Well, At Least She'll Fit In....
According to UPI, Hillary Clinton may travel to North Korea this year. The purported reason is to discuss Kim Jong-il's nuclear program.
It is well known that the Stalinist dictatorship's state-controlled media favored John Kerry during the 2004 presidential elections. The question is: What are they willing to do to make sure they get their guy (or girl) in the Oval Office in 2008? Are they willing to pretend to "play ball" with a third-party negotiator, "ending" their nuclear program after her tough talk, in order to bolster her chances of capturing the White House -- and giving them another Clinton Democrat whose foreign policy will be more amenable to their long-term nuclear interests? Don't dismiss the idea; they tried (in their pathetic way) to influence the American election last year. Hillary, always a savvier politician than the Boston bloviator, could make enlighten them on the actual political picture of the United States...and how to manipulate it in their (and her) favor.
And remember: feigning cooperation with a third-party negotiator named Jimmy Carter served their nuclear ambitions well in 1994.
12 Comments:
Hillary is trying to get credentials in the following areas.1 Defense 2 Foreign Policy 3 Homeland Security.
Hillary is smarter than the liberals . She understands she has to run from the center.
She can do what she wants once in the White House.
Hillary appears to be successfully pully off this centrist costume of hers -- and it's still several years before the next election.
After years of Carter-plomacy the last thing we need is another rabid leftist clown negotiating with their kindred spirits in Marxist authoritarian regimes.
My most fervent hope is that Hillary "Madame DuFarge" Rodham Clinton has enough baggage in her closet to prevent her from gaining the White House. She's far smarter than Bill, far more savvy than Kerry, far more devious than any current politician I can name, and much farther to the left than most people realize, all of which makes her a very dangerous person.
Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that Hillary Clinton is, in fact, what her policies and public statements suggest she is: a moderate Democrat? A liberal?
Even the profile of Clinton on Discover the Network doesn't actually cite anything, aside from her associations with former New Leftists, to demonstrate that she's a leftist in any meaningful sense.
I'm not saying you have to like or admire her -- I don't like her much, though for reasons different from yours -- but let's call a spade a spade. She may be a narcissist, as David Horowitz's profile of her on DTN says, and she's certaintly to the left of the Bush administration, but there's scant evidence that she's a leftist. The people of the state of New York elected her as the liberal Democrat that she pretty clearly is.
Best,
Dan
Hillary Clinton's entire career is one long record of centrist liberalism (like her husband's). The fanatical hatred of her on the right has little to do with her politics and much to do with her combination of success and abrasive arrogance (much as is the case with the relatively centrist current President, whose opponents hate him to a degree that can't possibly be explained by his actual policy stances).
Success has nothing to do with it. I admire successful people.
I dislike Hillary Clinton primarily for two reasons, her untenable leftist (or liberal, if you insist) political positions and her unpleasant nature. Either one would be quite enough to prevent me from voting for her, but taken together they create an overwhelmingly negative character.
Are Hillary's politics truly "untenable," as Redbeard writes? It seems to me that this country has survived for 230 years with administrations that are all over the ideological map. We've had presidents who are to the left of Hillary Clinton and some who are to the right of Bush, and some who are to the left of Clinton on some things and to the right of Bush on others, and American civilization yet stands.
-Dan
Daniel said...
"Are Hillary's politics truly "untenable," as Redbeard writes? It seems to me that this country has survived for 230 years with administrations that are all over the ideological map. We've had presidents who are to the left of Hillary Clinton and some who are to the right of Bush, and some who are to the left of Clinton on some things and to the right of Bush on others, and American civilization yet stands."
Which presidents were to the left of Billarly Clinton?
The answer is Jimmy Carter. Of course, the fact that we have had one president more to the left than Hillary is hardly a ringing endorsement of her candidacy. That would be like saying that a horrible performer on American Idol, someone who can't carry a tune in a bucket, should be the winner by virtue of not being quite as bad as William Hung.
On economic matters, most of the Democratic presidents, and some of the Republican presidents, of the 20th century have been to the left of Hilary Clinton. FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter. Arguably Eisenhower, TR, Nixon.
Compared to Bush, Hilary believes in somewhat higher taxes for the wealthy, more favorable laws for unions, more environmental regulation, etc., etc. She voted for the war in Iraq, though she's since been mildly critical of its execution. Her husband was liberal in his deployment of the armed forces. This is all within the mainstream of modern American politics, the politics with which we helped win two world wars and the Cold War and emerged as the world's only superpower.
On social issues, she's pro-choice, as the majority of Americans are. She's moderately pro-gay rights, as roughly half the country is. She's moderately pro-gun control, as roughly half the country is. I'm pretty sure that she's pro-death penalty, as a majority of the country is. I have no doubt that she's further to the left on some of these issues, in her heart of hearts, than she pretends to be in her public persona, but the important thing is what she does as a politician, not what she believes in her heart of hearts, and by that measure she's entirely mainstream.
All of this tagging of Hilary as a leftist, it seems to me, is a way to avoid actually confronting the issues, actually sitting down and hashing out what policies serve America best. How do we solve the impending health care crisis? Should we worry about the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the rest of us? Should abortion be legal or not? What degree of regulation do we want of the financial industries? How do we best defend against the terrorist threat? What do we in Iraq? How do we address the coarsening of our culture without infringing on free speech and free expression? Why is South Park so goddamned funny?
C'mon people. Let's get serious up in this joint.
-Dan
Go directly North of here to Dan-ville, and witness a quintessential, abjectly ignorant, leftist weltschmertz.
P.S. Jimmy Carter did not want open homosexuality in our warrior class, and did not gut it to the degree of the Clintons. He did not try to usurp 30% of our economy by overwhelmingly left-izing our health care system. He also did not ramrod the largest increase in taxes, ever know to mankind. JUST TO NAME A FEW!
P.P.S. Carter also was not a schooled disciple of Saul Alinsky.
COME ON PEOPLE LET'S DO OUR HOMEWORK! HILLARY CLINTON IS AS LEFT AS IT GETS. WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
Post a Comment
<< Home