Hillary’s Troubling Implication
Hillary says she does not want to be compared to Bush and company, but her rhetoric soundly strangely like Dick Cheney a few days ago. On the very same day that she spontaneously nearly came to tears (a strategist couldn’t have written it any better) and she also implied that electing Obama was inviting Al Qaeda to test his inexperience. I’ll give you the quotations, but you have to be pretty thick not to read between the lines (you can listen to both of these clips if you go here and play the January 8 broadcast):
I don’t think it was by accident that Al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister [of Great Britain Gordon Brown]. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.
I think it’s more effective if you actually watch these clips, so here are the “near crying” and Al Qaeda comments from MSNBC:
This is a woman who will do and say anything to get elected. She is shameless and an embarrassment. Hillary Clinton voted for a war that was unnecessary because she wanted to look tough for a presidential run. Thousands of Americans, and many more Iraqis have died as a result (I should mention that John Kerry foolishly supported the war for the same reasons, but at least he could say that he knew the horrors of war when he made his decision).
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, it will be a dark day for the Democratic Party. She thinks that change is bringing back the cast of leaders from the 1990s. She says that she has been creating change for 35 years. In what capacity? Her two most notable legislative fights involved health care and Iraq. That’s not a great record.
If you are out there and thinking about voting for Hillary, think about where a person will go when they lack a moral compass, and will say anything to win. Without conviction there is no such thing as leadership. A few days ago I compared Hillary to Howard Dean for her Iowa flame out. I think the more appropriate analogy is Mitt Romney.
The two are both slick, rich, people who stand for little other than their own power. They are willing to do or say anything to get to the top, and have no problem going negative in the most cynical ways (in the debate Romney said he never called McCain’s immigration plan ‘amnesty’ even though two of his commercials used that exact word). And both nearly came to crocodile tears on live television.
So here’s to you Hillary: congratulations on your victory! The voters of New Hampshire said “yes” to change, and “no” to Al Qaeda.
Share This
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: January 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am →
Part of Hillary’s platform is that she is a woman.
There is no part of Barak’s platform that includes being black or being the son of an immigrant.
Hillary has all but said that she deserves the White House by saying that it’s high time the US had a woman in the White House. Why not Condi or Jean Kirkpatrick?
Further more, Hillary either faked tears for support or couldn’t hold composure after a few barbs from the press. In a Clinton administration will she really have a break down or lash out ala Richard Nixon when the press comes after her for policy missteps? And its not that women can’t lead, Golda Meir, Indihra Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto actually suffered personal and family loss as well as living under the threat of death (two lost their lives for their countries) and rose to the occasion. Hillary is none of them, especially because she wants, demands and thinks she deserves such power and influence.
And for women around the US to jump on the Hillary bandwagon just because she is a woman does not say much for our voting population. This group believes it is “bad men” vs “good, female Hillary”.
That is a sexist, horrible and dangerous thing to believe when we are talking about someone who will inherit the world’s economy and world’s police force. And as if women are incorruptible?
If she does win the Dem nomination, I hope McCain wins the Republican nod because that is where my vote will go.
Otherwise, I vote for hope, positive thinking and coming together. Aka Barak Obama.
zach kang responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am →
If you really care about US, lets chant “Ron paul 4 president!”
Hillary is fun to watch…Obama is boring, Edward is retarded. And don’t underestimate the entertainment value of Bill.
She will win the same reason why you guys elect GwB. Who doesn’t want to think themselves cleverer than the president.
Chuck responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm →
Yes!!! I finally agree! Actually, I think HIllary is a horrific candidate, but not for the reasons that Howard Dean was. You made a perfect comparison with Mitt Romney. Two people who revoltingly make their positions based on what will get them elected.
Let’s hope we aren’t faced with the choice between the two of them.
Chuck responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm →
Uh, and anyone in favor of Ron Paul for president should both pay $200 and not have their favored candidate get more than 10% of any vote. Zach Kang, you win!
Josh responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2008 at 7:34 am →
@Chuck,
It’s true on style Hillary really is Mitt Romney.
While I do tend to dismiss the Ron Paul ‘movement’ it would be nice if you made a fuller argument before you call a poster out by name. Can you expand you case a little (at all)?
eric responds:
Posted: January 13th, 2008 at 7:58 am →
Hillary Clinton voted for the war along with the majority of the senate. and that includes a lot of democrats. American consensus at the time was not overtly anti-war. Was it a wise choice? NO. but should she be blamed for representing the opinions that she was supposed to represent?
Hillary Clinton is not a flip-flopper like Romney. at least not a blatant one. in massachuessets, romney is not particularly well-liked for all his changes in positions. but in new york state, the support for the clintons are going even higher.
nanheyangrouchuan mentioned that being black/son of immigrant. but that IS his platform. where do people see obama as an agent of change? his record in chicago? which is mediocre at best. or the raw greed he had exhibited towards power? i personally do not even find obama likeable.
the show of emotion by clinton had been much ridiculed. but what people have to understand is that the reason it had worked is because it was RARE. im not going to go to a debate over whether or not it was genuine. but why is it that men in politics could cry but when a woman politican makes a RARE show of emotion, she is ridiculed? this precisely why she thought she had to appear tough at the beginning of her campagin. LATENT SEXISM!
Josh responds:
Posted: January 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am →
Romney got hammered on Meet the Press for ‘crying’. The difference is no one cares about Romney.
Dean’s entire candidacy went down the tube with one yell. That was played even more than the tearing up Clinton.
The most troubling part for me was what she actually said in that speech
“I have so may opportunities in this country, I just don’t want us to fall back”
(ie- Obama would make the country slip ‘back’)
“some of us are right, and some of us are wrong”
(which issue is it exactly that they are so far apart on? The only one I can think of is the war, and she’s right, one of them was right and one of them was wrong.)
eric responds:
Posted: January 13th, 2008 at 8:35 am →
in regard to the war. obama was not in the senate to vote for the war. no one could be sure what he would have voted if he was. historical perspective. it DID seem like the right thing to do at the time. at least the part where her representation of opinions of new york state is concerned.
your examples of dean and romney are solid. but romney’s prob isnt no one cares about him. its that he is a fake. people in massachuessets are disgusted by his changes in position. he hardly need to cry to prove that he is not genuine.
although i wasnt particularly referring to these candidates. i was thinking more in the line of JFK. maybe most people think she isnt at that level yet.
my interpretation of her speech is that she doesnt think that obama would win the general election if he was the nominee. and another republican, especially given how conservative the repulican field this year is or inept when they are not conservative or both (with the notable exception of mccain). it would be disastrous for both the united states and the world to have another republican in the white house.
Bobby responds:
Posted: January 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm →
Nan:
Do you count as being a son of an immigrant if your father lived in the US two years and went back to Kenya?
Wasn’t his mother’s second husband Indonesian or something? That family was like a tiny United Nations.
Bobby responds:
Posted: January 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm →
Hey Eric,
Did you ever hear the speech he gave just before the vote on the war? There was a line that went “I’m not against all wars, just stupid ones.” Unless you are implying that he would have thought it was a ’stupid war,’ been ‘against’ it, but voted for it, I’d say his record is pretty clear.
I’m an Edwards guy myself, but let’s be fair about this.