- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Revenge of the HillBillies?

Early in 2009, I started writing about the possibility of the HillBillies, the world’s first and only two-for-the-price-of-one political combo, challenging Barack Obama once it became obvious to a majority of the anesthetized public that the would-be emperor had no clothes.

Don’t get me wrong. BHO has accomplished almost everything I expected of him – universal health care, a trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway, debt-ceiling increases that have brought the U.S. ever-closer to default, business-crushing regulations intended to bring the private sector to its knees, encouraging union thugs to engage in violent uprisings from coast to coast, appointing far-left radicals to important positions in the White House, sending a thumbs up to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLO while constantly chastising Israel … No need to go on, as your own list is probably longer than mine.

But now Chairman Obama is in danger of stumbling before he can carry the ball across the left goal line and declare victory over America – the humiliating Democratic defeats in Nevada and New York’s District 9, the Solyndra scandal threatening to spin out of control, his refusal to utter a word about Jimmy Hoffa’s introduction of him at a union event in Detroit by saying, “Let’s take these (tea party) sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” etc. The next thing you know, the world may even find out that Laura Ingraham was right about the White House garden being just another example of Obama razzle-dazzle.

As James Carville said in his recent warning to Democrats, “It’s time to panic.” And that, I think, is where Obama’s weakness lies. When panic sets in, he comes across as a frustrated, tantrum-throwing child, and each time he does, it awakens another batch of “independents” from their “yes we can” coma. To put it mildly, it’s childish to go on tour and shout “Pass this bill” to audiences of college kids, but when you yell it out more than a hundred times in a week, it’s beyond childish; it’s pathetic.

Enter the HillBillies – and, yes, when you buy one, you do get the other one for free. It’s getting late in the campaign game and, granted, it’s a tough decision for them to make, but they have to do it relatively soon if they really want to have the opportunity to finish trashing the White House (i.e., when they move out for the second time).

If Hillary announces, it will be one of the biggest bombshells in modern political history. It will also tear the Democratic Party apart. Nevertheless, I believe she would beat the current White House grand mufti rather handily.

Why? Because there are enough rational Democrats out there who know that not only is their party going to lose the White House in 2012, they also are in danger of losing their own seats. That creates a strong motivation to distance themselves from Obama and fall in line behind savior Hillary.

Now for the bad news: If Hillary did secure the Democratic nomination, she would probably beat either Perry or Romney in a landslide. Like Obama in his stealth 2008 campaign, she now has most of the public completely fooled. Most Americans no longer see her as a radical ’60s hippie who came to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue focused on implementing her own version of universal health care, but, rather, as a moderate, well-meaning liberal.

They forget that she’s the sweet little gal who once said, in a campaign speech, that she would take $5 billion from oil companies – that’s right, take it (as in, force) – and use it for whatever. And if she can take money that belongs to oil companies, she certainly can take it from you.

The public has already forgotten her abstract progressive rants about “environmental rights,” “I can create shared prosperity” and “It takes a village.” Hillary would still move to the left if she got into office, but slower and smarter than the current emergency in chief. She may not have gone to a church for 20 years where the pastor shouted such goodies as “G-d damn America” week in and week out, but she is a died-in-the-wool believer in the collective over the individual.

That said, I hasten to add that she is also something else: totally amoral. Hillary and hubby have clearly demonstrated that they will do anything, anytime, anywhere, to anybody if it’s in their best interest.

A lot has happened in the movie-like saga of the HillBillies over the past decade, not the least of which is the discovery of how nice the payoff can be when you succeed in the capitalist system – in fact, more than $100 million worth of nice.

On the road to weaving hippie values into government at the highest levels, the Clintons found that wealth and prestige are not all that hard to get used to. Hobnobbing with the rich and famous among Washington’s elite and on New York’s Upper East Side is something one learns to tolerate, even if he/she starts out as a genuine flower child.

What I’m saying here is that when push comes to shove, Hillary’s ego and materialistic instincts might just win out over her desire to be a model “new American progressive.” After all, that “shared prosperity” schmaltz is really just for the dolts who are looking for more government handouts. I’ve always believed that, behind the flowery phrases, Hillary actually harbors an enormous contempt for the lower echelons of society.

What I’m talking about here is a $3 million wedding for daughter, Chelsea, $250,000 speaking fees as far as the eye can see and invitations to royal dinners as a normal way of life. Speaking of $250,000 speeches, you and I may have thought that we’d never live to see it, but the fact is that Hubby Bubby, the first of two world-class bull slingers from Hope, Ark., is now the face of the Democratic Party.

People have short memories. They’ve apparently convinced themselves that his cigar tricks in the Oval Office were nothing more than a collective aberration. Groper Bill is now a revered elderly statesman. Like it or not, he and Hillary have morphed into an elite establishment couple.

If Hillary does challenge Obama and ends up back in the White House, she might just drop the “taking from the oil companies” blather and posit herself as the great middle-of-the-road state capitalist – sort of a female version of John McCain or Orrin Hatch.

Sure, the U.S. will still eventually go under, because neither the mathematical realities nor the entitlements that drive them can be overcome by anyone – especially a politician. But if businesses are fooled by Hillary into believing otherwise, the free market is so robust that entrepreneurial activity could postpone the inevitable for another couple of decades.

That’s important, because in a couple of decades the world will look much different that it does today. Depending on how things unfold with the tea party, we might even have a civil war where the good guys win. Or some other solution – preferably one where government is relegated to a minor role in society – that we can’t see from our present vantage point.

The Marxist crowd knew from the moment they gained control of both houses of Congress and the White House that they were unlikely to get another opportunity to finish the job if they didn’t move quickly. That’s why the left’s leading nut case, Paul Krugman, recently said, “I’m trying to make this progressive moment in American history a success.”

Ironically, it was none other than James Carville, the guy who now is warning the Dems that it’s time to panic, who predicted, after the Democrats won it all in 2008, that the Democratic Party would rule for 40 years. For a long time, I thought he would have to eat his words, but if Hillary challenges Obama for the Democratic nomination, he might just turn out to be a prophet – albeit via a route he probably didn’t think possible.

Having said all this, for those of us who are still intent on resisting a left-wing police state in America, I think we would be wise to be careful what we wish for. Obama can be beaten, but probably not Hillary.