Extreme Makeover: Beautiful For Another Day
Before:
And after:
So what do you think will happen with Hillary? Will she continue to fight on? Will she start the exit process?
Personally, I think Hillary has performed the most impressive makeover of modern times. She used to be the lady of the left, the GOP voodoo doll symbolizing all things Marxist, Socialist, Counter-culture.
She may not pull this one out. But she’s savy. While the Code-Pinko left and all the university marxists and anti-war crowd are all clamoring for their political Messiah to fill their spiritual voids, Hillary will probably receive little or no recognition for her efforts to keep the Democrat label mainstream.
Feather boas, screaming, Che Guevara posters, and sugared-up expensive coffee are all images that come to mind when I think of Crowd Obama. But Hillary has kept Dems on the map. She’s reached out to 2nd amendment voters. She’s moderated. She’s has talked about a gas tax moratorium. She says that if that crazy Iranian is foolish enough to attack Israel, she’ll obliterate him.
She made a decision to move center. It might have paid off, or who knows, there are very remote possibilities that it still could. But I don’t think going into this race anyone ever thought that identity politics would deliver a near unanimous vote from the black community for Barack. You’d have thought with all the work Bill and Hill had done, they could garner at least 20%.
Should her exit be in the works, I don’t think she’s exiting stage left. Barack, with Ortega and Carter and Tom Hanks and Michael Moore all cheering him on, has become the new enemy of conservatism. Hillary doesn’t evoke the same emotion.
She laughs. She has become human. And if indeed she’s moving on, she’ll live to fight another day with a new and improved image. Her decision to move center instead of battling it out for the moonbat fringe may help the Democrats in fly-over country. Is her conversion for real? Doubtful. She’s a Clinton. But her makeover has been quite the success. What she does with that capital, we’ll just have to wait and see.
UPDATE: Paul Begala puts it another way:
BEGALA: We cannot win with egg heads.
Let me finish my point.
We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the
Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of
the first George Bush.
19 Comments so far
Leave a comment
[...] Terry Frank shows Hillary Clinton some love: Personally, I think Hillary has performed the most impressive makeover of modern times. She used [...]
By Hell may have just frozen over… : KnoxvilleTalks.com on 05.07.08 6:51 am
[...] Terry Frank comments on Hillary Clinton’s deft political evolution: Personally, I think Hillary has performed the most impressive makeover of modern times. She used to be the lady of the left, the GOP voodoo doll symbolizing all things Marxist, Socialist, Counter-culture. [...]
By Extreme Centrist Makeover : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee on 05.07.08 7:31 am
Redemption is not only possible but commendable. I like Pit Bulls and Hillary is not about to let go!
By TNOPINION on 05.07.08 7:45 am
“Feather boas, screaming, Che Guevara posters, and sugared-up expensive coffee are all images that come to mind when I think of Crowd Obama.”
I think you need to meet some more Obama supporters. The above perception is not anything like the Obama supporters I know in Chattanooga.
By joe lance on 05.07.08 8:10 am
Well, sure, Joe. I’m not making a blanket statement about all Obama supporters. Some supporters are hate mongering Reverends and separatists. And then some don’t fit any stereotype.
But the reality is, Obama gets the fringe vote and Hillary gets a lot of the fly-over America vote. It’s in the polling.
By Terry on 05.07.08 11:27 am
Hate-mongering Reverends? Fallwell? Robertson? Hagee?
To which are you referring?
By Mark on 05.07.08 8:36 pm
Yeah, right Mark. Run an ad with Falwell and see how outraged Americans get.
But spew that the American government invented AIDS in a lab, G–D—, America, blast America while you move into a 1.6 million home in a GATED community, praise Farrakhan, and you just can’t bring yourself to denounce him, can you?
Truthfully, how many of you libs did denounce Wright? Hillary did. She said she’d walk out.
Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, are only hate-mongering to you because they talk about what they view is sin and it doesn’t match up to your view of human action. But you’ve got no problem with a Reverend that spews hate if he’s for BIG GOVERNMENT, too!
It’s pathetic to see fools morally equivocate when they don’t believe in morals.
It could explain why so many are eager to save a plant while they kill children.
By Terry on 05.08.08 4:52 am
Actually Terry, I never said that I supported Wright; you certainly seem to jump to conclusions.
By Mark on 05.08.08 5:45 am
Is it moral for religious leaders to become multimillionaires?
By SemiPundit on 05.08.08 12:14 pm
Did they do it legitimately? You know, just because someone makes a million dollars doesn’t mean that someone was victimized to get it. You libs can keep that in your pockets and read it any time you want to.
By BCB on 05.08.08 12:57 pm
Is the ministry a calling that should be rewarded with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth while the needy go wanting? I personally have problems with that.
Although I can appreciate great architecture represented in magnificent cathedrals, I can’t help but wonder how much more good could have been done with the wealth poured into them.
By SemiPundit on 05.08.08 3:28 pm
Semi–should the position of “former president” be rewarded with millions of dollars in personal wealth while the needy go wanting? I personally have problems with THAT!
Although I can appreciate a good speech, should it be presented before–and paid for by–countries whose interests run contrary to our own? I can’t help but wonder how much damage he has done to our country’s best interests.
By chowdog2 on 05.08.08 6:26 pm
I love that old photo of Hill n Bill … brings back memories of an earlier time.
Obama/Hillary ‘08
Unstoppable!
By William on 05.08.08 10:37 pm
BCB, do legitimately and morally mean the same thing? Is it really acceptable for people like Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Osteen, and numerous others to amass huge personal fortunes and live oppulent lifestyles with money often donated by people who can barely afford food and shelter?
Chowdog, I believe you are completely missing the point.
By SemiPundit on 05.09.08 6:24 am
Semi, I understand your point. There are plenty of greedy people out there, however, who haven’t spent the their life ministering to people and providing for people like the Reverends your are chossing to point out. Rather then look at what these people have, would you like to point out what Robertson, Fallwell, et al have done for people? I’ll wager it greatly exceeds the contibutions orginizations and individuals you support. I see this sort of villification of people all the time. Everyone loves to hate Bill Gates for his success, but no one likes to point out he is the single biggest philanthropist in American history. The difference between Rev Wright and the others is that he spends his well amassed fortunes from the same sources of “barely able to afford food and shelter” individuals on a platform to denounce a country that allows him the ability to share a religious message (unlike many countries where a Bible will get you imprisoned) and live a decent life. He uses his fortune to announce that the families in the WTC are deserving of having their family members killed. He uses his fortune to instill his own personal hatred for an entire race of people in his parishoners. If you fail to recognize the difference, that is your shortcoming.
By Malcolm Tent on 05.09.08 6:48 am
So Mother Teresa was a fool?
By SemiPundit on 05.09.08 7:13 am
No, Mother Teresa was a saint. Semi is a fool.
By Malcolm Tent on 05.09.08 10:18 am
A fool? How so?
Do you think Jesus would approve of the amassing and sequestering of such fortunes and their concomitant concerns, like the legalities of passing on the wealth, inheritance (so-called death) taxes, and other problems?
By SemiPundit on 05.09.08 5:44 pm
Semi, if I give you money, are you obligated not to take it? Are there additional moral requirements if the money is over a certain amount? Morality and legitimacy are linked. These people of whom you speak barely being able to afford food and shelter and yet sending money. Who are they? How many are there? Who is twisting their arms to convince them to donate money? When ANY preacher is talking salvation, do you really expect them to hand over a deed to a little slice of heaven for these donations? Or is the act of donating itself what is paying the dividends? Is it the amount donated? Is it a set amount or relative to one’s income and holdings? Are you going to sit and call Falwell and Robertson out for having wealth and leave Wright free? Are you going to criticize the “amassing and sequestering of such fortunes and their concomitant concerns, like the legalities of passing on the wealth, inheritance (so-called death) taxes, and other problems” when it comes to those same people and leave out the Kennedys, and the Democrats patron saint in the form of George Soros? MoveOn.org is NOT a charity and does nothing to feed, cloth or house the less fortunate and really only works towards the salvation of a select few associated with the government. It seems to me that you just want to criticize any hint of morality when it can be connected to money and leave the money grubbing anti-Americans alone. A sort of “do as I say not as I do” scenario that many libs fall back on. They don’t subscribe to those values so they don’t feel obligated to live by those standards while some of us do and they want to hold us VERY accountable for them.
By BCB on 05.12.08 10:33 am
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>