What's truly interesting about this, to me, is the clarity with which we're seeing that Ms. Clinton is simply incapable of handling any venue which is not fully scripted. The way Tim Russert unglued her with that question about drivers licenses for illegals, which wasn't really all that fast a fastball, told the tale pretty accurately: this woman has spent her entire public career fielding softball questions from stooges, and will come undone when faced with a truly hostile press.
And unlike our current President, whose weakness is simply a style that's more appropriate for small rooms and a discomfort with public speaking, Ms. Clinton's weakness appears to be intellectual. She's just, simply not smart enough to manage herself.
Personally, I think it's due to the number of outright lies she tells. None of her public positions are her true positions, so she can never speak from her gut. Her positions are all fabricated from calculation and focus groups. Honestly, if I had to remember everything I said, and couldn't simply speak from principle, I think I'd flub the hard questions, too.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Karen in Michigan
· 1 year ago
Hillary's problem is she has NO CORE CONVICTIONS that she can admit to the American public when she needs their votes. If she truly let her real beliefs come forth, the entire country would reject her socialist, blame America first, hate the military stands on everything. She feels ENTITLED to this position and it will be very entertaining to watch her melt down as she stumbles when she gets more scrutiny, should she get the ballot position. However, the election outcome is so important in these grave times, we won't be laughing as she melts down. My mom and sister are hard core liberals and they can't stand this woman. However, they WILL vote for her if she is on the ticket. They hate republicans more. Sad.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Karen in Michigan: Hillary's problem is she has NO CORE CONVICTIONS that she can admit to the American public when she needs their votes. If she truly let her real beliefs come forth, the entire country would reject her socialist, blame America first, hate the military stands on everything.
This is undeniably true. The only problem is that none of the candidates seem to have any real core convictions at all (well, Edwards seems quite wedded to his "Two Americas" populist crap; he's quite the one-trick pony in that regard). I've come to accept that most politicians will say anything to get elected, though this election cycle seems to be setting new records for flip-flopping.
Karen in Michigan: She feels ENTITLED to this position...
Absolutely. The Hilldabeast - and most of her supporters, for that matter - seem to believe that, just because she put up with Slick and all his philandering, she DESERVES to be the president. It's weird, really... I've yet to see a dem give us a compelling reason why this loathesome harpy should be president aside from "she deserves it" and "it's time for a woman president".
Karen in Michigan: ... it will be very entertaining to watch her melt down as she stumbles when she gets more scrutiny, should she get the ballot position.
Scrutiny from whom, exactly? The MSM? Don't make me laugh; if you think they ran interference for Jean-Francois Kerry over his Vietnam record, you ain't seen NOTHING yet. The Republican candidate? She and her supporters have already got their defense ready, and they know it works: "He's just a nasty ol' man picking on a helpwess, defensewess widdle woman! Somebody should make him stop being so mean!" Seen this before with the Hilldabeast: the woman who claims she's tough enough to be president not only can't take even a hint of criticism, but plays the Helpless Woman card in response to it. Bah.
Karen in Michigan: My mom and sister are hard core liberals and they can't stand this woman. However, they WILL vote for her if she is on the ticket. They hate republicans more. Sad.
Well, in all fairness, there are lots of Republicans (including me) who feel exactly the same way about the dems, and the Hilldabeast in particular. If The Dope or Silky Pony got into the Oval Office, it would be a catastrophe for the country. If The Evil One and her dirtbag husband get back in, it will be damnation.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
While it's enjoyable to think that the MSM is in declining health, stories like this continue to remind that the printed press with its video component still shapes the debate.
Unless and until the major papers decide to put stories like this above the fold they go nowhere. The anchors on both shows had ample opportunity to confront her on this and they chose not to. That's where the power is. Imagine if you would Hillary being embarrassed on national TV in regards to statements about a "dear friend's" besieged government. Does anyone doubt that a repub would have been "cross examined"--repeatedly!?
The real miracle is that the repubs have had the White House for all but 12 of the last 40 years. Those missing twelve included arguably the worst president in history and a president brought up on impeachment charges and later accused of rape. The fact that his wife is running, akin to some banana republic, speaks to the power of the press/MSM.
Swab, it was a "dead girl".....you are too much the gentleman.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Maybe because the anchors did not realize it was an error. Nor did anyone on here who watched the interview catch it. Nor anyone on the major right wing blogs. It took an obscure writer to catch the error. Now tell me why most voters would care?
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
Make yourself useful. Ask the anchors if they knew. If they didn't, along with the dimwits in their ears, they are bigger morons than I have previously said on many occasions.
That aside, my point stands and has since I made it in November 04. This is Hillary's coronation. The dem campaign season is all fluff. Your boy has no chance. Hillary was anointed four years ago.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Because, as the Captain points out, Hillary prominently touts on her resume the fact that she is well-versed in foreign policy. Being well-versed in foreign policy means, among other things, knowing who and what the other players are, particularly the leader of a country with at least one nuclear-tipped missile in its armory.
We'd expect Barack, who wouldn't know how to construct a proper foreign policy if the parts were placed in front of him, to make this kind of mistake. That Hillary did so says reams about Democratic prowess in this area.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Unlike say Mike Huckabee who thinks Pakistan is still under martial law or that it shares an eastern border with Afghanistan.
Otter
· 1 year ago
Unlike Obama, he doesn't appear to be interested in INVADING it to get to the terrorists, though.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
But Pakistan does share an eastern border with Afghanistan. It's Afghanistan's eastern border that they share. I actually think it's impressive that Huckabee actually knows that Pakistan and Afghanistan share a border. I'm even more impressed when Democrats manage to figure out same without immediately wanting to invade Pakistan to force the current regime out.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Huckabee's flub was caught immediately, and has been getting appropriate attention.
I'd be shocked if the anchors didn't realize it was an error, and you're completely wrong about the right-wing blogs: they picked it up pretty quickly. Let's not forget that it's New Year's Day, and most of us are kinda taking it easy.
You really need to give it up, Teresa. It would have been an embarrassing blunder for an inexperienced candidate, like Obama or Huckabee; it was a colossal blunder for a candidate claiming to be fully-prepared for the Presidency and a close friend of the assassinated politician.
Your reflexive defenses are doing nothing but wasting bandwidth.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
By the way, Patrick, I don't remember any of you guys screaming "banana republic" when the unqualified son of a former president was nominated by the GOP.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
Unqualified son?
Governor of Texas who unseated every one's favorite dem hag. A son, not a wife. Slight difference. But when George W's father gets accused of rape on national TV by a healthcare provider then the analogy of the third world would be getting a little closer. You know something along the lines of typical UN behavior.
Until then you can complain about it being "peerage".
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I think that Captain Ed told you a while back to knock it off with the rape allegations about Bill Clinton. Why don't you listen?
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
I'm simply restating that he was accused and also brought up on impeachment charges that, along with countless other critical lapses in judgment, the press chooses to ignore to further Hillary's pursuit of the White House.
If any repub spouse had Bill Clinton's closet they would be prevented from running for office by a relentless attack by the MSM. They would question the candidate's judgment.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Bill was raped? By whom?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
The truth.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
lol
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Do you think we are a banana republic?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
No I don't.
I think it is interesting that everyone is sqwacking now about how odd that someone whose husband was president should run herself. Eight years ago we were told how great it was that George H. Bush was GWB's dad and how 41 was going to be a great advisor to 43. What is the difference?
I don't think people should be disqualified just because they marry someone smart and accomplished or are the child of someone smart and accomplished. Should Libby Dole not be allowed to be a senator just because she was married to Bob Dole? Of course not.
Otter
· 1 year ago
I think it is interesting that everyone is sqwacking now about how odd that someone whose husband was president should run herself. What is the difference?
GWB was NOT GHB's wife. If I read your first sentence correctly :P
carol H
· 1 year ago
How was the "unqualified" son of a former president any less qualified than a Jimmuh Carter or Bubba Clinton? How was Bush a draft dodger when he flew dangerous as hell F-15s and actually volunteered to fly in Vietnam even if they did not send him? Sure the Goracle and Lurch were there, but algore had bodyguards and stayed away from the action and Kerry managed a few slef-inflicted boo boos not requiring any hospitalization and bailed himself aftre after 4 months in "Nam plus came back to make wild accusations against the soldiers who fought in Vietnam PLUS consorted with the enemy officials in Paris while in uniform. Bubba avoided service altogether but you L3s give him a total pass PLUS he demonstrated against the war on foreign soil. And tell me just WHAT did Kerry or Hillary ever accomplish in the Senate???? What major legislation did they ever sponsor? Oh, right- the Hildebeast was the conscience and brains behind Bubba in the WH. Stood solid against the evil VRWC too. Bwahhhh.
LenS
· 1 year ago
Lord. Hillary's a typical liberal baby boomer with a hugely inflated and erroneous opinion of her own skills and talent. Just read up on her past work history and you'll find that Hillary! is a rather mediocre lawyer who married a very talented politican.
Candidates can slip up on names. The world is a big place and some of the names can seem obscure to us at times. But being pop quizzed about Pakistan in 2000 when it was just one of many stories is a lot different than giving speeches and interviews on Pakistan in 2007 when it is the biggest topic of the day. A real wonk would have refreshed her knowledge about the situation to be prepared to answer the inevitable questions. Not only has she not done that, no one on her staff has the power or skill to brief her or her correct her quickly behind the scenes. What does that say about her ability to attract non-sycophants? She's going to have a cabinet of the weakest possible people because she won't be able to handle any Democrats of real skill. It'll be a group with fine resumes of titles and little actual achievements.
And this isn't a pop quiz situation. The initial reports took a few hours to go from disturbance to attack to assassination. Hillary had plenty of time to bone up. And the fact that she's still messing up several days later implies an inability to learn from prior mistakes. In fact, I suspect that her ego renders her incapable of acknowledging such mistakes on her part. A smart President keeps some independent people around who can disagree with him at times. Her husband had Lloyd Bentsen around early on. Bush has had Cheney. Other Presidents have had their own strong personalities to work with. Hillary will have none. She'll have Sandy Burglar's around her.
mikey
· 1 year ago
Like kids with lawn mowers--only let them use the things when they're mature enough not to want to do it anymore.
That's why Fred may be the best choice.
Ken
· 1 year ago
And as a Senator doesn't she get briefed on national security issues?
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
She should have. Here, from Senator Clinton's website, are the committees she serves upon. The Armed Services Committee should have gotten her many of the proper briefings. Only Select Intelligence has more need to know. Of course, she isn't on Foreign Relations, or her statement would have been the ultimate faux pas.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
Well, she hasn't been seen around the Senate too much since her first election. That coup was the signal to begin her presidential campaign.
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
True, but when she does show up she has to willfully suspend disbelief in order to understand the truth.
That will come back to haunt her.
Big time.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I doubt at this point it will make any difference. No one seriously doubts that Hillary is a policy wonk. And if an in depth knowledge of foriegn national elections was a prereguisite for voters, we would have been spared the last eight years of GWB.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
No one seriously doubts that Hillary is a policy wonk.
If we have anything to say about it, they will now. This was a high-school level error.
...if an in depth knowledge of foriegn national elections was a prereguisite for voters, we would have been spared the last eight years of GWB.
You miss the point, Teresa, after Capt. Ed went to the trouble of explaining it to you. Allow me to quote the relevant portion from above:
Hillary, however, has based her entire campaign as the one person most prepared to hit the ground running in the White House. Someone using that as a selling point does damage to her case when she can't tell the difference between a presidential election and a parliamentary election in a critical state for the war on terror.
You see, nobody sensible expected George W. Bush to know much about foreign policy; he was governor of Texas. Same with Mike Huckabee this year. But Hillary Clinton is selling herself as an expert, not just in foreign policy, but in Pakistani politics (recall her claim of close friendship with Bhutto). For her to make such a claim and then commit a flub of this magnitude should, in a fair world, cause an abrupt decline in her prospects.
But, of course, the press is dutifully deaf to her errors...
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
This flub will make no difference at all, but it's not because it's inconsequential. It will make no difference at all because it will, as is the thesis of the Captain's post, never be reported, examined, dissected, "put into context" and be driven into the ground by the MSM. So you're correct; it will not make any difference.
I seriously doubt Hillary is a policy wonk; I really do. So far she hasn't shown either much leadership or vision on any issue of any substance in the past 7 years. Seriously, what has she done? What issue has she been out front on the national stage about? Name just one. When the war with Iraq was popular, she supported the joint authorization of the use of force "with conviction." When the war was going badly and the popularity had dissipated, she ran from her record, pandered to the far left and - arguably - called an honorable servant of the Nation a liar. Now that the President's strategy is working she's all but abandoned her criticisms. She no longer even discusses the war. That's not leadership, that's not vision. That's calculation and pandering.
On your last point, I'd be very careful about who I pointed to as having insufficient anything when it comes to presidential qualities. True, Bush made a comical mistake on Pakistan as a candidate, but I could make a very good argument that Bill Clinton made several comical mistakes on the entire Middle East as president.
DaveP.
· 1 year ago
Then Teresa, I'm sure you and the rest of the 'Rats won't mind cutting Hill the same slack you all cut GWB on the same issue. I eagerly await cries from you that this proves that she's too dumb to dress herself. After all, we wouldn't want a double standard here... would we?
WSG
· 1 year ago
OF COURSE all gaffs by Leftists are instantly forgiven but one misplaced vowel by anyone one inch to the right of the Shrew is evidence of moron status !! The Shrew is a 'progressive' socialist - that is an oxymoron since there is NOT an damn thing progressive about socialism . She ia a weakling and a fool on national defense. NO amount of surrender, apologizing, group hugs or bribes will make the Islamists like us. The Islamists want us dead - ALL of us 'infidels' - and the Shrew and her moonbat base just do not grasp reality. The West can not fix Islam - but we must prevent the Islamists from obtaining nucs. because they have ZERO concept of self preservation . M.A.D. worked with the Soviets because they wanted to live - these barbarians love death. OH, Teresa exactly what would you have done differently since 9/11 ??
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Well... for one thing not sent US troops in to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. But that is just me.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
We know. That's why we humor you.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton, among others, voted in favor of the use of force against Saddam Hussein. This was consistent with the Clinton Administration's position in the late 1990s. She's since waffled a few dozen times on the issue, as has the next de facto President, her husband.
And the fantasy that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda that attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was discredited years ago. There's plenty of evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, as well as an attempt to assassinate Bush the Elder.
Oh, and a news flash for you, Teresa-- the surge is working.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
You really are crazy if you think that Saddam and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
And Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq is one reason why I am an Obama supporter
Oh, and a news flash for you, if you fix my car after you drive it off a cliff it doesn't mean that it was a good idea to drive it off the cliff.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
It's interesting to note that Bush never claimed a direct link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. What he actually said was that they had a working relationship.
It's also interesting to note that a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York, in a 2003 ruling in a lawsuit brought by familiy members of 9/11 victims, said that he believed that an impartial trial jury WOULD find such a connection, based on the evidence presented during the trial.
It's additionally interesting to note that in one of those polls asking Americans whether they thought Iraq had a connection to 9/11, it wasn't just Republicans saying this. As USA Today reported, and I quote:
"A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. "
Iraq had already been found complicit in the 1993 attack on the WTC, as they gave sanctuary to one of the suspects, who also had an Iraqi passport.
But the biggest deal-breaker for the Iraq/AQ deniers is that Bill Clinton's Justice Department, in its 1998 indictment of bin Laden, specifically cited a relationship between the two.
In the fever swamps of today's left, waterboarding would be preferable to admitting that there was a possibility Iraq might have played any role, no matter how small, in the 9/11 attacks. That would mean Bush was right in going to war, and his haters would rather boiled alive in oil than consider that possibility. As we all know, Iraq is the ONLY country in the world that al Qaeda never operated in.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
But if I fix it, I'm better than if I didn't, right? Your side would just let the car lie there. Of course, your side has no concept of penance except when paid by others, so your position is an expected one.
Math_Mage
· 1 year ago
He never said Saddam and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He said Saddam and Iraq were involved with AQ.
Barnestormer
· 1 year ago
Not guite, sorry, quite, Teresa. How the Smartest Woman in the World markets herself may be indubitable. But even those who would forgive the wannabe wonkess her mangling of Hillarycare might hold her to a higher performance standard when it comes to politics. Say, of the foriegn, sorry, foreign variety where the U.S. appears to have a particularly pressing interest.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Again....how then did GWB get elected? No one has ever believed he knows a darn thing about the rest of the world.
Dayton
· 1 year ago
Teresa - I have read several of your comments in the last few days and every one of them, in response to a valid point raised about a Dem candidate, is a series of Bush-bashing sentences.
Teresa, it is a free country and you are certainly entitled to express your opinion, even if it is never on subject, but, Teresa, you should know - President Bush is not running in this election.
Sorry to sink your boat.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I'm happy to bash Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani as well. ;)
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
OK, class, here we have a prime example of the time-honored leftist tactic known as "changing the subject". Despite the fact that the subject of the thread is Hillary Clinton, any criticism of her MUST be deflected.
By the way, Teresa, GWB got elected because the voters of Al Gore's home state voted for him instead of their "native son". It's really that simple-Gore would never have needed Florida's electoral votes if he had simply been able to win the state he had represented in Congress for years.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
You are proving my point Del. If you take off your partisan hat for a minute, you might see that I am pointing out that voters care more about DOMESTIC issues than FORIEGN affairs every time. Most people believe that Hillary will surround herself with smart people to take care of foriegn policy. Just like they believed George Bush would. (Remember: that is why Cheney was considered a plus for Bush. He was supposed to add gravitas and foriegn policy experience.)
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Then why isn't she surrounded now?
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
I did, and I do. I voted for the guy, and with good reason.
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
Her campaign has been marked by questionable donations multiple times, the only campaign to get non compliance letters from the FEC for all the errors and violations in her donation reports. But the smartest lady in the world is always totally shocked and says she's fixed it but there always seems to be a next time.
What she cant even get her staff to do simple bookkeeping right with all sorts of software to ease the way.
Staffers are almost on a too many times to name thrown under the bus and denied support of for things they say and do. Good organization and control there. Again she is shocked and surprised and pledges it won't happen again...until the next time.
Has a very large internal polling organization that should have a pretty good bead on what the voters think, but she proposes policy plans and walks away from them at the next focus group meeting. Still it leaves the idea in some peoples mind and thus she aims for the view that she has an agenda....all of them in fact.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"No one seriously doubts that Hillary is a policy wonk."
What does that mean? That she reads the PowerPoint presentations her aids put together and can regurgitate generalities?
Going back to the matter at hand, the woman doesn't even have a basic grasp of an extrremely importand situation.
After eight years of lying and slandering President Bush, the best you can say is that she's no worse that Chimpy McHitler?
Time to start that "Hillaryisms" list. The woman is a dope and no amount of spinning will hide it.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
A policy wonk? On what, health care? A federal court determined that her "Jackson Hole group" violated federal law about groups advising the federal government. Community organizing for the left?
I'll forgive a politician for not having encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy, but can anyone identify a foreign policy success of the Clinton Administration? Bosnia? Don't make me laugh!
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
Just a pair of the quality graduates from the Arkansas School of Foreign Policy
doug in colorado
· 1 year ago
When you have a leaky pipe, who do you call? The Plumber, or the plumber's wife? She has so little experience and such negative karma (you can't dump your cat (Anyone remember Socks?) and dump all over your military honor guard the way she did and still have people think you're the Sweet Mommy of the Free World).
MaryT
· 1 year ago
In addition didn't Hillory offer condolences to the husband and her 2 children. (she has three, wouldn't a close friend know that) Then there was a report Hillory only met the lady once in 1995, and has had no contact since. Her speech said they were in contact frequently.
Brad Bettin
· 1 year ago
It's a shame that we can't just discuss what Hillary said & why / whether it's significant without the "changing the subject" crappola.
My guess:
The assassination of Bhutto was & is partisan red meat for democrats, so much so that it can - and has - overwhelmed better judgment.
In Bill Richardson's case, it led him to urge truly stupid policy ("let's topple Musharraf"). In Hillary's case, it led her to overreach on the "elections" issue.
When Hillary said it, she thought Musharraf was on the ballot - the key word being "thought", because she didn't know that to be the case.
You get to decide what it means ...
* Was Hillary ad-libbing? Commenting on matters she's not been briefed on, etc.?
* Did Hillary's policy shop really believe Musharraf was on the ballot?
* In either case, what would that mean about Hillary as a candidate & president?
Fight4TheRight
· 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton has tried to put herself up front on the Dem side with this foreign policy "experience" and even though it is a sham, it should work for her simply because the rest of them are illiterate in the area. Obama's claim to foreign policy is his roots back to a different continent (knock knock, Barack, most of us can claim that as well) and Edwards, well Edwards is Mister "TerrorIsOnlyABumpersticker."
The Dems foreign policy would be what it always is....sit down and reason with the whack jobs of the world, show 'em how kind and caring we are and of course and end up where we were pre-9/11.
Hillary knows that national defense will be an issue in the Election and it surprises me that she isn't doing better with her homework.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
You can bet some member of team Hillary is being waterboarded for not putting a coherent PowerPoint presentation in front of the most briliant woman in the world.
Every day exposes this woman as the complete fraud she is. Are the Democrats really stupid enough to nominate Hillary? If so, there days as a serious political party have ended.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
And, yet, as David Brooks points out today in his column outlining why Mitt Romney will never be president:
"The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01bro...)
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
So you're saying your side can run the worst possible candidates ever, and still win? That's really raising the bar.
We'll see if it works. Because the Democrats will have the least qualified, most inexperienced major party candidate in American history. Worst . . . candidate . . . ever.
And if a Democrat does manage to get himself/herself elected to the White House, they'll be tossed out on their ear by the voters, before their first term expires, if they're not impeached and removed from office in 2010.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Brooks is at least 2 years behind the times, which no doubt suits his employer just fine. The latest Rasmussen poll has 34.2% identifying themselves as Republicans, and 36.3% identifying as Democrats. The gap between the two parties is the smallest it's been in 2 years.
Because the Dems know that foreign policy is their weakness, they have been working overtime to make the domestic social programs the thrust of their candidacies.
vnjagvet
· 1 year ago
There are a lot of talking points that make little sense.
One is that Bush had "no experience" when he ran in 2000. That he was just the callow son of a former president. But two terms as governor of Texas was strikingly like the experience of two then recent presidents, Ronald Reagan and William J. (Bill) Clinton.
Let's look at the Democratic candidates on the subject of experience. Among the top two, Hillary and Barack, one has been a first lady for 16 years and a US Senator for 8 years, the other a State Senator for 7 years, and a US Senator for 3.
Among the Republican candidates Huck has several terms as a governor, as does Mitt. Rudy has two terms as Mayor of NYC, arguably a more responsible job than governor of states the size of Arkansas and Massachusetts. Then you have Fred with 8 years Senatorial experience and McCain with 6 years in Congress and 20 years in the Senate.
I don't think anyone really has an edge in the experience department, with the possible exception of John McCain, who has been in the forefront of national politics for 26 years.
The problem with Hillary's gaffe is that it is a chink in her otherwise seemingly impenetrable armor, and shows that her reputation for vaunted preparation and strict message control may not be well-deserved. It also belies somewhat the "genius" appellation bestowed by her husband.
Seaberry
· 1 year ago
Bill never knew what was going on in Pakistan either...well, perhaps he did, and just ignored it. Hillary will be the same or worse.
"Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth."
This woman is a deer in the headlights. She's terrified of doing anything that isn't completely scripted or rigged ahead of time.
If the Democrats had any sense, they'd force Hillary to use the old "spending more time with family" excuse (even though that would be an extreme stretch) and exit stage left. She's just an embarrassment to everyone involved.
After this latest gaffe though, I hope she gets the nomination. At this rate, she'll be completely off of her rocker by summer.
lexhamfox
· 1 year ago
I recall a candidate for 2000 being asked to name the leader of the Islamic Republic.... he did not even know the name.
Please don't mischaracterize the "interview" with candidate Bush. It wasn't a serious thought piece. It was a pop-quiz by "journalist" Andy Hiller, in which he fired Jeopardy style questions to candidate Bush for the sole purpose of embarrassing him.
In sharp contrast, Mrs. Clinton's appearance came at the height of dramatic unfolding events in Pakistan, where she could expect questions on precisely this topic.
One would think that, knowing she would be asked these questions, Mrs. Clinton would have studied the issues. On the other hand, maybe she has just grown accustomed to the free-pass she is being given by the hard-left mainstream media?
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
Very good point.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
What is equally appalling is that neither interviewer called Madame Hillary on the gaffe at the time it was made. Was this error an example of how clueless the media themselves are in pursuing stories of international consequence?
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Like Teresa, the other Clinton apologist in this discussion, you miss a clear point that Captain Ed went to the trouble of explaining already. I hate repeating; you really should read the article before commenting.
Bush was a state governor, like Mike Huckabee. He never claimed expertise in foreign policy. We understand that candidates don't necessarily have Presidential experience yet.
Hillary Clinton, however, is staking her campaign on the fact that she has Presidential experience. She even attempted to claim close friendship with the assassinated Bhutto, and was offering policy advice to Pakistan when she made this blunder. Given her claim, the blunder is colossal.
As with John Kerry claiming leadership ability and offering his combat medals as proof of his leadership fitness, claiming to be experienced at the Presidential level makes it fair game to question just how much she knows. And it's pretty clear that she doesn't know what she claims she knows. She's a poseur, and smart voters should note this and dismiss her like she deserves.
Of course, smart voters have long since dismissed Ms. Clinton for reasons of sheer dishonesty, viciousness, and corruption. I hate to insult people I don't know, but anybody who's actually supporting her candidacy must have lived through the 1990s with a paper bag over their heads.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
Phil,
You're wasting your time with the Dhimm wits. They are nothing more than immoral shills for the Dhimmicrats. Hildabeast could be caught in bed with Paris Hilton's pregnant sister, wearing Sandy Burgler's underpants (still stuffed with SECRET documents) and these trolls would still be shilling for her... they’d even be smiling as they pulled the handle for her in the polling booth.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Yes, I understand this. I write mostly for the browsing spectators, not for the Reflexive Clinton Apologists (RCAs). What I don't understand is why they're RCAs.
The fact that none of them are aware enough of their own mental and emotional processing to tell me how they process the scandals and obvious frauds, the clear evidence of vicious inhumanity, the clear evidence of insincerity, etc., tells me a lot. But I'd still like to hear one of them explain it.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
Best to continue writing for the browsers then, that at least serves a purpose. You'll never get any of the trolls to tell you why they shill for Hildabeast. In fact they’ll continue to deny that they are…even as they pull the handle for her (after she’s been found with the dead girl and Burglar’s stolen Classified documents).
The answer is simple:
In the case of most of the trolls, like teresa, they aren’t very smart. They don’t think about the long term implications of electing a known lying, immoral crook to the WH. All they see is that the Dhimmicrats are more socialistic than the socialist-wannabe Repubs. They want all the “free” stuff Hildabeast has promised them. Simple as that.
As for the others, the “smarter” ones…they do it for a similar reason. They also want the most socialistic candidates to win, but not just to get the “free” goodies. Most of them are already “well-off” and have enough goodies. Their goal is more a matter of control. The more things you want to do that they can PREVENT you from doing…or the more things you don’t want to do but they can FORCE you to do….the better. If the Hildabeast, Slick, Sandy Berglar, Allbright, Stephanapolis et al get to roam free in the WH, these “smart” trolls will GLOAT. People like you will be more under their thumb. They will be able to exert more control over you…and exert their will on you by the FORCE of government. The more you complain about it, the more they will GLOAT.
Tyranny is what it is…nothing more. Really nothing new here. Tactics are the only things that really change in war as well as politics.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Its one thing to not recall a name the leader of an obscure country when drilled by a reporter.(Who's the current leader in Sri Lanka? Quick, answer. No google). Its another to completely misconstrue the political state of a country in the news and make policy statements that completely belie your lack of knowledge on what you're proposing. Not only that Pakistan is directly in the news at the moment, precisely because of the elections, and she doesn't have the first clue about it, but yet is making policy statements as if she did.
lexhamfox
· 1 year ago
India is an obscure country? At the time of Bush gaffe Musharref was in the news for having taken over.
Also Bush recently said that it was a bad idea to have a President who was head of the military.
These are small items but I find it ironic that Ed is beating on the Dems over this sot of thing. It's a pity there are so few candidates who understand this important region. I recently met a USMC officer at a conference in London who was insisting that the Kurds were Shiites.... even with a Kurd standing there telling him they were mostly Sunni.
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
Uh, Musharref took over Pakistan, not India.
See how easy it is?
Glass. Houses. Stones.
Otter
· 1 year ago
I didn't know India was an Islamic Republic. Can you tell us when that happened?
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
Actually, it is. The formal name for Pakistan is the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
That's quite true. But I was asking about India :P
lexhamfox
· 1 year ago
No. I know the difference between India and Pakistan. During the interview in question Bush could not name the leaders of India and Pakistan as well as two other countries. I was responding to JR's point about the gaffe relating to 'obscure' countries (not just Pakistan).
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Class, here we have yet another example of a time-honored leftist tradition-when confronted with the failings of one of their own, they immediately change the subject.
By the way, that candidate won in 2000 simply because Al Gore's fellow Tennesseeans rejected him at the polls. If Gore had won Tennessee, he'd have never needed Florida's electoral votes.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Proving that being incompetant at foriegn affairs is not a deal breaker for the American voter.
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
How exactly does a candidate's failure to carry his own state, from which he was elected four times to the House and twice to the Senate, in a general election prove the other is incompetent at foreign affairs?
BDS.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
It proves that the voting public did not care about George Bush's lack of foriegn policy experience or hold it against him.
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
Then the same could be said regarding Carter, Reagan and Clinton, all of who had no experience of substance when taking office. Foreign policy experience often has had very little to do with the voter's choice for Commander-in-Chief in the 20th century, and none at all in the 19th.
Really, your point is getting lost in your abject disdain for Bush. You'd be more honest if you just came out and said something like, "I hate Bush no matter what." Then we could appreciate your opinion for what it truly is.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
"Foreign policy experience often has had very little to do with the voter's choice for Commander-in-Chief in the 20th century, and none at all in the 19th."
BTW, that was exactly my original point. Glad to know you agree.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I have no problem with saying that about Carter, Reagan or Bill Clintn. . My original point was that in an election no one will care about this gaffe. Voters care more about other issues and have very little knowledge themselves about foriegn policy for the most part. Heck, don't 50% of people think that Iraq was behind 9/11?
Maybe your reading comprehension would improve if you just said, "I love GWB and hate Hillary no matter what." Then we could appreciate your opinion for what IT truly is.
CardinalsNation
· 1 year ago
Reading back through the posts I concede that your original point was lost in the ensuing dust-up. Also, in retrospect it was unfair of me to ascribe an anti-Bush motivation behind your opinion.
As for your retort; touche, however, I certainly don't love GWB and never have (although I did vote for him twice, albeit as much as a vote against his opponent as for him). However, he certainly has been an effective President by most common measures, such as the MSM-created "misery index."
As for Hillary, I certainly do not "hate" her. However, she's not what she or her supporters pretend her to be. She's been inconsequential and has shown nothing in the form of inspirational leadership - that the Left claims this nation lacks - that leads me to conclude, at least at this point, that she's substantively better than any of the other candidates (with the singular exception of Dennis Kucinich). The fact that she's run her campaign up to this point as a fait accompli is both insulting and telling.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
You have (once again) no idea what is it you're talking about.
The Bush Administration in Texas was able to improve economic relations with Mexico, to the extent that during his term in office Texas outpaced California as far as trade with Mexico.
Hillary? She passed the bean dip to some diplomat's wife from the Congo.
No comparison. The Democrats offer nothing but inexperienced neophytes.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
LOL, try again. Gore was rejected by the people of his own state. In other words, the people who knew him best.
Gore was also rejected by the voters of Arkansas in 2000.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
What's the big deal? It's not like Pakistan is an "important" country or anything...and it's not like events in Pakistan have been "headliners" or anything...and this comes from the "smartest person on earth".
It really doesn't matter. Evidence: Read the dhimm wit Hildabeast' defenders babblings...
I'm afraid it's as one of our shipmates pointed out earlier, the Hildabeast could be caught in bed with a dead teenager and the dhimmis would still vote for her.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Agreed Swabby. I believe the difference will be in the independent vote. GW beat Kerry by approximately 4.5 million votes in 04. As "big of a stiff" as Kerry was-is, Hillary is worse. Having had 20 straight years of Bush's and Clinton's brings into play "enough of this 2-family dominance thing". That, coupled with the fact that she is so unlikable, will make the difference in the big picture.
I hope she gets the nomination on the communist side of the isle, as that will put the Clinton's under the microscope for the next batch of months. The truth will set us free of these two pieces of pure scum.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Not to worry, Ed. Bill will be standing at her side, ready to take the reins of power the moment she's sworn in!
All Comments
And unlike our current President, whose weakness is simply a style that's more appropriate for small rooms and a discomfort with public speaking, Ms. Clinton's weakness appears to be intellectual. She's just, simply not smart enough to manage herself.
Personally, I think it's due to the number of outright lies she tells. None of her public positions are her true positions, so she can never speak from her gut. Her positions are all fabricated from calculation and focus groups. Honestly, if I had to remember everything I said, and couldn't simply speak from principle, I think I'd flub the hard questions, too.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
This is undeniably true. The only problem is that none of the candidates seem to have any real core convictions at all (well, Edwards seems quite wedded to his "Two Americas" populist crap; he's quite the one-trick pony in that regard). I've come to accept that most politicians will say anything to get elected, though this election cycle seems to be setting new records for flip-flopping.
Karen in Michigan: She feels ENTITLED to this position...
Absolutely. The Hilldabeast - and most of her supporters, for that matter - seem to believe that, just because she put up with Slick and all his philandering, she DESERVES to be the president. It's weird, really... I've yet to see a dem give us a compelling reason why this loathesome harpy should be president aside from "she deserves it" and "it's time for a woman president".
Karen in Michigan: ... it will be very entertaining to watch her melt down as she stumbles when she gets more scrutiny, should she get the ballot position.
Scrutiny from whom, exactly? The MSM? Don't make me laugh; if you think they ran interference for Jean-Francois Kerry over his Vietnam record, you ain't seen NOTHING yet. The Republican candidate? She and her supporters have already got their defense ready, and they know it works: "He's just a nasty ol' man picking on a helpwess, defensewess widdle woman! Somebody should make him stop being so mean!" Seen this before with the Hilldabeast: the woman who claims she's tough enough to be president not only can't take even a hint of criticism, but plays the Helpless Woman card in response to it. Bah.
Karen in Michigan: My mom and sister are hard core liberals and they can't stand this woman. However, they WILL vote for her if she is on the ticket. They hate republicans more. Sad.
Well, in all fairness, there are lots of Republicans (including me) who feel exactly the same way about the dems, and the Hilldabeast in particular. If The Dope or Silky Pony got into the Oval Office, it would be a catastrophe for the country. If The Evil One and her dirtbag husband get back in, it will be damnation.
Unless and until the major papers decide to put stories like this above the fold they go nowhere. The anchors on both shows had ample opportunity to confront her on this and they chose not to. That's where the power is. Imagine if you would Hillary being embarrassed on national TV in regards to statements about a "dear friend's" besieged government. Does anyone doubt that a repub would have been "cross examined"--repeatedly!?
The real miracle is that the repubs have had the White House for all but 12 of the last 40 years. Those missing twelve included arguably the worst president in history and a president brought up on impeachment charges and later accused of rape. The fact that his wife is running, akin to some banana republic, speaks to the power of the press/MSM.
Swab, it was a "dead girl".....you are too much the gentleman.
That aside, my point stands and has since I made it in November 04. This is Hillary's coronation. The dem campaign season is all fluff. Your boy has no chance. Hillary was anointed four years ago.
We'd expect Barack, who wouldn't know how to construct a proper foreign policy if the parts were placed in front of him, to make this kind of mistake. That Hillary did so says reams about Democratic prowess in this area.
I'd be shocked if the anchors didn't realize it was an error, and you're completely wrong about the right-wing blogs: they picked it up pretty quickly. Let's not forget that it's New Year's Day, and most of us are kinda taking it easy.
You really need to give it up, Teresa. It would have been an embarrassing blunder for an inexperienced candidate, like Obama or Huckabee; it was a colossal blunder for a candidate claiming to be fully-prepared for the Presidency and a close friend of the assassinated politician.
Your reflexive defenses are doing nothing but wasting bandwidth.
Governor of Texas who unseated every one's favorite dem hag. A son, not a wife. Slight difference. But when George W's father gets accused of rape on national TV by a healthcare provider then the analogy of the third world would be getting a little closer. You know something along the lines of typical UN behavior.
Until then you can complain about it being "peerage".
If any repub spouse had Bill Clinton's closet they would be prevented from running for office by a relentless attack by the MSM. They would question the candidate's judgment.
I think it is interesting that everyone is sqwacking now about how odd that someone whose husband was president should run herself. Eight years ago we were told how great it was that George H. Bush was GWB's dad and how 41 was going to be a great advisor to 43.
What is the difference?
I don't think people should be disqualified just because they marry someone smart and accomplished or are the child of someone smart and accomplished. Should Libby Dole not be allowed to be a senator just because she was married to Bob Dole? Of course not.
What is the difference?
GWB was NOT GHB's wife. If I read your first sentence correctly :P
Carter or Bubba Clinton? How was Bush a draft dodger when he flew dangerous as hell F-15s and actually volunteered to fly in Vietnam even if they did not send him? Sure the Goracle and Lurch were there, but algore had bodyguards and stayed away from the action and Kerry managed a few slef-inflicted boo boos not requiring any hospitalization and bailed himself aftre after 4 months in "Nam plus came back to make wild accusations against the soldiers who fought in Vietnam PLUS consorted with the enemy officials in Paris while in uniform. Bubba avoided service altogether but you L3s give him a total pass PLUS he demonstrated against the war on foreign soil.
And tell me just WHAT did Kerry or Hillary ever accomplish in the Senate???? What major legislation did they ever sponsor? Oh, right- the Hildebeast was the conscience and brains behind Bubba in the WH. Stood solid against the evil VRWC too. Bwahhhh.
Candidates can slip up on names. The world is a big place and some of the names can seem obscure to us at times. But being pop quizzed about Pakistan in 2000 when it was just one of many stories is a lot different than giving speeches and interviews on Pakistan in 2007 when it is the biggest topic of the day. A real wonk would have refreshed her knowledge about the situation to be prepared to answer the inevitable questions. Not only has she not done that, no one on her staff has the power or skill to brief her or her correct her quickly behind the scenes. What does that say about her ability to attract non-sycophants? She's going to have a cabinet of the weakest possible people because she won't be able to handle any Democrats of real skill. It'll be a group with fine resumes of titles and little actual achievements.
And this isn't a pop quiz situation. The initial reports took a few hours to go from disturbance to attack to assassination. Hillary had plenty of time to bone up. And the fact that she's still messing up several days later implies an inability to learn from prior mistakes. In fact, I suspect that her ego renders her incapable of acknowledging such mistakes on her part. A smart President keeps some independent people around who can disagree with him at times. Her husband had Lloyd Bentsen around early on. Bush has had Cheney. Other Presidents have had their own strong personalities to work with. Hillary will have none. She'll have Sandy Burglar's around her.
That's why Fred may be the best choice.
That will come back to haunt her.
Big time.
If we have anything to say about it, they will now. This was a high-school level error.
You miss the point, Teresa, after Capt. Ed went to the trouble of explaining it to you. Allow me to quote the relevant portion from above:
You see, nobody sensible expected George W. Bush to know much about foreign policy; he was governor of Texas. Same with Mike Huckabee this year. But Hillary Clinton is selling herself as an expert, not just in foreign policy, but in Pakistani politics (recall her claim of close friendship with Bhutto). For her to make such a claim and then commit a flub of this magnitude should, in a fair world, cause an abrupt decline in her prospects.
But, of course, the press is dutifully deaf to her errors...
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
I seriously doubt Hillary is a policy wonk; I really do. So far she hasn't shown either much leadership or vision on any issue of any substance in the past 7 years. Seriously, what has she done? What issue has she been out front on the national stage about? Name just one. When the war with Iraq was popular, she supported the joint authorization of the use of force "with conviction." When the war was going badly and the popularity had dissipated, she ran from her record, pandered to the far left and - arguably - called an honorable servant of the Nation a liar. Now that the President's strategy is working she's all but abandoned her criticisms. She no longer even discusses the war. That's not leadership, that's not vision. That's calculation and pandering.
On your last point, I'd be very careful about who I pointed to as having insufficient anything when it comes to presidential qualities. True, Bush made a comical mistake on Pakistan as a candidate, but I could make a very good argument that Bill Clinton made several comical mistakes on the entire Middle East as president.
I eagerly await cries from you that this proves that she's too dumb to dress herself.
After all, we wouldn't want a double standard here... would we?
The Shrew is a 'progressive' socialist - that is an oxymoron since there is NOT an damn thing progressive about socialism . She ia a weakling and a fool on national defense. NO amount of surrender, apologizing, group hugs or bribes will make the Islamists like us. The Islamists want us dead - ALL of us 'infidels' - and the Shrew and her moonbat base just do not grasp reality.
The West can not fix Islam - but we must prevent the Islamists from obtaining nucs. because they have ZERO concept of self preservation . M.A.D. worked with the Soviets because they wanted to live - these barbarians love death.
OH, Teresa exactly what would you have done differently since 9/11 ??
And the fantasy that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda that attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was discredited years ago. There's plenty of evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, as well as an attempt to assassinate Bush the Elder.
Oh, and a news flash for you, Teresa-- the surge is working.
And Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq is one reason why I am an Obama supporter
Oh, and a news flash for you, if you fix my car after you drive it off a cliff it doesn't mean that it was a good idea to drive it off the cliff.
It's also interesting to note that a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York, in a 2003 ruling in a lawsuit brought by familiy members of 9/11 victims, said that he believed that an impartial trial jury WOULD find such a connection, based on the evidence presented during the trial.
It's additionally interesting to note that in one of those polls asking Americans whether they thought Iraq had a connection to 9/11, it wasn't just Republicans saying this. As USA Today reported, and I quote:
"A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. "
Iraq had already been found complicit in the 1993 attack on the WTC, as they gave sanctuary to one of the suspects, who also had an Iraqi passport.
But the biggest deal-breaker for the Iraq/AQ deniers is that Bill Clinton's Justice Department, in its 1998 indictment of bin Laden, specifically cited a relationship between the two.
In the fever swamps of today's left, waterboarding would be preferable to admitting that there was a possibility Iraq might have played any role, no matter how small, in the 9/11 attacks. That would mean Bush was right in going to war, and his haters would rather boiled alive in oil than consider that possibility. As we all know, Iraq is the ONLY country in the world that al Qaeda never operated in.
Teresa, it is a free country and you are certainly entitled to express your opinion, even if it is never on subject, but, Teresa, you should know - President Bush is not running in this election.
Sorry to sink your boat.
By the way, Teresa, GWB got elected because the voters of Al Gore's home state voted for him instead of their "native son". It's really that simple-Gore would never have needed Florida's electoral votes if he had simply been able to win the state he had represented in Congress for years.
What she cant even get her staff to do simple bookkeeping right with all sorts of software to ease the way.
Staffers are almost on a too many times to name thrown under the bus and denied support of for things they say and do. Good organization and control there. Again she is shocked and surprised and pledges it won't happen again...until the next time.
Has a very large internal polling organization that should have a pretty good bead on what the voters think, but she proposes policy plans and walks away from them at the next focus group meeting. Still it leaves the idea in some peoples mind and thus she aims for the view that she has an agenda....all of them in fact.
What does that mean? That she reads the PowerPoint presentations her aids put together and can regurgitate generalities?
Going back to the matter at hand, the woman doesn't even have a basic grasp of an extrremely importand situation.
After eight years of lying and slandering President Bush, the best you can say is that she's no worse that Chimpy McHitler?
Time to start that "Hillaryisms" list. The woman is a dope and no amount of spinning will hide it.
I'll forgive a politician for not having encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy, but can anyone identify a foreign policy success of the Clinton Administration? Bosnia? Don't make me laugh!
Then there was a report Hillory only met the lady once in 1995, and has had no contact since.
Her speech said they were in contact frequently.
My guess:
The assassination of Bhutto was & is partisan red meat for democrats, so much so that it can - and has - overwhelmed better judgment.
In Bill Richardson's case, it led him to urge truly stupid policy ("let's topple Musharraf"). In Hillary's case, it led her to overreach on the "elections" issue.
When Hillary said it, she thought Musharraf was on the ballot - the key word being "thought", because she didn't know that to be the case.
You get to decide what it means ...
* Was Hillary ad-libbing? Commenting on matters she's not been briefed on, etc.?
* Did Hillary's policy shop really believe Musharraf was on the ballot?
* In either case, what would that mean about Hillary as a candidate & president?
The Dems foreign policy would be what it always is....sit down and reason with the whack jobs of the world, show 'em how kind and caring we are and of course and end up where we were pre-9/11.
Hillary knows that national defense will be an issue in the Election and it surprises me that she isn't doing better with her homework.
Every day exposes this woman as the complete fraud she is. Are the Democrats really stupid enough to nominate Hillary? If so, there days as a serious political party have ended.
"The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01bro...)
We'll see if it works. Because the Democrats will have the least qualified, most inexperienced major party candidate in American history. Worst . . . candidate . . . ever.
And if a Democrat does manage to get himself/herself elected to the White House, they'll be tossed out on their ear by the voters, before their first term expires, if they're not impeached and removed from office in 2010.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...
One is that Bush had "no experience" when he ran in 2000. That he was just the callow son of a former president. But two terms as governor of Texas was strikingly like the experience of two then recent presidents, Ronald Reagan and William J. (Bill) Clinton.
Let's look at the Democratic candidates on the subject of experience. Among the top two, Hillary and Barack, one has been a first lady for 16 years and a US Senator for 8 years, the other a State Senator for 7 years, and a US Senator for 3.
Among the Republican candidates Huck has several terms as a governor, as does Mitt. Rudy has two terms as Mayor of NYC, arguably a more responsible job than governor of states the size of Arkansas and Massachusetts. Then you have Fred with 8 years Senatorial experience and McCain with 6 years in Congress and 20 years in the Senate.
I don't think anyone really has an edge in the experience department, with the possible exception of John McCain, who has been in the forefront of national politics for 26 years.
The problem with Hillary's gaffe is that it is a chink in her otherwise seemingly impenetrable armor, and shows that her reputation for vaunted preparation and strict message control may not be well-deserved. It also belies somewhat the "genius" appellation bestowed by her husband.
http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2007/12/31/op-ed...
"Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth."
This woman is a deer in the headlights. She's terrified of doing anything that isn't completely scripted or rigged ahead of time.
If the Democrats had any sense, they'd force Hillary to use the old "spending more time with family" excuse (even though that would be an extreme stretch) and exit stage left. She's just an embarrassment to everyone involved.
After this latest gaffe though, I hope she gets the nomination. At this rate, she'll be completely off of her rocker by summer.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/...
Funny how things turned out....
In sharp contrast, Mrs. Clinton's appearance came at the height of dramatic unfolding events in Pakistan, where she could expect questions on precisely this topic.
One would think that, knowing she would be asked these questions, Mrs. Clinton would have studied the issues. On the other hand, maybe she has just grown accustomed to the free-pass she is being given by the hard-left mainstream media?
Bush was a state governor, like Mike Huckabee. He never claimed expertise in foreign policy. We understand that candidates don't necessarily have Presidential experience yet.
Hillary Clinton, however, is staking her campaign on the fact that she has Presidential experience. She even attempted to claim close friendship with the assassinated Bhutto, and was offering policy advice to Pakistan when she made this blunder. Given her claim, the blunder is colossal.
As with John Kerry claiming leadership ability and offering his combat medals as proof of his leadership fitness, claiming to be experienced at the Presidential level makes it fair game to question just how much she knows. And it's pretty clear that she doesn't know what she claims she knows. She's a poseur, and smart voters should note this and dismiss her like she deserves.
Of course, smart voters have long since dismissed Ms. Clinton for reasons of sheer dishonesty, viciousness, and corruption. I hate to insult people I don't know, but anybody who's actually supporting her candidacy must have lived through the 1990s with a paper bag over their heads.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
You're wasting your time with the Dhimm wits. They are nothing more than immoral shills for the Dhimmicrats. Hildabeast could be caught in bed with Paris Hilton's pregnant sister, wearing Sandy Burgler's underpants (still stuffed with SECRET documents) and these trolls would still be shilling for her... they’d even be smiling as they pulled the handle for her in the polling booth.
The fact that none of them are aware enough of their own mental and emotional processing to tell me how they process the scandals and obvious frauds, the clear evidence of vicious inhumanity, the clear evidence of insincerity, etc., tells me a lot. But I'd still like to hear one of them explain it.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The answer is simple:
In the case of most of the trolls, like teresa, they aren’t very smart. They don’t think about the long term implications of electing a known lying, immoral crook to the WH. All they see is that the Dhimmicrats are more socialistic than the socialist-wannabe Repubs. They want all the “free” stuff Hildabeast has promised them. Simple as that.
As for the others, the “smarter” ones…they do it for a similar reason. They also want the most socialistic candidates to win, but not just to get the “free” goodies. Most of them are already “well-off” and have enough goodies. Their goal is more a matter of control. The more things you want to do that they can PREVENT you from doing…or the more things you don’t want to do but they can FORCE you to do….the better. If the Hildabeast, Slick, Sandy Berglar, Allbright, Stephanapolis et al get to roam free in the WH, these “smart” trolls will GLOAT. People like you will be more under their thumb. They will be able to exert more control over you…and exert their will on you by the FORCE of government. The more you complain about it, the more they will GLOAT.
Tyranny is what it is…nothing more. Really nothing new here. Tactics are the only things that really change in war as well as politics.
Its another to completely misconstrue the political state of a country in the news and make policy statements that completely belie your lack of knowledge on what you're proposing.
Not only that Pakistan is directly in the news at the moment, precisely because of the elections, and she doesn't have the first clue about it, but yet is making policy statements as if she did.
Also Bush recently said that it was a bad idea to have a President who was head of the military.
These are small items but I find it ironic that Ed is beating on the Dems over this sot of thing. It's a pity there are so few candidates who understand this important region. I recently met a USMC officer at a conference in London who was insisting that the Kurds were Shiites.... even with a Kurd standing there telling him they were mostly Sunni.
See how easy it is?
Glass. Houses. Stones.
Source: CIA World Fact Book
at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-wo...
By the way, that candidate won in 2000 simply because Al Gore's fellow Tennesseeans rejected him at the polls. If Gore had won Tennessee, he'd have never needed Florida's electoral votes.
American voter.
BDS.
policy experience or hold it against him.
Really, your point is getting lost in your abject disdain for Bush. You'd be more honest if you just came out and said something like, "I hate Bush no matter what." Then we could appreciate your opinion for what it truly is.
BTW, that was exactly my original point. Glad to know you agree.
Heck, don't 50% of people think that Iraq was behind 9/11?
Maybe your reading comprehension would improve if you just said,
"I love GWB and hate Hillary no matter what." Then we could appreciate your opinion for what IT truly is.
As for your retort; touche, however, I certainly don't love GWB and never have (although I did vote for him twice, albeit as much as a vote against his opponent as for him). However, he certainly has been an effective President by most common measures, such as the MSM-created "misery index."
As for Hillary, I certainly do not "hate" her. However, she's not what she or her supporters pretend her to be. She's been inconsequential and has shown nothing in the form of inspirational leadership - that the Left claims this nation lacks - that leads me to conclude, at least at this point, that she's substantively better than any of the other candidates (with the singular exception of Dennis Kucinich). The fact that she's run her campaign up to this point as a fait accompli is both insulting and telling.
The Bush Administration in Texas was able to improve economic relations with Mexico, to the extent that during his term in office Texas outpaced California as far as trade with Mexico.
Hillary? She passed the bean dip to some diplomat's wife from the Congo.
No comparison. The Democrats offer nothing but inexperienced neophytes.
Gore was also rejected by the voters of Arkansas in 2000.
It really doesn't matter. Evidence: Read the dhimm wit Hildabeast' defenders babblings...
I'm afraid it's as one of our shipmates pointed out earlier, the Hildabeast could be caught in bed with a dead teenager and the dhimmis would still vote for her.
I hope she gets the nomination on the communist side of the isle, as that will put the Clinton's under the microscope for the next batch of months. The truth will set us free of these two pieces of pure scum.