-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
Hillary Playing Hide N’ Seek Again
What ever happens in the election in 2008, lets just be sure that the voters make their decision based on a “lock up” of the record of Hillary Clinton. Sort of a “don’t ask don’t tell” program to mislead the voters. Probably the left would see the public dissemination of her record to be an invasion of her privacy anyway. The Clinton library has declared according to an LA Times article by Peter Nicholas HERE that the records won’t be available to the public until after the 2008 election (isn’t that special). For goodness sake we (the Clintons) certainly don’t want what we have done with the power of the Presidency to figure in to the evaluation of her suitability. I can’t believe what a sucker the left hand side of the voting public is for Hillary’s constant re-shaping of the facts.
I’ll just bet that this decision is based on the fact that she called out Obama on his statement to not use Nukes as being too unsophisticated and knowledgeable for the job (Presidency) all while it was later revealed that she had said essentially the same thing. I’m betting that a calculation has been made that she wants a free fire zone during the campaign without the possibility that she can be caught in her lies and duplicity at least as it pertains to official presidential records. Every time she gets political pressure she shifts her views without blinking to accommodate as many voters as possible, predominately on the left. Who in the adult community sees this as a credible candidate to any degree?
comments
12 Responses to “Hillary Playing Hide N’ Seek Again”
Leave a Reply
one thing i can say for hc though is she was able to stick by bill during his affairs being made public. i was telling my wife how she should use the campaign song “stand by your man” if she wants to appeal to christians on the fence. regardless of her intentions on what some say was a plot for the white house, she forgave him publically and showed some serious integrity that i dont think i could display, and to me that is a plus.
what i think the appeal is regarding hc is that she brings some diplomatic firepower with the potential first husband. like it or not, bill still has an impressive network of international connections that would be at her disposal. i dont think this is the only reason to vote for her, but to many people i have spoken to, it is a huge advantage. i cant lie when i say that she has many connections to run the white house.
flip-flopping aside, i consider her to be a credible candidate in the eyes of most voting americans (especially the elderly who have medicare and medicare living on social security). also, i know alot of colleagues who like the fact that she is quite the “bulldog” when she is passionate about issues (healthcare, helping the lower classes etc.)
i cant say that i will vote for her at this time if she is the nominee, but i do consider her to be credible aside from the hide and seek issues.
Matt……I think her “forgiveness” was merely political strategy looking towards 08……….steve
She is so transparently untrustworthy. But in a weird way, will she make it easy for a Republican to win in 2008? Part of me thinks it is a good thing she is running, because there is no way someone like Gore would lose. Lots of middle-grounders would vote for him out of sympathy.
This assumes, of course, that enough people will have the good sense not to vote for her.
Neil………I agree and so does M2 that comments here (critically) that the best chance the Republicans have in 08 is Hillary………….steve
this could just be my opinion, but i think there there will be more one-issue and hot button voters voting republican than those voting democrats.
i could be wrong, but i really believe that most republicans would vote any republican in whose words are tough on things like abortion, war on terror, alternative lifestyles etc. that vote would stick regardless of the persons track record on voting for those issues. the defense for this voting is always “lesser of the two evils” and i ahve used this defense many times myself.
here is an example, republicans have had a republican controlled house and senate with a favorable supreme court but never brught up a challenge to roe v. wade in this new century. i think this is an embarrasment since i am pretty sure that they see enough cases come their way that something could have been addressed to at least challenge it. also, the past decade, hot button issues have been decided on the state level not the federal level, so to me this is as much a quid pro quo as hc and others playing hide and seek.
my believe is that hide and seek is how you play politics regardless what side of the aisle one is on. the most famous has to be “no new taxes” from bush 41. comically, some commentaries on the left approached this as “know new taxes”. so, my point is that this behavior is evident in both parties, thus, anybody who votes based on spoken intentions on hot-button issues needs to evaluate the probability of legislation getting passed despite massive gridlock in the beltway.
Matt……here is one I have to take exception to you. The “no new taxes” pledge by Bush the 1st was not in my opinion a “hide and seek” strategy. I am metaphysically certain that he meant that when he said that and fully intended to see it out. The difference here is the Democratically controlled Congress held his feet to the fire on virtually accomplishing anything unless he relented on this particular point. As soon as he did “compromise” they started screaming about Bush breaking the promise of no new taxes as they mocked “read my lips” as though they weren’t complicit. If you have a stupid enough electorate (or at least base) you can get away with that stuff. This is diametrically opposite to HRC trying to hide the record to confuse the voters as to the truth as she campaigns in favor or against thing that boost her number even though they are contradicted by her previous actions and statements. This is truly an act of evil. It is a lie in another form. But you won’t hear “Hillary lied” like you hear “bush lied” even though her husband was adjudicated a liar in a court of law and lost his legal license. …..steve
[…] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article hillary clinton Hillary Playing Hide N’ Seek Again » Posted at Next Stop […]
i understand your rebuttal and do agree with it to some extent. however, when you asked, “Who in the adult community sees this as a credible candidate to any degree?”, I felt obliged to comment because apart of me does see her as more credible than other front runners (on the left and some on the right).
let me take a step back for some clarity for all the readers. my wife has been asking me “under what circumstances would you vote for someone other than the republican nominee?” after alot of himming and hawing, mental gymnastics and potential conspiracy beliefs, it comes down to an answer of “i probably wont vote for anyone other than the republican nominee”.
for this, the reasons are:
obama, i dont think has the credibility and network to run the office during the current war. his connections plus his lack of “meat” on his visions makes me believe he is still green.
gore, i think he has hoodwinked the public via “an inconvenient truth”, when the real answer to manmade global warming is probably closer to conserve and wisely allocate resources rather than over consume and abuse ecosystems. in the event he would be president, i think it is only a matter of time before he would cause serious economic and psychological damage with his pet projects.
clinton, i believe is the only one i could cast a vote for. that said, i do believe that she is a closet marxist. granted, i do not have the smoking gun, but if she released all of those sealed records she has kept from the public, that would be confirmation of my conspiracy theory.
in realtiy, the average nsl reader is undecided in the sense that whoever get the republican nominee is getting their vote. this is not meant to pick on anybody, but just admitting the reality of the likely vote. personally, i have no qualms with someone doing this because we all get our one vote and can use any logic to arrive at the eventual casting.
however, the average undecided voter is truely undecided in the sense that they will consider either candidate and might wait until the election week or day before checking the box. i say this because i work around and with many people who are telling me such. between the maintainence staff, admin. staff and colleagues at our 2000 employee organization in a large midwestern city, they can give me a much better feel for average than the conservative and liberal blog world whose alrady knows which party they will vote for.
the people i speak with are quite sympathetic to clinton, in spite of her and her husbands indescretion. as an example, they associate clinton with the dot-com explosion rather than the dot-bomb implosion that bush43 inherited. further, they see bush trying to rebuild “‘forin’ oil” nations at the expense of the hurricane disaster areas. so, any rep. who aligns with this administration will suffer the same fate that the candidates did in 06 when congress shifted under this admittidely biased logic.
for the biggest irony in my eyes, the average person i visit with has the opinion that perception is realty. here, the clintons are master craftsmen of spinning perceptions into voting realtiy for the average citizen. hillary can use all of bill’s resources in this regard to her pleasure and the voting population might believe it. nsl readers will object, but average people dont harbor the skepticism and open dislike of hillary the way that conservative voters and nsl readers might. this is not picking on people, just observing the comment threads.
oh, and before anyone jumps on this post, i am not picking at people, just asking the same question to the readers my wife asked me: “under what circumstances would you vote for someone other than the rep. nominee?”
Matt:
here, the clintons are master craftsmen of spinning perceptions into voting realtiy for the average citizen. hillary can use all of bill’s resources in this regard to her pleasure and the voting population might believe it.
That is a lot of what I am saying.
“under what circumstances would you vote for someone other than the rep. nominee?”
Cummon, given my firm economic and political views this is asking me like which wrist would I rather slit………..
…….steve
P.S. I guess I would vote for Liberman before I would vote for Chafee.
Nice thread Matt… Love the RvW observation (no bites). Been my point for a while now.
Steve, your 41 “No new taxes” take certainly has merit & is a line of reasoning I’d encourage you to use unilaterally. I love that you’re capable of it…
Still stupid for him to pull the “read my lips” card during his campaign but that’s politics right? Sure it is… So lets give the same sort of grace on both sides.
M2……I’ll keep it in mind. B-T-W was it stupider than his later “those Bozo’s” comment? ……..steve
the irony of how you and most evangelical republican christians see the clinton’s indescretions is mostly given a pass by the people who have spoken to me about their collective behavior. in a sad twist of reasoning, the people i know outside of this blog’s network mostly believe the “clinton lied and nobody died” bumper sticker to be a reflection this.
i think average people who would vote for clinton see adultery (on bill’s part) as a common problem facing all, but not all would act on the temptation. in the event they do get caught, most voters would do the very same thing and lie about it, but would never commit perjury over it. thus, in kind, they see hilliary’s response to it as incredible forginess and strength of character inspite of evidence for political maneuvering. this is admittidly baffling, given the fact rudy gets cruicified over his behavior.
dont you think that politicians can play on the “let’s not compare whose sin is greater” emotions when their jobs are on the line? as an example, a very conservative work colleague told me that he will hold his nose in the booth if he has to cast a rudy vote and repent later (yes, he was very serious). his intellectual dishonesty in my book is frightening because it appears to use a revered chirstian concept as a front to go about his own business. i am not accusing him or any others christian of doing this, but just commenting on how it appears (especially to my non-christian acquaintences at work who have asked me for an explanation of this behavior).
p.s. i like liberman and have thought of writing him in, but this is a wasted vote…
Matt……..good comments here. I’d add in regards to this position of some apologists on the left: “clinton lied and nobody died” is a likely serious mistatement of fact. I feel that Clinton was asleep at the wheel as to his complicity in giving pass to bin Laden. There is a lot of evidence of this. He admitted before 911 that he was offered bin Laden but declined (he says because he hadn’t done anything which is a falsehood). I think that the Lewinsky matter created such a diversion that
ourhis guard was down and enabled in part (large part) the events leading up to 911.I hear them repeat it but no one can actually show me the lie that Bush actually made, but it sounds good just the same….steve
Also, these same types could say FDR lied and somebody died or LBJ lied and somebody died and be correct, but you don’t hear that much. FDR is considered by the same people that say “Clinton lied but no one died” to be the greatest president of all time. I think he just MAY have botched up the way he wrapped up the war in the Asia theater relative to MacArthur. [might have brought us the cold war]
The woman just gives me the heebies. She has not a bone of truth, in fact the only “truth” she follows is that of her own path to power. That scares me because the times she’s been honest are the times she is most communist in her bent.
She has not the intelligence for the job. She has not the self-control. She has not the experience. She has not the character. She has not the humanity. She has not the courage.
She is her own worst enemy, and unfortunately, she is fast making her our worst enemy as well.
m2, would you vote for hillary? your man obama probably won’t get it (but i suppose a lot could change)
So would you vote for her?
just curious.
Hey Steve,
As usual, you make a good point. Luckily there were many busy little bees taking copious notes during the Clinton years and hundreds of books, court transcripts and legal documents which the FOIA will avail to anyone who wants to see them.
And too, the stalwart and steadfast conservative bloggers won’t let her escape her truth and her actions. Maybe someone will pull a swiftboat during the campaign, that would be worth the price of admission.
You’ll likely never change the minds of the straight party ticket voters though. I asked my sister about Hillary out of curiosity. Would she vote for her? Her response was she was voting for whomever the party put up. Her preference was Biden but if it was Hillary, she’d pull the lever for her. For my sister and unfortunately, many like her - it’s about the party, not the candidate.
Personally, I can’t wait to see what happens during her campaign. It’s going to be quite the roller coaster ride.
WC
Hi WC……..Thanks for the comments. Concerning you sister and the party line. It is interesting that her top two in the Democratic race is Biden and Hillary. Both voted to prosecute a “pre-emptive” war in Iraq.
Hillary defended her vote to “Code Pink” in a video HERE on 3/06/2003 on the basis of she has her own information and sources going back for 9 years as the basis of her vote, not Bush intelligence sources. She reiterated her support for the decision to go to war all away through 2006 and early 2007 when “move on” was flexing its muscles following last Novembers election. Then she changes her tune until the other day when she addressed the War Veterans organization and says the surge is working.
In the case of Biden, this is a guy who complained from shortly after the Iraqi ground invasion through 2006 that Bush needed to add more troops. As soon as Bush relented and started proffering the “surge” he became resistant and ultimately voted against the surge. Lets not forget for those that continue to complain about Bushes brains that Biden actually got marginal grades just over the requirements for basic graduation and lets not forget that little foray with plagiarism. Not only are these two candidates Partisan, but they have jockeyed their support and remedies for the war based on their personal political opportunities. I at least respect more the consistency of an Obama on this issue. However, it is much easier for him to assert such since he wasn’t around to vote originally……steve
wc:
i agree with your first paragraph. no question that any administration (including the current one) needs to be under the microscope because they are using our tax payer dollars and deciding our future. however, i wonder if you also think that your third paragraph applies to the republican side of the aisle as well? from reading your blog i can see you are quite level headed and just wondered if you see the same tendency in the right as is in the left.
i could not agree more with you about seeing her campaing. i think the roller coaster ride for this presidential election will be enjoyable regardless of who gets the nomination on either side of the political aisle.
personally, i hope that the republican voters dont give the multiple divorces, public display of adultery and wavering on key moral and ethical issues of rudy the free pass that the democrats might give hiliary over the clintons abuses. i think it is critical that the same measuring stick be applied to both parties so that the voters can decide.
Hey Matt,
Oh sure,I absolutely think that my third para applies to both sides of the aisle. Some people are robots and they vote the party without considering who/what they are voting for. Mostly, it just surprised me that it was my sister who was one of them, know what I mean?
The campaign will be fun and we’ll have to stock up on snacks and blanks dvds’ to burn the special moments.
As to the Rudy thing - sure, why wouldn’t people? It doesn’t matter to me particularly especially since I don’t think he’ll get the candidacy - he’s just too liberal for a conservative. If that makes any sense? He seems likeable enough and I think he did a good job dealing with the 9/11 disaster but I don’t think he has enough experience to be President. Far as I can tell, former governors seem to turn out to be the most competent as Presidents.
I’m wondering do the libs have any former gov’s running for the nod? Or are they all Senators/Reps? Aside from Hillary, Obama, and the Breck Girl, I don’t know whose out there.
Nice talking to you, Matt.
WC