Patterico's Pontifications

6/11/2014

Hillary: Obama Is Like That Other Senator from Illinois: Abraham Lincoln

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:06 pm

“It was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”

Except that Lincoln wasn’t a Senator, but otherwise, great analogy, sister!

36 Responses to “Hillary: Obama Is Like That Other Senator from Illinois: Abraham Lincoln”

  1. The explanation for this is complex. Lincoln was a Republican, so she doesn’t understand his history in politics — except that she was a Goldwater Girl and so had to know Lincoln’s history. I am befuddled.

    htom (412a17)

  2. quicker than a ray of light she’s

    FLYING

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  3. my favorite thing about her is how she has boobies AND a see you next tuesday

    it’s so historic

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  4. Sure, Obama’s like Lincoln, but minus the leadership ability, the integrity, and the honesty. Other than that, bam! Just like him.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (9940a5)

  5. If Wellesley would ever release her transcripts we could see if she took “U.S. History 1607-1865: the Rise of the Patriarchy.”

    JVW (feb406)

  6. Sure, Obama’s like Lincoln, but minus the leadership ability, the integrity, and the honesty.

    . . . and the hardscrabble childhood and the self-education and the military service and the successful private sector career and the humility and the family tragedy and the personal resolve through difficult times . . . .”

    JVW (feb406)

  7. C’mon, folks. Someone who is a product of our current educational system wrote that little speech. I will bet that HRC did know about Lincoln. She was just reading was what put in front of her. Like the guy who beat her like a drum in the 08 primaries.

    Simon Jester (b2c78d)

  8. For those who have forgotten or (lucky guys) missed it back when. “Turtles on a fence post” — all you need to know about hillary for 15 seconds of your time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD7lI1kR2qQ

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Sic semper tyrannis.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  10. omg she’s phonier than m’chelles orgasms

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  11. Oh my God, nk, I forgot how much of a country-pone accent Hillary had cultivated in her Arkansas days. That’s pretty much gone, except when she visits a black church in the South.

    Also, that video is a stark reminder of how old she is, with the early-50s Hillary juxtaposed with today’s late-60s Hillary. It might be a pretty awesomely devious trick for some GOP operative to circulate pictures of Hillary in the 90s set alongside pictures of her today.

    JVW (feb406)

  12. who knew

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  13. Things I didn’t know about Seward, from Foreman’s ‘World Set On Fire’, he was an Anglophile, as well as the abolitionist, which wasn’t easy, since they were a leading supporter of the Confederacy, despite having abolished slavery a half century earlier

    narciso (3fec35)

  14. …“Turtles on a fence post”…

    For some unknown reason, Mitch McConnell came to mind right there…

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (9940a5)

  15. can you draw tippy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  16. i never knew Lincoln was black…

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  17. Give her some slack. After all, she was so thoroughly traumatized after almost losing her life when she, as First Lady, had to escape from deadly sniper fire on an airport tarmac in Bosnia, that we owe her special consideration and understanding.

    Plus, she said she and Bill were just about destitute when his term in office was over and they had to move out of the White House.

    My compassion for her is beautiful and bountiful.

    Mark (10ada1)

  18. The English had not abolished slavery (neither had all the North). They had only renamed it to bond servitude or apprenticeship for life. That’s why the Thirteenth Amendment reads “… neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ….” The drafters were aware of the British (and Bostonian) hypocrisy.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Well they had sent the British Navy to enforce it, it’s shorthand,

    narciso (3fec35)

  20. the british were, are, and will always be

    dickensian

    irrespective of her royal whoreness kate’s smoking hot hip bones

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  21. The trans-Atlantic slave trade? We had abolished it, too, on January 1, 1807. It was already in the works when the Constitution was drafted and that’s why there’s a provision in the Constitution delaying the date.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. nk @21, only for the US. And the US had an anti-slavery patrol off the coast of Africa just like the Brits.

    But we didn’t abolish the trans (can I say that in this era of LGBT hyper-sensitivity?) Atlantic slave trade. There was still quite a demand in places like Brazil and the Caribbean.

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  23. They say they could tell it was a slave ship by the smell, before they made them heave to.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. This Hillary! topic reminds me of a question I’ve had for some time.

    Is it more important to have a Preezy who has no clue as to what’s going on in their administration and outsources their job responsibilities than a Preezy who takes the Bible literally but is a capable administrator?

    Hillary! has been having a gaffetastic couple of weeks of Bidenesque proportions. I was watching excerpts of Hillary!’s Dianne Sawyer interview and how testy she got when Benghazi was brought up. On the one hand she claims to take responsibilty. On the other, she tries to claim she’s not responsible because she had underlings at State who were more qualified to assess security at Benghazi. But in her book she mentions how as SecState she was responsible for the safety of 70k personnel at hundeds of diplomatic installations worldwide. Also in her book she mentions the east Africa embassy bombings in a “these things happen” sort of way (the other night Hugh Hewitt and his guests were just opening up her book at random and reading the first sentence that caught their eye). So she bounces around from “I take responsibilty” when she thinks it looks good to “don’t blame me” when it’s the opposite.

    Democrats are perfectly willing to say they take responsibility when they know no actual accountability will attach.

    But the funny thing about bringing up the east Africa embassy bombings is that one of the lessons learned from that ARB was that the SecState needs to be involved in the security loop. So that means she studiously avoided implementing the recommendations of the east Africa embassy bombings ARB, which she reminds us in her bood she was aware of. Unless, as I suspect, she hasn’t actually read the book her ghost writer wrote because like the rest of us she finds it suicidally boring.

    Could an evangelical who literally believes God created the Earth in six days but has demonstrated they can run a large, complex organization actually be a worse choice than this?

    Steve57 (5f0260)

  25. Yet more evidence of Hillary’s serve brain damage.

    perfectsense (4d5c72)

  26. htom (412a17) — 6/11/2014 @ 9:17 pm

    she was a Goldwater Girl and so had to know Lincoln’s history. I am befuddled.

    It’s probably derived from something somebody said in a focus group. Hillary Clinton doesn’t care about the truth – only about what would sound like a non-faulty argument to someone moderately informed. Like your typical reporter. At least if they don’t stop to think about it.

    Everybody – well, not everybody, but people who know something about history – knows abput the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858. Everybody knows that Lincoln got the Republican nomination for p[resident in 180. Everybody know that Presidential candidates usually hold some public office/

    Now, here analogy works better if Lincoln was a Senator. So a Senator he becomes.

    If she is/was caught at it, she’ll say she made a mistake. But it’s not a mistake.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  27. nk (dbc370) — 6/11/2014 @ 10:28 pm

    The trans-Atlantic slave trade? We had abolished it, too, on January 1, 1807.

    1808.

    In the British empire slavery and the slave trade were abolished at the same time. Doing only the slave trade made slavery look loke something of anatural condition, and made it practically impossible for states in the south to abolish slavery after a generation – the last chance was in Virginia in 1832.

    Before 1808, individual states could prohibit the slave trade, because, under the original consitution, it was states, not the federal government that had jurisdiction over immigration.

    (The Congress only had power over naturalization, just like the Congress only had the authority to write bankruptcy laws but not contract laws. What power the Congress had over immigration derived from its power to regulate commerce with foreign states and general foreign policy
    considerations. These laws prohibiting the employment of certain aliens are probably
    unconstitutional, at least according to originalism. It’s states that may have that power, and they don’t have to follow whatever Congress says, just not discriminate against any U.S.
    citizens. Laws requiring proof of identity may to some degree be legal as a necessary and proper extension of the taxing power, otherwise it should soometimes run afoul of the limitations on the power to regulate commerce. Of course not even Justice Scalia may realize this, but I think it is irrefutable. Article I, Section 8 says naturalization and it does
    NOT
    say immigration or migration

    Take a look:

    http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages.aspx?name=article-i-section-8&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

    And if you are going to say the authority over naturalization includes authority over immigration, does the authority over bankruptcy give the Congress the authority to write a commercial code?? The question answers itself.

    Furthermore in fact in the 19th century there were numerous states immigration laws. Before the citizenship of African Americans was established, many states passed laws against Free Negroes moving into the state.

    Now about abolition of the slave trade.

    Partly because of a fear that having too msny slaves, especially newly enslaved persons, coud lead to a successful slave revolt, as in Haiti, every southern state (from Mary;and on dpown) abolished the imprtation of foreign slaves – the slave trade – by 1798. Georgia was the last.

    But, south of the Virginia state line, these laws began to be openly violated. In lste 1803, South Carolina reopened the port of Charleston fro slavery. From 1804 through 1807, 202 slaving vessels landed their cargoes in Charleston, South Carolina. 5,386 slsves were imorted in 1804 and 15,676 in 1807 the last year it was legal (aboard 95 ships)

    President Jefferson signed the bill to abolish the slave trade (effective January 1, 1808, as per Article I, section 9, Clause 1.) on March 2, 1807. It was passed by the lame duck session of Congress. There were some violationd of law, but they hampered by the embargo. Later, slavers went to other p;aces. There was abroef revival of the illegal slave trade into the United states the 1850s. After the Civil War the transatlantcic slave trade was really completely stopped.

    Later the British put a complete s

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  28. Hillary’s teen fling, was out of character, with her future track

    http://spectator.org/articles/58131/hillary-touts-her-methodist-roots

    narciso (3fec35)

  29. Frankly,

    Give her credit for some restraint. She wanted to say ” . . . with a Democratic senator from Illinois named Lincoln . . . .”

    T (105f3f)

  30. Let me try again without typos.

    Partly because of a fear that having too many slaves, especially newly enslaved persons, could lead to a successful slave revolt (or even an unsucessful one) as in Haiti, [it was successful only really in 1804, with a big massacre of whites, but there was a very serious slave revolt in 1791] every southern state (from Maryland on down) abolished the importation of foreign slaves – the slave trade – by 1798. Georgia was the last.

    But, south of the Virginia state line, these laws began to be openly violated. In late 1803, South Carolina reopened the port of Charleston for slavery.

    From 1804 through 1807, 202 slaving vessels landed their cargoes in Charleston, South Carolina. 5,386 slaves were imported in 1804 and 15,676 in 1807, the last year it was legal (aboard 95 ships)

    President Jefferson signed the bill to abolish the slave trade (effective January 1, 1808, as per Article I, section 9, Clause 1) on March 2, 1807. It was passed by the lame duck session of Congress.

    There were some violations of the law, but they were hampered by the embargo. Later, slavers went to other places in the western hemisphere.

    There was a brief revival of the illegal slave trade into the United States the 1850s, (the ships landed in secluded places in Florida, Georgia or Texas) and some efforts to openly revive it, especially after 1858.

    Nevertheless, the slave trade was prohibited by the Confederate constitution, probably because of a need to have the support of border states and recognition by the British government. Some southern Fire-Eaters maintained that states could authorize this but this was not a practical issue.

    After the Civil War the transatlantic slave trade was really completely stopped.

    Sammy Finkelman (2d4607)

  31. 2016 is not going to be for another Democrat presidency. The GOP needs to come up with strong, responsible, Bushlike kind of person who will confront the present dangers of today’s world and restore America’s fear and respect among the nations. A combination of Reaganistic charisma and Bushlike strength and courage in war. The Dems have destroyed this great nation. They will be voted out of the White House come 2016. So the GOP need to find a leader fast… It’s your time again.

    The Emperor (890cff)

  32. I think Obama is more like those other Illinois Governors, you know, the ones who are in prison.

    Elephant Stone (ec191b)

  33. There are no senators or democrats on Mount Rushmore.

    I think it’s a feature.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  34. 34. papertiger:There are no senators or democrats on Mount Rushmore.

    True, but it’s an accident. Lincoln was twice a Senate candidate, and both times nearly won.

    Rich Rostrom (e7f47a)

  35. Thanks for the damage, Chimperor.

    JD (99b048)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3168 secs.