Friday, July 27, 2007

Hillary Clinton: The Heart of a True North American Empress

Call me a rapid nationalist, but whatever the aesthetic merits (Listen to John Derbyshire' s 06/22/07 podcast for that) of "You and I" by Celine Dion might be, selecting as your campaign song one by a Canadian is just, well, UN-AMERICAN, in the pejorative sense, not the geographic. I know her supporters voted on it, but at a strategic level was it really a good idea to have let this one be an option? As Larry Sabato writes, "The popular chanteuse is French Canadian, so what better way for Hillary to win over conservatives and Independents in the South and heartland?" I would suggest everyone read Larry Sabato's THE HILLARY DILEMMA (Thanks to my friend Steve for telling me about it) because it makes the clear case why Hillary will either lose in a general election or become just another polarizing President. Clearly her song selection indicates that her campaign is politically tone deaf to those who don't already love her (at least 45% of the electorate according to the various polls cited by Sabato).

I suppose if Hillary were running for Empress of North America "You and I" might be a good choice, but if you are running for President of the United States, a country that produces songs at least as sexually suggestive as "You and I" (Compare"I'm burning, yearning" to the classic "FLY ME TO THE MOON") and at least as commercially successful as what was previously used by Air Canada ("You and I were meant to fly.."), you might think that it would be good to pick a song by an American. Additionally on a thematic level, a song as sexually suggestive just does not play to Hillary's strengths.

I have nothing against Canadians or Canadian musicians, but it strikes me when someone runs for national office, the symbols they use should be homegrown. At least that always seemed to be the case. This, no doubt, did not matter or occur to either the Clinton Campaign or its supporters. One hopes that both relocate to the Republic of North America (Cloud Cuckoo Land).

For me, four years of George the Republican Cog followed by eight years of Bill the Liar followed by eight years of George the Idiot followed by four or eight years of Queen Hillary (no doubt the Canadians can alter their constitution to allow for recognition of the North American Monarchy as well as the British) horrifies me because such aristocratic patterns while perhaps acceptable in an Italian City State, have no place in our country. There is nothing wrong with a family producing multiple Presidents, but there is something wrong with two families in control of our country for what would be over two decades. I have been making this point for years (since before George the Idiot came into office) and was happy to see that Sabuto shares the same concern (see the last paragraph of The Hillary Dilemma. I am a true American and hate royalty to the very depths of my soul. Two families in control or the US for up to 28 years stinks of aristocracy. I am certainly not the first one to think this or write it. Even if Hillary was a candidate worth endorsing, which she is not, on this principle alone she should be rejected.

Afterwards if you still have any doubts go read Christopher Hitchen's No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton and ask yourself if you really want eight more years of triangulation after eight years of sheer stupidity. Can the Republic really take that? I have my doubts. The only thing that could be worse than Hillary and potentially much more damaging to the country would be the election of two newsweeks, a demague of truly Athenian proportions. Should those two (Hillary and Rudy, Benito can't make it) be the candidates, I will weep for my country.
Till then I will hope that Obama gets the nomination, I just hope he gets his act together before having a fatal Macaca Moment.