How else to interpret his sudden revelation that Hill and John are best buddies? Given the toxic attitudes to true blue (or should I say true red) conservatives, that’s sure to stir up animosity toward McCain – obviously Bill’s intention. He’s no fool. Of course it remains to be seen if Republican voters are and take his bait. Tuesday will tell. (I wonder if they’re doing any push-polling. “On a scale of ten, how do you feel about the close relationship of Hillary Clinton and John McCain?”)
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this were part of a tag-team with the New York Times, given their editorial “endorsing” McCain.
My guess is Bill got his idea from the NYT – and the reactions to it.
“On a scale of ten, how do you feel about the close relationship of Hillary Clinton and John McCain?”
I rate it about a four. This simply means that John McCain will give in all the time. Hillary Clinton will be “friendly” only if she is getting her way. We must never forget that she is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Hillary existentially does not believe in taking any prisoners.
David,
Hillary is all about power and I would say Machiavellian.
Regarding Alinsky, Wikipedia says the following.
“Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, “There Is Only The Fight…”: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.[11] Rodham commented on Alinsky’s “charm,” but rejected grassroots community organizing as outdated. Once Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady of the United States, the thesis was suppressed by the White House for fear of being associated too closely with Alinsky’s ideas.[12]
Alinsky also had a significant influence on Barack Obama, who is a United States Senator and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.[11] Obama particularly used Alinsky’s techniques while participating in Chicago community organizations in the 1980s.[13]
I thought the suppression of her thesis was interesting but not surprising. The more you dig into Hillary, the more dirt you find and it is all disquieting.
I really don’t care about Hill’s relationship with McCain. He’s buds with Kennedy, Kerry and a whole host of misfits too.
The NYT endorsed him because they know what he is – a RINO.
I prefer to call McCain a Democrat. His track record (taxes, immigration, assault on the First Amendment with McCain-Fiengold, etc.) supports the claim.
Saul Alinsky?! There’s plenty negative you can say about Hillary Clinton, but the fact she was an admirer of Saul Alinsky when at Wellesley is absurd. That was forty years ago!
In those same forty years, I personally have been an admirer of – among many others – Freud, Marx, Zen Buddhism, Milton Friedman, Magic Johnson, Claire Booth Luce, Leonardo DaVinci, Ross MacDonald, Newt Gingrich and Jerry Lee Lewis. If you see some of those things as contradictory, that’s the point!
Anyone who thinks what someone thought forty years ago is an accurate indication of what they think today is suffering from reification. If you don’t know what that word means, I suggest you look it up – but it’s related to intellectual sclerosis of the brain. Loosen up. The world is a little more complicated than who’s a RINO and who’s not. Abe Lincoln and Pat Buchanan were both Republicans. What do they have to do with each other? Worrying about orthodoxy to any political party is soporific.
Saul Alinsky was about organizing neighborhoods so that the trash got picked up, locals got city government jobs, the cops walked the beat. Classic American Jew, all around mensch. Hard to see him as some sort of nefarious figure, unless you’re against unions and other voluntary advocacy groups.
Well, there’s more to Alinsky than that bland description, Markus, but that’s not the point. It’s no reason to oppose Hillary.
There’s one huge reason to oppose Hillary – she’s a Clinton. No more Bushes, Clintons, Roosevelts or Kennedys for me. I’ve had it with the American version of the Divine Right of Kings. Bill is walking around like he is owed another eight years in the White House. What a creep.
Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
(don’t know why he needed them to get the trash picked up and cops on the beat)
Anyway decide for yourself how Clintonian or not you think these tactics are, especially # 12.
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Roger:
I’ve had it with the American version of the Divine Right of Kings.
I think that after 30 years of Kennedy myth making in the media, followed by the Bushes and now the Clintons, many people from all over the political map probably feel the same. Hope so.
Mr. Simon,
I would say most people’s thinking staying the same after a certain age is more the rule than the exception. And I would bet Hillary fits the rule rather than the exception.
Mr. Simon,
I would say most people’s thinking staying the same after a certain age is more the rule than the exception. And I would bet Hillary fits the rule rather than the exception.