Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:
“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,†she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.†FT.com
She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.
Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.
As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.
She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.
Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.
Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.
Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.
Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?
Oops, did I just pile on the girl?
Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house
Clinton, not Russert, is Misleading
Nov 3, 2007 Political
During the last debate Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton if she was prepared to disclose her White House related documents before the election so that people could judge her qualifications. The correspondence in question is mostly between Hillary and Husband Bill. She has made claims that her time in the White House has given her experience and it is this experience which makes her the better candidate. Russert asked specifically about those communications:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012. [emphasis mine] National Review Online
Hillary stated that as far as she knew the health care papers had been released and that things were moving as quickly as the archives could go. When Russert told her that President Clinton had written a letter asking that communications between the two of them not be released she said that she did not believe it was in their control. This is a misleading answer and Bill Clinton’s response was just as misleading.
Bill was out trying to extinguish the flames after Hillary’s poor debate performance and Bill stated that Russert asked a “breathtakingly misleading” question:
Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week’s Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after “we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.”
One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert.
“She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down,” the former president told reporters Friday. “And she didn’t even, didn’t know what he was talking about. And now that I’ve described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn’t know what he was talking about.”
Russert’s question “was breathtakingly misleading,” Bill Clinton said. [emphasis mine] Yahoo News
Let us see who was misleading in all this. First of all, Clinton wrote a letter on August 19, 1994 asking that all categories of his correspondence be kept from disclosure until twelve years after his term as President expires (which would actually be 2013). This is an admission by him in the 2002 memo. I do not think that is asking the National Archives to speed anything up, as Clinton claimed in the interview. It is likely that he was ensuring that the records would remain sealed for a future Hillary run. Remember, these two have been planning this campaign for a long time and not releasing them until 2013 would ensure she could run for a second term, assuming she won a first. Even releasing them in late 2012 would not hurt her by the time people were able to request and get them the election would be over.
Secondly, the letter Clinton wrote in 2002 where he asked that certain items be released earlier than 2013 and those two categories were appointments and submitting advice. However, in the body of the letter he explicitly excludes communication between Hillary and him; “… communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature…” This means that he DID NOT ask for this to be released early because he excluded it from the request. It also means that Russert was 100% correct in his questioning and that Bill Clinton was the one who was “breathtakingly misleading” because he said he wrote the letter to speed up the process, not to slow it down but since he excluded items between him and Hillary he did not speed up the process that Russert asked about. Russert specifically asked about items between her and her husband. This is typical Clinton double speak and their mind numbed, eye glazed, followers will listen to him and believe every word he said.
This is no different than I did not have sex with that woman or I was closer to getting bin Laden than anyone or any other statement he has made that has proved to be false. I wonder if he wagged his finger when he was talking about this? That is a tell tale Clinton is lying sign. In any event, he was breathtakingly misleading and the Clinton camp is trying to put the focus on Russert and indicate that he was unfair. He was 100% fair and he asked the follow up questions that too few are willing to ask her highness, Hillary. Hillary was finally taken to task and not allowed to steer off subject or to avoid answers. When she gave a non answer she was called on it and then instead of being honest she played around until she was able to take two contrasting positions in two minutes. The Clintons can blame Russert but it is they who are being dishonest with America. Unfortunately, those who support her and worship him will never be able to see this.
Clinton used the words “breathtakingly misleading” which was his way of saying Russert distorted the truth. In fact, the Clintons, as is their pattern, are the ones who do more than mislead. They outright lie and expect everyone to believe them. Included in this post are the news items relating to this as well as the document Clinton wrote in 2002 (in which he references the 1994 memo) and there is no doubt what he is asking of the National Archives.
What is in their communications that they do not want people to see? What is it that they are afraid of? We already know they will do anything to keep unfavorable information from seeing the light of day. The whole Sandy Burglar incident is testimony to that so it is no stretch to believe the Clintons are trying to keep information from getting out until it can have no effect.
Hillary has claimed a huge amount of experience based on her tenure as First Lady so it is reasonable to ask for documented proof of her claim. If she truly did wonderful things while in the White House it would be to her benefit to release the items and let us see. She has never run anything, never been a leader in government (such as a governor) and she has never been the head of a corporation or company. If she wants us to believe she has leadership experience, any communications she could disclose to shed light on that claim would be helpful.
One thing is certain, if the Clintons are not releasing the papers it is because they do not help, and probably hurt her. She will release anything that makes her look good but the Clintons will go to any length, including have a surrogate steal from the National Archives. Clinton hurt herself in the debate. The years of secrecy and lying are finally catching up and many will awaken and see what a shill she actually is. Those running against her for the Democratic nomination hope they awaken before the primaries.
If they don’t, I hope they awaken before next November.
Sources:
Clinton 2002 Memo [pdf]
Complete debate transcript [NYT]
Clinton on Russert and the question [My Way News]
As an aside, I wonder if Media Matters will pick this up and expose the lies.
Tags: debate performance, former president clinton, Hillary Clinton, misleading answer, national archives, Obama, presidential debate, white house
Clinton Cat Fight?
Oct 21, 2007 Political
Will Hillary have to defend her extreme makeover to a softer image now that it has been reported that she gave away Socks the cat when she left the White House? The report is that Hillary got Socks to soften her image and make her look like a good mom while she was in the White House. When she and Bill left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue it seems the only thing they did not take with them was Socks who they gave to Betty Currie. Is this another instance of Hillary using something for political gain and expedience and then discarding it when it no longer served a purpose? Probably not, but who knows.
Perhaps the Clintons decided that they could not care for a cat with their busy post White House lifestyle. Chelsea was off to college and work and there would not be staff members around to care for it. Given that Bill took Buddy with him one could make the argument that Socks the cat was just a convenient prop that was discarded when no longer needed. Given that Buddy ran in the street and was hit by a vehicle, it might be a blessing for Socks to have been given away.
I believe that Hillary Clinton is cold and calculating and that she does not do anything unless there is a political motive. Getting the cat was probably one of those calculated moves but giving it away might have been nothing more than giving it to someone who liked it and could care for it much better than the Clintons could. Betty Currie was an obvious choice because she had a history of cleaning up Clinton messes.
Socks is better off than Buddy and Hillary can always borrow the cat or get a new one should she feel the need to express her softer side.
Of course, if she wants to look soft she should get a porcupine. Even Hillary would look soft next to one of those.
Source:
Times On Line
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, , Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Inside the Northwest Territory, , Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke’s, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Link Fest, President, Republicans, socks, white house