What's Up With Hillary?

Phallic Imagery?

Although Hillary Clinton has formally announced her presidential candidacy, her big splash opening event, which was to have taken place in May, has been delayed indefinitely ... or at least until June ... see: Breitbart Story. This postponement coupled with her "silent movie" campaign so far is raising eyebrows among the talking-head TV pundits. This certainly novel approach to campaigning for president has caused myriad speculations regarding her unconventional strategy ... to which I would like to add and/or amend with these possibilities:

-- As I have previously speculated, Hillary may still have no intention of actually trying to win this office. However, she still would like to amass a huge campaign war chest which she, her husband and Chelsea can burn off at their leisure for political and other nefarious purposes.

-- Others have speculated the Hillary has no fire in her belly about this run for the roses. Thus she has gone underground so that she does not have to regurgitate her panel-tested positions. Or perhaps, all her tactical positions have still not yet been fully vetted ... particularly those surrounding the Clinton Foundation ... therefore she is reluctant to fumble over any of them in public.

-- Could it be possible that Hillary is still suffering from some medical maladies (concussion, etc. from 2012) that kept her from testifying in front of Congress for two months ... and when she finally appeared caused her to make a spectacle of herself?

-- Ms. Clinton may be waiting until all her possible opponents have taken positions on all the major issues of the day  ... before she cherry-picks them to her advantage ... a political rope-a-dope if you will.

But, to me, clearly Hillary Clinton has come across in her few recent public appearances as haughty and condescending ... which, in turn, is alienating many in the media. Somehow I just can't believe that this would be the demeanor of a serious presidential candidate.

The Stepford Staff

The Stepford Wives (1975 film)

In case you missed it, President Obama referred to himself 199 times in a 40 minute speech in Austin this past Thursday … see: CNS News Story. And this was with the requisite backdrop of nodding, laughing, applauding toadies. (How can these people allow themselves to be abased and used as human wallpaper?)

And, of course, this speech was delivered in Obama’s increasingly malicious, acerbic, mean, immature, snide, condescending, sarcastic, puerile, mocking, cynical, sophomoric, and derisive manner. (I could go on, but it certainly was not what we know as presidential.) It almost makes no difference what the subject of this talking-down was … for it was stomach turning. Even liberals such as Bob Beckel and James Carville found it offensive.

The TV show, "The Five,” posited last Friday why no one in Obama’s inner circle will disabuse him of such inflammatory (and egotistical) rhetoric. The Five group coined a new term which I liked a lot … cleverly referring to those surrounding Obama in the White House … as "the Stepford staff.”

This is an entry for the next Urban Dictionary.

(If this movie reference does not connect with you ... please see: Wikipedia Explanation).

Arrested Development

I've started writing this blog entry prior to tonight's Presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida.  (I will await finishing it until after this last verbal duel.)  The theme of this post is Obama's smarmy, snarky conduct during, at least, the second debate and, all to often, when he is addressing his worshiping crowds on the campaign trail.  I am waiting until after tonight's debate because I am reasonably certain that there will be even more of these sniping snide comments from our man-child President.

There is even a Twitter account that captures Obama's snarky-isms ... see: Snarky Obama.  And many in the Main Stream Media are also picking up this meme ... see: Obama's Small Campaign.

After the debate -- I was not disappointed.  Obama was condescending, patronizing, and kindergarten-teacher like.  (I think everyone watching this debate knows what aircraft carriers and submarines are.)  And, in most of his disputes with Romney, it was the President who had his facts wrong (Romney did say in his op-ed on the auto industry that he believed that the federal government should provide loan guarantees during this industry’s managed bankruptcy).  I realize that many left-leaning talking heads, rather desperately I might say, averred that Obama won.  I disagree.  It was Romney who looked presidential and Obama who looked angry and frustrated.

Perhaps this continued puerile conduct is why Obama is more popular with young voters?