I awoke, admittedly a little worse for the wear after last night’s St. Patty’s festivities, to this article on CNN: Clinton says she’s only candidate who can end war.
Hillary is George Bush in reverse. George Bush had no ideas but people kind of liked him and wanted to have a beer with him. Hillary has plenty of ideas but people don’t like her.
They don’t want to have a beer with her because they would sense some alternative agenda. Laughs would be forced. She would sip the beer all the while minding her surroundings and sobriety.
They don’t want to go to the game with her because she’s only going to be filmed at the game. Does anybody recall, during the days surrounding the super bowl , her appearances? Rooting for the Giants and comparing the democratic race to the Super bowl? It all seemed so disingenuous. Does anybody really think that, given no ulterior motive, Hillary would really sit down and watch the Super bowl?
No, she would be crunching the numbers of her revised health care plan. Meanwhile, Bill would be in the living room watching the Super bowl but thinking about women, save the one in the adjacent room.
People intuit disingenuity. We often hear people say: “I just sensed something was wrong about that person.” They sense that with Hillary. Perhaps it’s visible in the taut skin, the eyes always thinking about the next move, and contrived physical movements. All movements that belie relaxation and being yourself.
Was nothing learned about why Al Gore lost? If he would have been the Al Gore of now, he certainly would have won.
If you’re a policy wonk, you’re a policy wonk. Tell me you don’t like beer. Tell me you don’t want to go to the game. I’ll drink with you anyway and still take you to the game… just to try to convert you. But, at least, I’ll know what I’m up against.
Which brings me to yesterday’s post: Clinton says she’s only candidate who can end war.
In this article, Hillary says: “Sen. [Barack] Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn’t start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead.”
And she continues: “Sen. Obama has said often that words matter. I strongly agree. But giving speeches alone won’t end the war, and making campaign promises you might not keep certainly won’t end it. In the end, the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it’s whether the president delivers on the speeches.”
The Clinton campaign is complaining about what they say is a “contradiction between Obama’s rhetoric and action on Iraq.”
Did anybody else read this and say: huh?
The contradiction is not with Obama; it’s Hillary claiming jurisdiction in this territory.
“When he had the chance to act…he chose silence.”
No, when he had the chance to act, he did. He voted against the war. During a time of intense pressure, when a contrarian view had the possibility of sinking his career, he acted. He acted on evidence (which Hillary didn’t read) and conviction.
If I take a poll, and ask, “Would Hillary voluntarily take a principle-centered action that would probably sink her political career?”
Well, I suppose sometimes a poll is not necessary.
We can intuit the result.
Get your copy of his latest book entitled Obvious Conclusions, stories of a Midwestern emigrant influenced and corrupted by many years living in San Francisco and abroad. It just received its first outstanding review "...reminiscent of David Sedaris or Augusten Burroughs" on Amazon UK.