Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Bill Clinton defending his woman

There is a conversation at the The Corner about Bill’s recent defense of Hillary regarding the "breathtakingly misleading" question asked by Tim Russert. More here, including the video of Bill wagging his finger at Russert. I think this is very interesting, and very much to Hillary’s disadvantage. This is one of those rare things that gets people riled up in the taverns. The good old days are here again, as it were.

Discussions - 6 Comments

Hillary's Defense of her Gaffe

It's been a bad week for Hillary Clinton. Seemingly on her way to a Democratic coronation as the nominee for president, she had a horrible debate with her comments about giving driver licenses to illegal aliens in New York. ("I am for it and against it."- or something like that), as well as her weak response to a question as to whether she would agree to the release of documents pertaining to her actions as First Lady. Well she and her defenders have been quick to mount a great defense. First, it was the fault of the media (Tim Russert) for directing hard questions only to her, a woman. Then, it was the fault of her competitors-all men-who have ganged up on a woman. Neither of these arguments holds any water whatsoever.

Let me address the first complaint about Tim Russert. Mr Russert is a liberal Democrat. To his credit, he usually tries to be fair and ask relevant questions, unlike most of his colleagues. As Senator from New York, it was entirely relevant to ask Senator Clinton her opinion of the decision by New York State Attoney General, Elliot Spitzer to give driver licenses to illegal aliens. When she tried to answer the question in her usual evasive manner that would offend no one, she was called on it and Russert, appropriately, asked a follow up question to pin down her position. It should be added that may be the first time any member of the media has ever tried to pin her down with a hard question.

Does Mrs Clinton want to see licenses given to illegal aliens? Of course she does. She doesn't want to offend the Hispanic lobby-not that all Hispanics favor such a move. Also consider this: If Clinton goes up against Giuliani in the general election, she is going to need all the votes she can get to carry New York. Make no mistake. A US state driver license is the main form of picture ID in our country. With that piece of ID, other doors open up-including voter registration, where many states including California, are prohibited from checking a voter's citizenship or even ID at the polls.

Yesterday, Clinton appeared at her alma mater, Wellesley University, where she made a pointed reference to the "Boy's Club"-meaning her male colleagues in the debates- a brazen move to gain sympathy as a woman being ganged up on by the "Boys". It sparked loud applause. Indeed, aside from the fact that Obama, Edwards and Dodd jumped on her during the debate, Obama has now criticized her for wanting to be treated in a preferential manner. His criticism is appropriate. Here is why.

Mrs Clinton is running for President- Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, she is the front-runner by a wide margin. It is she who would take us into war. It is she who we expect to stand up to Iran, North Korea and world-wide Islamic terror. If she cannot stand up to this kind of give and take from her male competitors for the nomination, then how can we expect her to be the strong kind of leader that we need in these troubled times? As Obama said, she cannot say, "Don't pick on me." and expect to be considered a serious candidate for president. As front-runner, she should expect to be attacked by the others.

To me, this is further evidence that Clinton would be annihilated in a debate with any of the Republican front-runners. Behind all the glitter, spin and propaganda about her, she is a dishonest charlatan who cannot be truthful about where she really wants to take this country (into socialism). Her shifty lies and evasions should be obvious to anyone watching her on TV or in person. No wonder many Republicans want her to win the nomination.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

I wish I could agree with you about this, Peter. But I don't. Bill rushing to her defense is exactly the sort of thing that will resonate well with the ladies she's after. This is the only way Bill can be useful to her--and he's finally ponying up. It's like a soap-operatic apology for his infidelity . . . finally, after all these years. Now all he has to do is show up on Oprah or the View to defend her even more publicly. It hurts her with the sensible folks you meet in the taverns, true. But, honestly, those folks weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway--at least not in the primary. When the general comes around, those guys in the tavern who lean Dem will still vote for her even though they hate doing it. They'll figure Bill's going to make sure she stays in line. And the ladies she's after will still be aflutter over Bill's gallant defense of her (and the many more to come). Does it make me want to gag? You bet. But there it is.

President Clinton has every right to "defend" Mrs Clinton by pointing out the truth; the truth is that Hillary Clinton has been the victim of an enormous amount ot vitriolic, senseless hatred fueled by the rabid right wing of the political spectrum. Far from hurting her though, the inexusable abuse (such as what happened this week), helps her. The American people can see that she is the sort of tough, resolute leader that is necessary in a time of crisis. No other candidate has her resume, and no other candidate has has proven her mettle. Get used to it, this "Iron Lady" has what it takes.

Mr. Schramm, as a patron of several 'taverns' in both Pennsylvania and in the Mansfield and Bucyrus area of Ohio, I have to say that I don't think this will really rile very many people so much. The conversations I hear and take part in are usually about how the Republicans can't be trusted, and that they're trying to sucker us into another war using the same deceptive and dishonest techniques they used to take us into Iraq, a war that is draining us of lives and money for little to no real benefit. People remember all of that b.s. about the 'weapons of mass destruction'. They haven't forgotten 9/11, but they also haven't forgotten the absolute certainty with which the WMDs were talked about. We were basically told that going into Iraq was to protect us from mushroom clouds here at home, and it turns out that Iraq didn't have 'jack squat' - as they say at my favorite PA tavern. The tavern-goers I meet largely agree that Bush has taken us down the wrong path and that if we go with another Republican we'll just continue. Bush and Cheney have done a lot of damage to their party. Maybe it's irreparable. Another thing that folks are talking about is the constant stream of Republican sex offenders who have been caught in the last few years. For a variety of reasons that really bothers people, and they have noticed how many of them are Republicans. I don't see or hear much affection for Hillary, for sure, but I really don't see the level of hatred that Limbaugh was able to stir up back during Bill Clinton's presidency. Right now, people are angry at Bush, from both sides, and they want us out of Iraq.

Well, it looks like the Clinton machine has finally found us. It had to happen sooner or later.

Response to non-hater,

No other candidate has her resume? Just among the Democrats, how long as Dodd been in Congress? How about Biden? Even the hapless Dennis Kucinich has a deeper resume in politics than Clinton.

Hillary's experience consists of being the wife of Bill Clinton, which she parlayed into becoming senator of a hand-selected state she didn't even live in.

Our distaste for Hillary and Bill is based on one inescapable fact: They are both corrupt.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11319