web analytics
September 3, 2014 / 8 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Carpetbagging Politicians

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014

A new law has been proposed:

MK Menachem Eliezer Mozes (UTJ) submitted a bill that would require potential mayoral candidates to live in the city in which he wants to run for mayor for a minimum of 6 months prior to officially joining the electoral race (i.e. a minimum of 7 months total).

I think it’s  a very good idea. I never liked the British law which allows someone to run for Parliament to represent a district they may never have had even visited before deciding to campaign. I was also very disgusted with the Clintons for moving to New York, an area to which they had no connection, just so that Hillary could run for the Senate from there. Carpetbagger* or not, she won the race.

Sports at Safra Square, the Jerusalem Municipality

The position of Mayor is very local. It’s not just an administrative job. To do it best, one should intimately know the town or city. And the most reliable way of knowing a place is to live there. That’s how you really know if the garbage is picked up and at which hour of the day or night, if the schools are good, public transportation is convenient, infrastructure kept in repair and the community centers and parks have a suitable variety of facilities.

There was a time when it was permitted for Israelis who held dual or multiple citizenships to be Knesset Members, but now the first step for a candidate, even before election day, is to renounce all foreign citizenship. It’s part of the loyalty one needs to be in high national office.

One can say that in such national positions, multi-citizenship is like polygamy, right?

*Carpetbagger: 1. a Northerner who went to the South after the Civil War to profit from the unsettled conditions. 2. any person, esp. a politician, who takes up residence in a place opportunistically.

Hat-tip Rafi’s Life in Israel

Visit Shiloh Musings.  / Batya Medad

Rabbi Ovadia’s Daughter May Bid to Succeed Peres as President

Thursday, February 13th, 2014

Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite as Democratic presidential candidate for the 2016 elections, and if the Republicans continue to prefer arguing rather than uniting, she will succeed.

In Israel, none other than Adina Bar Shalom, the Haredi left-wing daughter of the late Torah sage Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is contemplating running for the post that will be vacant with the end of the term of President Shimon Peres this year. The Knesset elects the president.

Bar Shalom, 69,  said last month that she has not talked with anyone about the possibility of running, but she told the Forward this week she might take the plunge. She said she is now talking about the prospect with several key people and supporters who believe she can be a “bridge between religion and the state.”

One of the reasons for her hesitation on declaring herself as a candidate is that she wants to know who else will be running. Another woman, former  Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner whose decisions were left-leaning, said Thursday she intends to run for president.

So far, veteran Knesset Members Reuven Rivlin of the Likud and Binyamin “Fuad” Ben-Eliezer of Labor have announced their candidacies, as has outsider Dan Shectman, who like Bar Shalom has no  experience in politics. The Technion University scientist  is a Noble Prize winner in chemistry.

The position of presidency had been a ceremonial one until Ezer Weizmann actively pushed political policies during his term of office in the 1990s, and Peres has often acted more like Prime Minister then president.

Bar Shalom might win support from Israel’s popular media, which would promote her because of her leftist views and because she is a woman, considered to be a credential in and of itself by a pro-feminist media.

She told the Forward she firmly believes Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas is a “partner for peace” and believes his statements that “I won’t allow terrorists and terror” and “I prevent the terror.”

She founded a college for Haredi women in 2000 and which now is also open to men, who learn separately from women.

Hillary ‘F.’ Clinton Way Ahead of the Pack in Poll

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a 6-1 lead among Democrats answering a Washington Post-ABC News poll on their choice for president in 2016.

Clinton, whose middle name easily could be “F.” considering how many times she has been reported as using the “f—“ word,  has virtually no competition in both areas – the nomination for presidency and an uncouth vocabulary. She has used the four-letter word not only as an adjective for Jews but also as an adverb for almost every subject imaginable.

For better or worse, Clinton has 73 percent backing of Democrats, according to the poll. The second most popular is Vice President Joe Biden, with only 12 percent.

On the Republican side, the nomination is up for grabs, and the party does not look like it is any better shape than it was in 2012, when it failed miserably to take advantage of President Barack Obama’s sagging popularity.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s aura has been blackened by the recent bridge-traffic scandal, and he is in third place with 13 percent support, behind Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and former Florida governor Jeb Bush. None of the potential candidates has solid backing from the Tea party.

After Christie, there are senators Ted Cruz of Kentucky and Marcio Rubio of Florida.

The Republicans have a year or so to get their act together and unite, a distant possibility at this stage of the game.

Clinton, if she runs and wins,, would be the first woman president of the United States and the first president whose husband held the office.

The Democratic Party vs. Barack Obama

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

Originally published at Sultan Knish.

When Obama decided to turn his campaign into a permanent Super PAC; he was stabbing the Democratic Party in the back. But he was doing it to them, before they did it to him.

Organizing for America gave him an independent source of power and influence at the expense of the Democratic Party. Obama was carelessly draining money and energy out of his own party because whatever common interests he had with a political party, that for all its leftward swing was still too conservative for his taste, were about to be fractured during his second term.

The Democratic Party might have been satisfied if he had retained his 2008 halo in 2015. But that was never going to happen. No matter how much the media slobbers over a politician, the voting public, at least those parts of it that don’t have Hope posters and Obama holograms hanging on their walls, eventually needs a break and someone to blame.

Even vice presidents tend to turn on their own presidents once they begin running for office. George H.W. Bush did it to Reagan and Gore did it to Clinton. It may be hard to remember now in this wave of nostalgia for the 90s when there was actually an economy instead of a shrunken shell of one, but the Democratic Party and the American people had grown sick of Clinton and his scandals.

Gore was running as the antithesis of Bill Clinton. Boring and serious-minded where Bill was the life of the party. An ethical man, aside from all those scandals due to the lack of a controlling authority, who really understood the new internet technology, and wasn’t going to be caught with an intern; unless she was working at a massage parlor.

Al Gore was just a less successful and even more hypocritical version of Bill Clinton; but the Democratic Party tried to build him an image as a stiff and serious fellow who spent a lot of time deep in thought and might be awkward at parties; but wouldn’t cheat on the entire country. That’s what the Macarena jokes and the grotesque public kiss were about.

With Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party already has an Anti-Obama in waiting. Hillary claims to be experienced where Obama was inexperienced. Savvier about the practical details of getting things done in Washington D.C. and capable of going the long distance in governance instead of making abrupt leaps of inspiration.

The “Ready for Hillary” image is as phony as Gore’s serious ethical look; but it’s also a shot across Obama’s bow telling him that the Dems were going to throw him under the bus before the next election. With Organizing for America, Obama, whose allegiance has always been to the left, not to anything as reactionary as an American political party, threw them under the bus first.

It’s not a full-fledged civil war. Yet.

Obama’s biggest asset is still the media whose younger and more energetic members lean as leftward as he does. Its older members are more skeptical, but still willing to toe the party line. At the end of his term that will change with the media suddenly hurling unexpectedly bitter criticism his way. That happened to Bill Clinton. It’s likely to happen to Barack Obama.

The media won’t step forward to destroy Obama. But they will pile on him once it helps Hillary. And he knows it.

There’s a reason that Obama never trusted his biggest fans, locked them up in closets, avoided conferences, carefully selected loyalist lefty pundits for private meeting and even set up his own photographers.

He knew that the time would come when the media would turn on him. When the halo photos would make way for pictures that make him look old and tired. When the same columnists who were talking him up as the great hope of the nation would turn to writing pieces about how he failed and why Hillary is the right woman to take his place.

His media loyalists have worked hard to stem any defections. The vicious attacks on Bob Woodward and Lara Logan are nasty reminders to keep the rest in line. The media lefties who lead them care less about the Democratic Party than they do about the agenda of the left. That is what they have in common with Barack. But the Democratic Party hacks care less about the left than they do about staying in power.

The ObamaCare crisis killed any hope of an enduring truce. Obama has been politically weakened now and there’s blood in the water.

The media hasn’t turned on him. It’s still repeating much of his propaganda about substandard plans and insurance companies, but the polls show that the public isn’t buying it. And the media has not done everything that it could have to shield him from it. There have been too many negative stories that got past the gatekeepers and too many cracks and leaks in the political wall.

ObamaCare has shown that the Prince of Chicago is mortal and that like all politicians, he will go down sooner or later. There will be no revered transition. He will not remain an undying JFK stepping forward into the pages of history. Instead he will be shoved aside to make way for a successor while the men and women who once lionized him shake their heads. In time he will emerge again, the way that Carter and Clinton have, as an elder statesman. But not in 2016.

The split between the Democratic Party and its leftist hijackers was always bound to happen. The interests that aligned them were nakedly political. The left wanted to push its agenda through and the Democrats would have adopted any tactic at all to win. The Democratic Party is ready to cover its tracks and move on. But the left isn’t done pushing through its agenda.

The collapse of ObamaCare may be a disaster for the Democratic Party in the short term, but it’s also an opportunity in the long term.

There’s not much else that Hillary Clinton can run on in 2016 except health care. Foreign policy interest is at an all time low which takes her time as Secretary of State off the table. That just leaves the economy; an unpredictable topic to build an election campaign around for a race years into the future.

The rebirth of HillaryCare demands the destruction of ObamaCare. For Hillary to be able to return to her core issue in 2016, she has to take away Obama’s biggest legislative achievement. And so the problems with ObamaCare may be a nuclear bomb for the Democrats in 2014, but a gift-wrapped package for Hillary in 2016.

If Obama were a team player, he might grit his teeth and take one for the team. But he isn’t. OFA was just the latest demonstration that he owes no allegiance to the Democratic Party and that the awkward marriage of Chicago community organizers, liberal billionaires and the turgid ranks of the jackass party swollen with living fossils like Harry Reid was bound to end sometime.

The big dream of Republican campaign professionals is to force the Democrats into the same circular firing squad that its own people keep collapsing into. That hasn’t happened yet, but there are signs that a stampede may be building.

The Democrats swallowed their losses in 2010 instead of turning on ObamaCare because they still had the Senate and the White House. If they lose the Senate in 2014, suddenly having a lame duck in the White House and a program that everyone hates at the top of the news hour won’t seem like such a bargain.

Obama knows all this and doesn’t care. He’s counting on the left to have his back while sacrificing the political fortunes of the Democratic Party for the sake of the progressive agenda. The Democrats might have held on to Congress, but Obama traded their political successes for his own success; weakening the Democratic Party while building his own image and power.

Now the Democratic Party is beginning to bite back. If it’s going to get into shape for 2014 and 2016, it has to claw back donors from his OFA and undermine his political infrastructure. And then it has to turn ObamaCare’s problems into a HillaryCare opportunity. All this is going to mean an ugly political civil war with the left turning on the Democratic Party and the media caught in the middle.

Obama carved up the Democratic Party for political spare parts. Now the Democratic Party is about to return the favor.

Fowl Peace Talks a Treif Thanksgiving Turkey

Thursday, November 21st, 2013

Middle East experts are experts by virtue of their positions of power.

Some of them, like former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, even have learned a thing or two about international affairs. Rice actually has a Ph.D., which as comedian-pianist Victor Borge once said, should be read as “phttttttttttt.”

The experts, and that includes John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Catherine Ashton and the Oslo Accords crowd, may have learned about prophets, kings, oil and sheikhs in International Relations 101, but they missed out on the basics, like selling non-kosher turkeys to the Arabs.

I learned more about Arab-Jewish relations by working in kibbutz turkey barns than Kerry and Ashton could ever learn in their worldwide visits to official residents of presidents and prime ministers in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Amman.

Turkeys, like people, are cute when they are babies, but after a few weeks, they are not like most people. Their feet are scratchy and they begin to stink. When they get to be three months old, some of them pick up a cold, a little bronchitis, or start to hobble on weak knees, probably from too many carbohydrates.

Then they start acting like grown teenagers. The stronger turkeys pick on the weaker ones, just like fifth-graders playing king of the hill. They peck at the skin until the poor gobbler cannot stand on his feet.

When I was in charge of the birds on a kibbutz farm, the sick and injured had their own quarters, a fenced-off intensive care ward where the bullies couldn’t bother them. But sometimes it was too late. Their broken legs and their bronchitis often are more than modern medicine can cure on a cost-efficient basis.

What can you do with a sick and lame turkey? You sell it cheaply. After all, the reason to raise turkeys is turn them into fat candidates for the slaughterhouse and convert them into cold cash. The Humane Society really does not have much demand for them.

That’s where a revised International Relations 101 course could have taught the experts, sitting in their sterilized offices, something besides making roadmaps to nowhere. Even Professor Yossi Beilin, the darling of the Israeli Left, doesn’t know a kibbutz from Damascus.

Peace is a business, like anything else these days. But you have to know the rules of the game. A good Western businessman knows that a handshake is a handshake, a word is a word, and a deal is a deal.

For instance, Tom wants to sell his two-year-old Chevy for $5,000. Clyde wants to buy it for $4,000. One of them budges or there’s no deal. Jim tries to cut a deal at $4,400. If Tom and Clyde compromise at $4,500, Tom gets his money and Clyde gets his wheels. As for Jim, that’s his problem.

But that’s not the way it works in the Middle East. Here, Abe writes out a check and Ahmed gives him the key. The next day, Abe discovers the key doesn’t fit. “Of course it does not fit,” Ahmed retorts. “The price of the car was according to the real value of the dollar. The inflation rate went up 0.2 percent yesterday. You owe me $10!”

Abe protests, “Where’s the cell phone antenna that was on the roof? I am stopping payment on the check. You owe me $25 for the bank charge.”

“I’m not finished stripping the car,” retaliates Ahmed. The DVD is mine, but I’ll put back the original radio. It works most of the time, especially the Al Jazeera channel.”

“Look, here,” snarls Abe. “I paid you $4,500, but that was based on the price of gold. It went up two cents yesterday. The real price is $4,498.09.”

“You can add another $120 for the deluxe hub caps, or I’ll take them with me,” Ahmed shouts.

They agree to talk again tomorrow. That was 10 years ago. They still are talking.

It doesn’t matter that Abe still has to thumb a ride to work and that Ahmed does the same because he doesn’t have enough money for gas. The principles are that the other guy didn’t get what he wanted so they can continue arguing.

In Western societies, negotiations are a means to an end. The objective is to make a deal so both sides get what they want.

Who Says Everyone Is Jewish until Proven Otherwise?

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

I was speed reading through a pile of new books last week and came across a marvellous article in a new collection by Charles Krauthammer, Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics. The book looks really good. I recommend it.

Here’s the little article that caught my eye because I am known to be asking the “are-they-Jewish’ question here on my blog.

Krauthammer says in the article (partly tongue in cheek) that everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise. Krauthammer’s Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise By Charles Krauthammer

Strange doings in Virginia. George Allen, former governor, one-term senator, son of a famous football coach and in the midst of a heated battle for reelection, has just been outed as a Jew. An odd turn of events, given that his having Jewish origins has nothing to do with anything in the campaign and that Allen himself was oblivious to the fact until his 83-year-old mother revealed to him last month the secret she had kept concealed for 60 years.

Apart from its political irrelevance, it seems improbable in the extreme that the cowboy-boots-wearing football scion of Southern manner and speech should turn out to be, at least by origins, a son of Israel. For Allen, as he quipped to me, it’s the explanation for a lifelong affinity for Hebrew National hot dogs. For me, it is the ultimate confirmation of something I have been regaling friends with for 20 years and now, for the advancement of social science, feel compelled to publish.

Krauthammer’s Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise. I’ve had a fairly good run with this one. First, it turns out that John Kerry — windsurfing, French-speaking, Beacon Hill aristocrat — had two Jewish grandparents. Then Hillary Clinton — methodical Methodist — unearths a Jewish stepgrandfather in time for her run as New York senator.

A less jaunty case was that of Madeleine Albright, three of whose Czech grandparents had perished in the Holocaust and who most improbably contended that she had no idea they were Jewish. To which we can add the leading French presidential contender (Nicolas Sarkozy), a former supreme allied commander of NATO (Wesley Clark) and Russia’s leading anti-Semite (Vladimir Zhirinovsky). One must have a sense of humor about these things. Even Fidel Castro claims he is from a family of Marranos.

For all its tongue-in-cheek irony, Krauthammer’s Law works because when I say “everyone,” I don’t mean everyone you know personally. Depending on the history and ethnicity of your neighborhood and social circles, there may be no one you know who is Jewish. But if “everyone” means anyone that you’ve heard of in public life, the law works for two reasons. Ever since the Jews were allowed out of the ghetto and into European society at the dawning of the Enlightenment, they have peopled the arts and sciences, politics, and history in astonishing disproportion to their numbers.

There are 13 million Jews in the world, one-fifth of 1 percent of the world’s population. Yet 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, a staggering hundredfold surplus of renown and genius. This is similarly true for a myriad of other “everyones” — the household names in music, literature, mathematics, physics, finance, industry, design, comedy, film and, as the doors opened, even politics.

But it is not just Jewish excellence at work here. There is a dark side to these past centuries of Jewish emancipation and achievement — an unrelenting history of persecution. The result is the other more somber and poignant reason for the Jewishness of public figures being discovered late and with surprise: concealment.

Look at the Albright case. Her distinguished father was Jewish, if tenuously so, until the Nazi invasion. He fled Czechoslovakia and, shortly thereafter, converted. Over the centuries, suffering — most especially, the Holocaust — has proved too much for many Jews. Many survivors simply resigned their commission.

For some, the break was defiant and theological: A G-d who could permit the Holocaust — ineffable be His reasons — had so breached the Covenant that it was now forfeit. They were bound no longer to Him or His faith.

For others, the considerations were far more secular.

Why subject one’s children to the fear and suffering, the stigmatization and marginalization, the prospect of being hunted until death that being Jewish had brought to an entire civilization in Europe?
In fact, that was precisely the reason Etty Lumbroso, Allen’s mother, concealed her identity. Brought up as a Jew in French Tunisia during World War II, she saw her father, Felix, imprisoned in a concentration camp. Coming to America was her one great chance to leave that forever behind, for her and for her future children. She married George Allen Sr., apparently never telling her husband’s family, her own children or anyone else of her Jewishness.

Such was Etty’s choice. Multiply the story in its thousand variations and you have Kerry and Clinton, Albright and Allen, a world of people with a whispered past.

Allen’s mother tried desperately to bury it forever. In response to published rumors, she finally confessed the truth to him, adding heartbreakingly, “Now you don’t love me anymore” — and then swore him to secrecy.

(Washington Post, September 25, 2006)

Visit The Talmudic Blog.

Hillary Tells Huma to Choose between Her and Weiner

Monday, October 7th, 2013

Hillary Clinton, an undeclared candidate for the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, has told Human Abedin to ditch Anthony Weiner if she wants to advise her former boss at the State Dept., The New York Post reported Monday.

The ultimatum has been given before but has greater meaning following Weiner’s embarrassingly poor finish in the race for New York mayor. He surprised observers by topping the polls three months ago, but his popularity rapidly sank when it was revealed he continued to send “sexting” messages ever after he repented and said he had returned to the straight and narrow path.

A source told the newspaper, “Hillary is horrified by Weiner, and thinks that he is an embarrassment to his accomplished wife. She wants Huma to leave him behind. But Huma is torn between her family and loyalty to Hillary.”

A representative of Clinton denied the report, but relations between Human and Weiner are known to be far from the best despite her decision last year to stick with her man – and their Muslim baby boy – and their Muslim baby boy

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/hilary-tells-huma-to-choose-between-her-and-weiner/2013/10/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: