals like Bush, Obama, and the Clintons, so that America can return to its’ former Good, and Honest Policies, that were dedicated to truth and Justice for all.

        • tm7devils

          You must believe in the Tooth Fairy…there hasn’t been “truth and justice for all” in more than 35 years.(actually 290 years…er…actually 200,000 years-or more)…welcome to the Human Race.

    • LieutenantCharlie

      Slick Willie murdered Soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia by refusing to provide the Armored Personnel Carriers that were requested over and over by the United States Army…..’BLACKHAWK DOWN’.
      Of course we all know that Benghazi Rose Clinton conspired to murder four Americans in Benghazi, Libya……and as a lifelong Democrat I will say all real Americans hate the Clintons for their Murderous failures as Leaders.

      • James Hedman

        America should never have been in Somalia in the first place. We haven’t had a successful war since 1945.

  • tm7devils

    Puh-leeze! Hillary is just (Obama/Bush/B. Clinton) in a dress. We need someone who will ‘kick ass and take names’ – Bernie or Elizabeth will do (one could only hope). Until we rein in Wall Street and the Banks, and put corporate felonious miscreants in jail – we will see no change – in fact it will probably get worse.

    • LieutenantCharlie

      We must first stop electing Politicians, and start electing real Honest, everyday Americans.
      Both Parties are full of Criminal and Corrupt Lawyers, so if must not allow Lawyers to run for Office.

      • tm7devils

        When you wake-up, if you ever do, I hope your run-in with reality doesn’t damage your psyche too much…

        • James Hedman

          The only effective strategies against the military/industrial/security regime running the country is to work at a bottom up level to break apart the Union.

          1) Tax avoidance in any way possible without actually going to jail.

          2) Nullification at the personal, local, and state government level. Jury nullification of unfair or unfairly applied laws laws is why juries came into being in the first place. Refusal to join the military or police therefore further alienating them at a personal level from the general population. Refusal of elected county sheriffs to co-operate with federal law enforcement in bogus “anti-terrorist” programs secretly aimed at the citizenry at large. Non-participation in federal government programs for schools, roads, welfare etc. even at the cost of losing federal funds. Passing of state laws contradicting federal authority over drugs and intrastate commerce.

          3) Outright secession when the dollar collapses and the feds no longer can finance their schemes of national and international hegemony.

          The existence of the US federal system facilitates this sort of resistance and is already starting to happen despite Obama’s efforts to rule by decree (executive orders) from Washington D.C.

          No state apparatus can exist without at least tacit support of the governed. Eliminate that tacit support whenever and wherever possible. The Union has been a cancer upon the world since at least 1861 that must be starved of resources and support.

          • PeteMJoy

            Now you’re talking some sense. Yes, I agree – Abe Lincoln was a man of blood, a hypocrit and warmonger and his legacy is an America in chains. Americans need to rise up again and put the Federal Government out of business. Too many vested interest bums on the payroll to make that a likely proposition, but if each man stopped paying and just turned his back on the state in every way possible then we might just get somewhere.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Terrible thing, the USA. Saved Britain’s tail twice in the last 100 years.

          • James Hedman

            Two wars that you never should have fought.

  • LieutenantCharlie

    As an Ex-Police Officer, and after reviewing the evidence, it is clear that Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama conspired, to permit the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. This conspiracy was for the simple Political reasons, and to promote Obama’s re-election. Therefore both should be Arrested and Charged with Negligent Homicide.

    • RightwingPhallacy

      Its clear you have no clue. You dont vote do you?

    • PeteMJoy

      What absolute nonsense. It is ‘clear’, is it, that the POTUS and S of S ‘conspired’ to, er, ‘permit’ the murder of Americans by a Libyan guerrilla faction to promote the POTUS’s re-election? And how would it have that effect, pray tell, particularly if they were to blame for it? And I love your Use of Capitals, Sheriff Wingnut.

      Well, it is clear to me, as someone who knows his ass from his elbow, that from your filthy slandering of the POTUS and by extension the US Constitution, the US people and the American flag you are guilty of treason, you unAmerican sonofabitch, and should therefore be convicted, taken to a Federal prison, put into orange pyjamas and electrocuted, you pig-ignorant dumbwit.

      • Occam’s Tool

        You really can’t “slander” the POTUS. Check out the little thing called freedom of political speech, Pete.

      • James Hedman

        The Unite States Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is protected political speech.

    • James Hedman

      There isn’t an American president since Coolidge (and most of his predecessors too) that hasn’t been guilty of murder and high treason.

  • Terence Hale

    America’s right still hates Hillary Clinton. And it still can’t stop her. Mrs. Clinton has a lot of political weights, the Vince Foster suicide, the dead Americans in Benghazi, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy and more. The American Republicans will know how to deal with such.

  • larussophobe

    Hillary beat Barrack in New York. She beat him in California. She beat him in Texas. But she was still stopped by Barack, a candidate who was totally unqualified for office, simply because he was charismatic. A charismatic Republican candidate can stop Hillary just the same way.

  • BarkingAtTreehuggers

    All we need is Jeb in the race for the last punter to realise that this once-great nation has long been modelling itself on North Korea.

    • HookesLaw

      Jeb is in fact the best bet the Republicans have for a win. But he has no interest in slanging it out with the loony right. He will wait to see if he is drafted or leave it for George P in 2020

  • HookesLaw

    Can anyone stop Hillary? The stupid thick Right in america are making life wasy for her. in particular the tea party nut job loony toon Right who will turn off vast numbers of voters in their swathes. And of course the antics of the loonies will split the right and cause dissent.
    The loony Right in America do not want to compromise to pick a candidate with wide appeal – they are only concerned with the purity of their own narrow prejudice. They are laying the red carpet out for Hillary or whoever it is gets the nomination.
    Those tempted to follow the loony kipper route in the UK should take note. The loony right gifted Obama 2 elections.

    • Owen_Morgan

      Absolute garbage. The Republicans gifted Obama two elections by selecting two atrocious candidates. Romney is a decent man and clearly a very competent one, but refused to put up a fight against Obama. He even admitted that he didn’t really want to be President. McCain is indistinguishable from a Democrat and has all the charisma and intellect of a dung-beetle. Neither Romney nor McCain represents the Right, let alone the Tea Party.

      By the way, if you’re going to call people “stupid”, “thick” and “loony”, perhaps you should be able to spell “easy”. It’s pretty simple.

      PS: This article is absolutely abysmal.

      • PeteMJoy

        McCain was a good candidate. It was America’s and the world’s loss that he didn’t get the nomination in 1999. Then we’d have been spared the catastrophe of the Cheney-Bush neocon presidency and all the waste of blood and money that followed from it. Unlike that chickenhawk/ draft-dodger combo, McCain had been in a war, knew personally what war meant and would have done his damnedest to keep America out of another one.

      • PeteMJoy

        Didn’t seem to stop you reading it.

    • NotYouNotSure

      The last two Republican candidates were known to be moderates, both spouted all the usual crap that you spout, and they lost. And do you know why they lost, because America has elected a new people, the kind that will never vote for you no matter how much you beg and pander to them.

  • James Hedman

    “It’s no longer permissible to say that you don’t like Hillary because she’s a woman”

    One of the reasons I don’t like Hillary is because she is a woman and they should never have been given the vote.

    • Fraz Glencross


      • James Hedman

        Not only should women not be given the franchise but neither should anyone who is not a White, male, tax paying, property owner, or anyone who works for or does business with the government as those who do have a fundamental conflict of interest.

        • PeteMJoy

          Well I’m all for restricting the franchise to solid citizens rather than bums, Hedman. But I can see a practical difficulty: how white is White? Do Jews count? Do tax-paying Latinos get the vote? Or Asians? Or mulattos? Do quadroons get a quarter vote?

          Perhaps the Confederate states should have another go at secession. What are your thoughts on the reinstitution of slavery, Hedman? Fourteen hours picking cotton would sure keep the bums off of crack, wouldn’t it?

          As for the women thing, I guess logically we’d therefore better not have women in the professions either. And so why waste university and high school places on them? They should stay at home having children and cooking friend chicken and prawn gumbo. With these good, Godly family-friendly Republican policies, the fact that so few women vote Republican just demonstrates their weak-minded incapacity to exercise the vote at all. Just like negroes.

          And there you have it: the Republican Party’s strategic demographic problems solved at a stroke. 2016’s won already. What could possibly go wrong?

          • James Hedman

            White women who are married vote overwhelmingly Republican. The real question is what could possibly be worse than staying the present course?

  • Curnonsky

    Of all the talented American writers to choose from to cover Hillary Clinton, the Spectator turns to some obscure academic who, completely predictably, churns out the usual litany of bile against anyone who dares to oppose the inexorable rise of Lady Macbeth of Little Rock.

    Here is the basic problem with Hillary Clinton: what on earth has she accomplished in her career? Her “healthcare” plan went nowhere, she was singularly undistinguished as a senator (name one bill she originated), and of course her tenure as Secretary of State consisted of failure after failure (Benghazi being just one – remember the “reset” with Russia?). Mostly what we have seen is the ugly spectacle of an ambitious but untalented woman clawing her way to the top and littering the ground with those who stood in her way.

    And let us not forget the nasty odor of corruption that has hung about the Clintons ever since they were small-time hustlers back in hillbilly-land. From “investments” that mysteriously pay off, to the Clinton Global Initiative’s well-documented cash-for-influence machine the Clintons have managed to line their pockets nicely at others’ expense (she recently took $450,000 from Goldman Sachs to deliver two speeches).

    So please, spare us the righteous froth and answer this question: what qualifies her to be President?

    • Blackhawk

      Well said, Curnonsky. To answer your question what qualifies her to be President?

      Her surname. That’s about all I can come up with.

      • Richard

        What qualified Obama?

        • Occam’s Tool

          Nothing. And man, are we paying for it.
          Bush, on the other hand, was a VERY successful governor of Texas before becoming POTUS. He was also a fighter pilot (not draft dodger—that was Clinton), and ran a successful business.
          Hillary will be a nightmare from Hell should she be elected. Check out Tom Kratman’s “Caliphate” to get an idea of Hillary in office.

          • Jimothy Jones

            I’ll be voting for her. Can’t wait to pop a bottle of champagne in 2016. It’s fun watching you guys act like sore losers.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Yes, you are high. And that makes you a perfect Hillary voter.

    • PeteMJoy

      What qualified Bush II, a reformed drunk, drug-user and draft-dodger? Or Obama, a political neophyte whose only talent is speechifying? Or any of Ukania’s recent PMs for that office? Judged on experience of government, she’s unusually well-qualified. Our times don’t create Churchills and Eisenhowers. The talent pool is limited. Personally I’m hoping for a Rand Paul presidency, but the Clinton name is liable to count for something with the US masses. The nineties were a good time for most folk, peaceful and prosperous. Come back Bill Clinton and John Major, all is forgiven…

  • alabenn

    She will not get the nomination, she is a loser, she hangs on the coattails of others, when she has to stand up on her own she fails.
    She had her husband in the White House with all the political back up to write her own health care bill, it was a joke, she failed not because of a virulent opposition, it failed because she did not know how bad it was framed, she is a vacuous airhead and her failures as Secretary of State are there to see, and what you mainly see, is contempt for the US around the world, enemies and friends alike despise her and Obama, Obama has picked another witless fool in Kerry, he must like them really dim in case they show his lack of authority in stark relief.
    The writer of this article is lacking in impartial judgement, and it shows.

    • LeonG

      Beyonce will receive the presidential nomination for 2016

  • Alex

    Left wing tripe. Pro choice (to kill), like climate change (the political money printing scam), partial gun control (what is that about?), effective and corrupt trade unions (vote stealers), comprehensive NHS (no such thing), amnesty for illegals (produces more lemmings), deficit spending (to hell with the kids), strong government (cause you don’t count).
    The main reason she won’t be elected is that after 8 years of Obamerica, we won’t stand for 8 years of Hillerica.

    • PeteMJoy

      But you stood for eight years of DubyaCheneymerica, didn’t you? It was Dubya-Cheney who squandered the US taxpayers’ trillion bucks on failed wars in the Middle East and it was on their watch that the banks imploded. It was THEIR messes that Obama inherited.

      And you have had partial gun control for decades: try owning a fully automatic MI6 in any US state, let alone a heavy machine gun, RPG7, flamethrower, nerve agent shell or Scud missile and see how long it is before the ATF kick your front door in. So much for ‘shall not be infringed’…

      • Alex

        Full of Joy Peter? Much better for lefties like you to attack and bad mouth others than defend Obamerica that is going dow the drain. Obama has done the impossible, by make things worse after Bush.

      • James Hedman

        Automatic weapons are legal in many states and the feds don’t care as long it is on the permitted weapons list and you pay them a $200 tax.

  • callingallcomets

    Sorry – Allitt wrote this “David Frum has spoken for American conservatism for a generation – now he despairs of it David Frum has been a major force in American conservatism for more than 20 years” …..anyone who sees Frum in this way does not deserve to be taken seriously. Frum only speaks for those Republicans with a Washington Post/New York times seal of approval. he has no following outside the cosy club of GOP country club politicians/lobbyists and “consultants who infest Washington. Frum poured scorn on The Tea Party from the minute it appeared even when that movement helped the GOP gain one of the biggest swings ever in 2010. Allitt is from the same club as Frum.

    What puzzles me is how the Speccie & Telegraph have never used any of the many pro tea party conservatives like Prof. Jacobson at the excellent and well informed blog http://legalinsurrection.com/ but then the “conservatism” of Spec/Tel always has been rather top down…

    • James Hedman

      David Frum speaks for no one but Israel. He is a “neocon” (aka ex-Trotskyite) Canadian Jew who doesn’t have an genuine American bone in his body.

      • callingallcomets

        Ah…I see it is all the fault of those Jews…I obviously haven’t been reading the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”

        • James Hedman

          What does some Tsarist Russian anti-Semitic propaganda have to do with today’s David Frum constantly undermining American interests in favor of continuation of the century-old Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs?

          • PeteMJoy

            Quite so. The answer is ‘nothing at all’ – but it’s a useful bit of deflective white noise with which to block the airwaves while the work of seizing prime Lebensraum and driving the remaining natives onto miserable, shrinking fenced-in reservations goes on apace.

          • James Hedman

            Well, getting back on topic, Hillary is all for it too. This will garner her mega-bucks to finance her return to power.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Yup. That’s why they are growing in population—because of all that “ethnic cleansing.” And that’s why the Palestinian children freely use Israeli hospitals—when they are not trying to kill Israeli MDs and nurses.

          • James Hedman

            You clearly don’t understand the difference between ethnic cleansing and killing. Mere displacement of folks from their homes and territory is ethnic cleansing.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Again, not displacing, and there are 1 million Palestinian Arab Israeli citizens with many more rights than any Arab state allows, including the right to be MKs.
            A guy named Hedman needs to watch the lecturing, ya know.

        • PeteMJoy

          Well, Frum actually IS a Canadian Jew – the very name means ‘devout’ in Yiddish – and yes, it so happens that what he sees as the strategic welfare of Israel appears to be extremely prominent among his public concerns. His pronouncements on foreign policy matters, particularly though not exclusively on Iran, are very clearly shaped by the Beitarist-Likudnik Israeli agenda. Oy veh! It is hardly ‘anti-Semitic’ to notice that. Indeed, it would be naive and absurd not to.

          I, of course, am quite happy to accept that Mr Frum’s own ethnicity and, er, dual Canadian-Israeli nationality have absolutely no connection with his expressed view that the massively indebted United States, faced with manifold domestic problems, er, has a ‘vital strategic interest’ in continued long-term military and political domination of the Middle East so as to ensure the security of a small, economically insignificant, WMD-armed brass-knuckled semi-theocracy that brazenly flouts international law, plugs its ears and screeches ‘anti-Semite’ at any and all critics and treats even Reform Jews as second class citizens.

          Yep, ‘comets’, Mr Frum’s ethnicity and dual citizenship are irrelevant and anyone who could even imagine otherwise is, er, committing a vile blood libel on a par with the Spanish Inquisition. After all, many other Jews in North America are, er, equally vocal in demanding an end to sanctions and a rapprochement with Tehran, including active technical assistance in developing an Iranian independent nuclear deterrent….

          • callingallcomets

            My original point (before the Ron Paul brigade appeared) was that Frum was and still is very much part of the GOP establishment and was always persona non grata with the Tea Party…remember, he was one of the founders of the No Labels group which sought to neutralise the Tea Party insurgence.
            To suggest, as Mr Allitt does, that Frum is an incredibly important and influential “conservative” voice is misleading in the extreme. In the 2010 and 2012 elections how effective was Frum’s endorsement compared to Sarah Palin?
            I have never come across any Tea Party supporter who who saw Frum as an agent of the mythical world wide Jewish conspiracy – but they did see Frum and Brooks and others as pimps of the Let’s not be nasty to Obama cartel of pet Republicans so beloved of the NYT and Washington Post

          • Occam’s Tool

            Thank you, James and Pete StormFront.

          • Occam’s Tool

            Economically insignificant is NOT true. What country publishes the highest number of scientific papers per capita in the world?

      • Jeffrey Vernon

        Trotskyite? He was a 14-year old election volunteer for a social democrat kind of party in Ontario. I don’t have an American bone in my body either, but that doesn’t disqualify me from talking about US affairs.

        • James Hedman

          Hahahahaha! Social democratic parties are invariably Marxist in their rhetoric and intent. Equality at any cost is always their agenda however much it flies in the face of reality.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Well, that gives you an easy win. A centrist party with a welfarist streak is ‘really’ trotskyite. Therefore Frum, who distributed leaflets for one week when he was 14, is a trotskyite. (What IS a trotskyite, by the way?)

            You may like to know that Frum read ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ after the election campaign and reacted the same way as you – he wanted nothing to do with the soft left any more. At university he was a bone-dry conservative.

  • Redneck

    Dear Mr Allitt,

    Given your comments, may I ask for your opinion: at what level was the decision to not raise any defence of the murdered American citizens in Benghazi made?

    Was it at the Consulate?
    The CIA or equivalent?
    Mrs Clinton?
    President Obama?

    Thank you.

  • James Tetreault

    Hillary Clinton was supposedly the inevitable blue team nominee back in 2008. Remember that? But we all know that a Hillary Clinton presidency turned out to be a fate that was not quite unavoidable.

    There are some american women who will vote for her not matter what. But these are mostly blue team pompom waving drones who would never vote for a red team candidate no matter what. I’ve talked to someone like this. She wasn’t deterred in the least by her inability to give reasons for why she would vote for Ms. Clinton.

    But there are also a fair number of american leftists who are disgusted by Obama and could not bear to vote for another blue teamer who would do nothing about the comical and tragic national security apparatus. And there are a fair number of american lefttists (and centrists and libertarians and red teamers) who hate the dynastic house of Bush, house of Clinton stuff and will oppose her on that basis.

    These people will hurt her by simply staying home.

    I await, with expectation of comic delight, a blue or red team candidate who throws back in her face her slogan from her 2008 campaign. She ran in the blue team primaries by asking voters who they wanted to be answering the phone late at night in some time of crisis. We now know from Benghazi that if Hillary Clinton answers that phone she’s perfectly fine with leaving you to die.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    Professor Allitt – the Obama Administration (including Mrs Clinton) pretended that the long planned terrorist assault in Bengasi on September 11th 2012 was a protest against a Youtube film (it was not) that got out of hand – in fact it was a military assault (although Mr Obama was still lying about that point only last week).
    Mrs Clinton’s recent “acceptance of responsibility” is a hollow political move which involves no punishment of any kind. Even when confronted before Congress with the fact that the Administration had lied about Bengasi (to help the Obama re election effort of 2012 which was based on the lie that the Obama Administration had Islamic terrorism on the run) Mrs Clinton replied with her infamous “what difference does it make”, Indeed senior staff of Mrs Clinton herself have strong connections to the terrorist “Muslim Brotherhood” organisation (the leading Sunni subversive movement in the Middle East since the 1920s – off shoots include both Hamas and Bin Laden’s AQ), which shows terrible judgement on the part of Mrs Clinton.
    As for “liberalism” – firstly Professor Allitt, just because American socialists have been calling themselves “liberals” since the1920s (indeed in cases such as Richard Ely even before the First Word War – see Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”) does not mean that this dishonesty is acceptable – collectivists (such as Mrs Clinton) are correctly called “socialists” not “liberals”, As for Senator Elizabeth Warren being more of a socialist than Mrs Clinton – did Senator Warren work with Saul Alinsky in Chicago? Mrs Clinton did – and her only differences with Saul Alinsky were over TACTICS, not over his socialist objectives.
    The word academic comes from Plato (member of his academy), Plato infamously argued that dishonesty was “noble” if it was for the cause of collectivism (the nightmare statism he wanted – described in such works as “The Republic” and “The Laws”), is that your excuse for this dishonest article Professor Allitt?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    What would the Spectator (and the Telegraph group) think of an American magazine whose British coverage was dominated by establishment types who produced endless stuff attacking British Euro sceptics and anyone who really wanted lower taxes and less government spending and regulations, and supporting those people who wanted even more government spending (already almost half the entire economy in Britain and the United States) and regulations. Would you be happy?
    No? Then why hire establishment types such as Professor Allitt to write your coverage of the United States?
    Leave the establishment types to their universities – till the one TRILLION Dollar government backed student loan scam comes to an end, bringing the roof down on “education system” brainwashing (at least in higher education – although the time of rolling back Mr H. Mann’s conditioning factories for children, the Prussian style “Public Schools” and teacher “licensing” in private schools, will also come).As Henry Hazlitt used to say “time will run back”,
    For example one day “academic freedom” will drop the Orwellian meaning of Richard Ely “academic freedom” campaign (where everyone has the “freedom” to be a “Progressive” – and anyone who opposes them, such as Mary Stanford of Stanford University has the freedom to die). One day academic freedom will again mean freedom-from-government – with different universities (funded voluntarily – not by government backed “student loans” and subsidies) offering different views of the world to students – allowing people a real choice.
    And, of course, tuition costs would be a tiny fraction of what they are today (tuition costs now being inflated by government subsidies – just as the costs of American health care are inflated by government regulations and subsidies in a way that would have come as no shock even to David Ricardo). Then attention would turn to vast expense to the taxpayers of “Public School” systems that spend more in the big cities than any education system in the world and yet (in the same cities) produce some of the worst education results in the world. Would religious and secular private schools with “unqualified” (read non-union) staff really do a worse job?
    The Federal government did not even have a formal “Education Department” till the time of President Carter. Is it really “extreme” to get, at least, the Federal government (with all its corrupting regulations and subsidies) out of education?
    In the Constitution of the United States education is no where mentioned as a responsibility of the Federal government – so it falls due to the Tenth Amendment.
    And the vast web of Federal regulations and subsidy schemes that have massively inflated American health care costs over decades? Health is not mentioned as a responsibility of the Federal government either – so it also falls duet to the Tenth Amendment.
    Remember “the common defence and general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the specific powers granted to the Congress by the Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution of the United States – there is no catch-all “general welfare spending power” (although, yes, this does not limit State and local governments).
    The Federal government of the United States was not intended to be like the Prussia of Frederick the Great (or Bismark) still less was it intended to be like the Welfare States of modern Europe.

  • wchancellor

    A certifiably intelligent Left, with solid female representation, can better articulate why Hillary’s extended rise in Power Games is a massive risk for the US and well beyond.

    Sadly, voter demographics and the Media Power of campaigns suggest she has a high likelihood of winning the US presidency in two years. Such a win will be on the backs of women voters and limited numbers of men who will convince themselves that Hillary’s balls are bigger than those their wives or politically corrected partners have lleft them with. Short of unforeseen setbacks, only depriving women of the vote or a breakup of that vaunted Union in the very near future will deprive her of realising what for her is merely cheap ambition, not a commitment to either principle or sound governance.

  • James Allen

    The danger for liberal democracy is not when you have an out-and-out loony leftie like Michael Foot, who people can see means trouble right-away, but a soft leftie like Hilary, who will inevitably lead the country into decline without people really noticing. It’s like putting a frog in lukewarm water and slowing turning up the temperature. It’s what Cameron/Osborne are doing now… masquerading as right-wingers, but really cementing the left-wing consensus of the Blair/Brown years. Very dangerous.

  • Al Bumen

    Sodomy is a vile perversion.

  • karpenter

    Hillary Was Blown Out Of Her Own Party’s Primary By A Black/White/Christian/Muslim/Atheist No One Even Heard Of
    THAT’S What People Of Her OWN PARTY Think Of Her.

  • MichaelAlan

    I will give anyone $10 whole dollars if they can name one accomplishment of Hillary while in the Senate, one while Secretary of State, and one from her time as a private citizen.

  • Karl Kilponen

    I just want to see what else is one her private server.

  • Fred

    She is a LIAR. She supports Monsanto whole heartedly. She has been caught with that demonic look in her eye – a narcissistic look, as if nobody is home or that she is possessed. She’s power hungry and will destroy her percieved enemies. She has scandal after scandal to her name and has never had to serve time for her crimes. She’s too entrenched with the corrupt corporations and lobbyists that are destroying our country. She has never accomplished anything. ANYTHING. She’s tool old!! Her mind is not sharp enough or intelligent enough to be President. DId she have a stroke or was that a way to delay her hearings? I’m not a republican or a democrat. They are both two heads of the same snake that is choking our nation to death.

  • http://www.imprintpdx.com Aimee Levens

    Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State did a lot to soften the normally Asshole reputation of America with her travels, the most of any SoS in history. And a partial list of her impressive career accomplishments include: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/.

    The problem people have with Hillary Clinton is she doesn’t flirt with them. Women in our society, even at the height of power, are expected to be charming, complacent, and wear skirts & stilettos. Hillary Clinton could give a sh** about those stereotypes and that’s what scares the crap out of people. She gets things done, is tough, has worked her ass off to get to where she’s at, calls people out for bad behavior, and fiercely advocates for women, children, and the underserved / underrepresented around the world. Yet that moron Sarah Palin was more popular back in ’08 because she embraced the “sexy schoolteacher” ensemble and used catchy phrases instead of actual facts.

    But as we know – if you don’t do it with a giggle and a cute outfit, it freaks people out. Women who work in other male-dominated industries have seen this time and again (read about “brogrammers” and sexual assault at tech conferences, for one example), and this is no different, except now we’re talking about the potential leader of our country.

    We are in a terribly sad place in our history where the more hateful and bullying you are, the more media attention and votes you get. People are getting off on the drama of the reality TV where people verbally and sometimes physically abuse each other, and online trolling has threatened the physical safety of women globally – yet at the same time complain about bullying in schools and wonder why. Watch the Trump debate comment about how he acknowledged calling Rosie O’Donnell a “disgusting animal” and “pig” and see all the people who laughed and clapped. Watch the spewing of hatemongers like Bill O’Reilly and the rest of pseudo-news folks at Fox News.

    Some diss her for staying with Bill after the Lewinsky affair, but the truth is, both routes would have been criticized. If she left she’d have been demonized for “abandoning her family” and now, 15+ years later, she’s still dogged by women who think she should have left. Because that’s SO relevant to her ability to govern.

    I myself am a fan of Hillary Clinton – I’ve always looked up to women who are fearless and advocate for the underserved and underrepresented. I adore strong women. I want Hillary to talk MORE about what she’s done for women and children. I want her to do the Obama equivalent of his talk on Race before the 2008 election, except on women. I want her to keep calling out the liars.

    Don’t agree with her political views? Fine. But people need to do some self-examination for how they treat women in politics who don’t feel the need to “get girlie” because, like Hillary, they don’t have time for that crap – they are here to get things done.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here