Clinton and the Politics of Fear
Dec 30, 2007 Political
For years the left has accused the Bush Administration of using the politics of fear to retain power and to get its way. The events of 9/11, according to the left, have been used to scare people into voting for Bush in 2004 and for passage of legislation designed to keep us safe. It would seem they have abandoned that criticism or, more accurately, they have shown hypocrisy with regard to it.
Former President Bill Clinton is out campaigning for his wife and touting the imagined experience she has as a major asset and reason for people to vote for her as the next president. He claims that she has the experience to lead from day 1 and that there are threats that we do not know about that she is ready to handle. Of course, there are threats out there, something the Bush Administration has been saying all along, but is Hillary best equipped to handle them just because she was First Lady?
It would appear as if the Clinton camp is using the very tactics that the left has complained about all along. They are using fear to get people to vote for Hillary. Bill want us to believe that these threats are there and only Hillary is best equipped to take the lead and mitigate them. I guess the decades of experience Dodd and Biden have pale in comparison to the 8 years Hillary spent as First Lady. Those two Senators could not possibly have the experience to handle threats to this country because they were never married to a president.
There are threats to this country out there and whoever serves as the next president will have to handle them but there is a bigger threat to this country and that threat is already known. That threat is Hillary Clinton. Having the Clintons in the White House compromised our national security for 8 years and having them there for 4 or 8 more will only make it worse. Another Clinton presidency will bring us more sold secrets, corruption and dead bodies swept under the carpets with the other evidence the media continues to ignore.
The Clintons argue that the others do not have the experience that Hillary has and that she is a known quantity competing against a bunch of unknowns. I believe that what we know about Hillary should remind us of why she should never be the president of the United States.
In this case, it is better to go with the devil you don’t know rather than the one you do. Hillary is Satan.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: Clinton, corruption, Democrats, fear, iowa, national security, threats
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a New Clinton Policy
Dec 28, 2007 Political
Bill Clinton gave us Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) as a way to allow gays to serve in the military without completely honoring his pledge to allow them to serve openly. Now DADT has taken on a new meaning with a different Clinton. Hillary is using that tactic in the last few days leading up tot he Iowa Caucus. She will not allow questions and she will not tell anyone the answers to questions that happen to get slipped in.
Hillary has taken the approach that she should keep her mouth shut except for her prepared remarks so she will not stumble and blow her chance at winning the caucus. A verbal gaffe now probably leaves no time for repair so the Hildebeast has decided to just say what is prepared and nothing more. Prior to Christmas she allowed some time for a question and answer session but now, as soon as she is finished speaking, the speakers blare with her theme music and no one can ask any questions. She even ignored a reporter who asked if she was moved by the assassination of former PM Bhutto. Chelsea Clinton ignored reporters and their questions as well. It is either genetic or they have strict marching orders. Either way, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
What Hillary is saying is that what she has to say to us is important and we are expected to listen. She is also saying that what we have to say is of little importance to her and we should just be grateful she graced us with her presence. Her position appears to be that she is the liberal elitist who knows what is best for this country and that we should take what she says as gospel and not waste her time with silly questions. I guess she believes that if a person has a question after she speaks then that person must not have paid attention because she lays it all on the line. She is, after all, the most experienced candidate because she spent eight years as the First Lady. Just a note, if that is experience then vote for Laura Bush. She has the same experience and is a better person.
Hillary has also set aside two minutes the night before the Iowa Caucus to tell people, one more time, why they must vote for her. She has bought ad time during the evening news so that she can make sure people have the message. She needs to ensure that everyone got the memo that she is owed this position and that it is their duty to vote for her.
Interestingly, she will not take questions because one might trip her up and leave her no time to recover but she is going to spend two minutes telling lies about why to vote for her and leave Iowans with little time to refute what she says.
Let me put in my request to any Iowans who might be reading this. Please do not vote for Hillary. She is Satan and we need to get rid of her and her hubby once and for all by squashing them in this election. She won’t take time to answer your questions so why should you take time to vote for her?
Others with similar posts:
Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke’s, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Blogger, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Clinton Doubletalk
Dec 23, 2007 Political
B. Hussein Obama said that he has more former Clinton (Bill) foreign policy advisers working for him than Hillary does and that this should show people something. While this claim might or might not be true the Clinton camp felt it was necessary to answer the charge. I can understand why because even if Obama does not have more of them he has a significant number of them and this really should cause people to ask; if she is so wonderful why are her hubby’s former advisers backing her rival?
The Hillary Clinton camp could have answered this charge in a number of ways. They could have ignored it (which is a non answer, really) they could indicated that people do not vote for advisers, which is what they did and if they had stopped there, they might have made the point. Instead, Hillary went one step further by describing the large number of advisers that she does have.
“This is not a campaign between lists of advisers,” Clinton told reporters in a packed diner. “This is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to become president on day one.”
~snip~
“Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?” Obama said. “They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century.”
Clinton rejected the comment’s premise.
“Honestly, it’s a silly question. We have hundreds of people’s support, not just people who were in my husband’s administration, but people from all over the country who have expertise.”
She added: “It’s important to pick the person who can make the best decision, who is tested and proven as a leader.” My Way News
Hillary contends that this is not a campaign about advisers but about experience and then she goes on to say how many advisers she has. If this is a campaign about experience, as she said, then she should have expanded the experience part. Instead, she expanded that which she just said was not important. She said that people do not vote for advisers and then told everyone how many advisers she has.
The reason for this is quite simple, Hillary Clinton does not have the experience she wants everyone to believe she has. Obama has held elected office longer, Obama was against the war in Iraq (though he was not in the Senate) and he voted against the Iran resolution. No matter what one thinks about these issues, Obama and Hillary were opposites on them and if the Democratic base is using the war as the bellwether (this issue is why they say they won the election) than Obama is clearly more in tune with the base than Hillary is. This might be because she triangulated in order to appeal to the general election voters (she was supposed to win the primaries, hands down).
This is more Clinton double speak. They are already down playing the Iowa caucus and lowering expectations. They are doing the same in Hew Hampshire. It is true that Hillary is in trouble in those states but there are reasons for this ploy. They will be able to say they expected the losses if she in fact loses one or both states and if she wins both they can say she is the second coming of the comeback kid. They will say that Iowa and NH were always going to be tough and she never figured to win but she is the comeback kid like her hubby. The reality is, Hillary and her people have been predicting she was the inevitable winner for a year because she held huge leads for most of it.
I can’t figure how she has any support because she talks out of both sides of her face and she has not been truthful for years (remember, she said she never thought about running for president and then jumped right in the race). She has the highest negative ratings of any candidate and she is very polarizing. I might not agree with Obama’s politics but at least he appears to be a warm and charming person.
Hillary is toast and I cannot wait for her to lose so that we can finally rid this country of the vermin known as Clinton.
Piling on Hillary, Now That is Fun
Dec 14, 2007 Political
I have never been shy about my dislike for Hillary Clinton. She is a manipulative liar who has been planning to be president for decades after making a pact with her equally dishonest husband. He was to be first and then it was her turn, as if people get turns at leading this country. That idea in and of itself shows that she feels entitled to the job and that it is rightfully hers. She has been the front runner for a long time and was dubbed the inevitable winner of the nomination. Now it appears that her inevitable run is in jeopardy and people are piling on her after a bad month or so.
Hillary promised not to go negative and that she was focusing on the issues. In a debate, Bill Richardson (hoping to be selected as Hillary’s VP) came to her defense and said that they should stop picking on her. She indicated that if people were going to throw mud they should get their facts straight. She had been sliding in the polls and after the debate she slid even farther and all of the sudden she was going to get dirty, something she called “fun.”
Hillary went into open attack mode (she and surrogates had been attacking in secret all along) and she picked on what Obama wrote in kindergarten. This was not exactly a smart move. Remember Hillary wanted to be a number of things when she was a child and I don’t think those ideas should be used against her, unless of course, she lied about them so she would look more human. Then one of her staff sent out the Obama is a Muslim email and Hillary had to deny it. Polls dropping. Then one of her people questioned Obama’s admitted past drug use. I predicted that would haunt her especially given her husband’s lame lie about his own. Polls dropped further and Obama becomes tied or is slightly ahead. Campaign workers resign (or were fired) over the incidents.
Hillary started last January as the heir apparent and is now in position to be an also ran. She is in danger of losing the first four primaries which would likely be a death blow to her campaign. She went into this week’s debate in an unfamiliar position, as a person trying to catch up. For once, she was not the front runner. Her husband is in a tizzy and her campaign, despite what she says, is in a shambles. Bill is so worked up his ailing heart might explode before this thing is over and it appears as if the recent influx of campaign workers has some concerned that some caucus tampering might be forthcoming. I know the Clintons have denied this but they deny everything. Does anyone actually think they will ever admit to any wrong doing? They have been caught a number of times and yet they deny, deny, deny and then when there is evidence they blame someone or something else. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy comes to mind.
Hillary continues to say she is the best to fend off the Republican “attack machine” (as if the Democrats do not have their own) because she has been under scrutiny for 16 years and has nothing to hide. This is only partly true. She has been under scrutiny but she has plenty to hide. The truth is still out there with regard to the many scandals they have both been involved in. Someone with hard evidence could show up and really blow her out of the water. I know a lot of the people with evidence are dead but that does not mean there are no others. One bimbo eruption with video or DNA evidence with respect to Bill during the general election and she is toast. She presses on but there are many sources now doubting if she can win the primary or, if she does, the general.
- The notion that she has a post-Iowa “firewall†in New Hampshire is a fantasy, and she is in danger of losing all four early contests, including Nevada and South Carolina – probably to Sen. Barack Obama, who is now, in momentum terms, the Democratic front runner. [MSNBC]
- Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results – which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton – mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton’s once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire’s Jan. 8 primary. [Concord Monitor]
- Hillary precinct captain now supports Obama (Video) [You Tube]
- The Democratic Party chairman in Wyoming is predicting that Democratic candidates throughout the Rocky Mountain region will be damaged if his party selects Hillary Clinton for president. [Denver Post]
- This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility, that she doesn’t actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don’t feel deep affection for her. [WSJ Opinion Journal]
- “If I had listened to … the Washington chattering class, I would not be standing here would I?” Clinton told reporters, as controversy and reports of campaign turmoil swirled around her 2008 presidential bid.
“I believe in trusting my own instincts. I feel very, very good about the case that I am making.” [Breitbart]
The last quote is from Hillary and I expect that all candidates feel they are the best so this is no surprise. The problem is, she did listen to the DC chattering class. A lot of them told her to run and she has more endorsements from Democrats in Congress than any other candidate. She wanted to run and they knew it so they encouraged her to run though she would have done it anyway. She believes it is her destiny.
As far as trusting her instincts, how did that work out with her and Bill with regard to his rape and sexual assaults? Did she have any instincts telling her something was amiss? Did she ignore them in order to pursue her dream of being president? She did say there are worse things than the infidelity (and there are). Did she mean losing her chance at the White House.
Remember, without Bill she would be an unknown and she would never have been elected to office. She only has his last name as a plus to the electorate, otherwise no one would know her and they certainly would not vote for her.
It will be fun over the next few weeks. I predict that there will be more dirt despite Hillary’s claim that it will not happen again. She is desperate and she sees her destiny slipping away. The compact primary season makes recovery very difficult and she will be on the ropes if Obama can pull off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I can’t wait for the fun if she loses. I think she might have a nervous breakdown and start accusing all kinds of people of incompetence.
One last thing. There are very important votes taking place in Congress this week. The federal government needs a budget and our troops need money. Why are all the people running for office not in Congress doing the work of the people?
Tags: caucus, Hillary, iowa, new hampshire, obama. clinton
Full Clinton Press in Iowa
Dec 9, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton might have stated that she does not need celebrity endorsement to win but it has not stopped her from picking it up and at the most opportune times. It is as if the endorsements are timed to counter something big about her opponents. B. Hussein Obama has picked up the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey and that is a big endorsement. Winfrey is a very popular woman whose opinions carry a lot of weight. Winfrey is making three appearances this weekend in support of Obama and this has the Clinton camp in a tizzy.
Hillary has pulled out the stops and has hubby Bill running around spreading lies all over. He is criticizing the media for its portrayal of his wife and he is rewriting history with regard to his support for the war. He has start power and he is trying to use it to beat back the Obama/Oprah assault. Now Hillary has brought in her daughter Chelsea who has not yet campaigned for mom. I saw the picture of Chelsea and I have to say she is a lot cuter than she was as a teen but no matter how she has changed she has no where near the start power of Winfrey. There is no way that her presence is going to cause a hiccup in the Obama/Oprah express. It is kind of unfair to bring Chelsea in at this time when there is not a damned thing she can do.
I wonder why Babs Streisand did not show up. That would have been a more logical choice than Chelsea though Oprah has much more star power than a yenta whose time has come and gone. Maybe Babs did not want to be in an uncomfortable position among the Clinton crime family seeing as how she slept with Bill (which Hillary is quite aware of).
If people are not going to show up in support because they had sex with Bill then it is going to be a lonely campaign trail.
Source:
New York Times
As an aside, take a look at the amount of food on Hillary’s plate. No wonder her hips are getting farther away from center. If she keeps eating like that she will be able to cover Iowa and never have to move.