Hillary Clinton: throwing Obama under the bus
Hillary Clinton’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg features so much criticism of Obama’s foreign policy that the editors of the Weekly Standard have decided to feature lengthy quotes of Hillary’s in an editorial of theirs which is signed, “Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the editors.”
A person could be forgiven for thinking that Clinton was Obama’s opponent during his first term, rather than the most prominent instrument of that foreign policy.
Curious, isn’t it? It would be nice to get Clinton to answer this question: if his policy was so bad, why didn’t you resign earlier with a public statement of how you disagreed and why, when it might have made a difference? How do you explain the depth of your own betrayal and hypocrisy?
Hillary being Hillary, she’d have various lines of spin with which to answer. “Obama’s policies only got really bad after I left.” “I did protest and differ; just more privately” (which she more or less says in the Goldberg interview).
The truth is probably more like this: “I found it expedient to play along with Obama while his reputation was riding high, and now that it’s not—and I want to be his successor—I find the better part of valor is to differentiate myself from him and pretend I had little to do with it. And I trust voters will buy it, because they have the attention span and reasoning power of fleas.”
Actually, I think it most likely true that Hillary did disagree with Obama’s policy in several respects. That makes it even more despicably hypocritical that she played along with it as his eager handmaiden.
Per Bill’s advice, she is trying to get around one of her biggest problems. Electing her would be Obama’s third term.
“And I trust voters will buy it, because they have the attention span and reasoning power of fleas.”
Yep.
Cornhead,
Partially agree but I wouldn’t discount the possibility that rather than just fulfill a third Obama term, she couldn’t eclipse Obama. Don’t underestimate her intelligence or mendaciousness. Just because she’s not a good politician doesn’t mean she’s not a good hater nor cunning in her use of that hate. Reportedly, the most hated detail among the Secret Service was being on Hillary’s protective detail. Evidently she was highly and repeatedly abusive toward the agents charged with her protection. Perhaps ‘vindictive’ describes her better than any other quality.
The “attention span and reasoning power” of the average LIV is a reflection of the ‘filters’ with which they have been indoctrinated by academia and the media.
Please don’t ever forget her “speech by the coffins” on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force base on 9/14/2014.
In case anyone was on the [former] planet Pluto and might have missed it, go here, start at 6:12 and listen for 1 minute or so. I expect at some point before 1/1/2016 this video will be taken down.
They’re going to try to make you forget this.
Well said, Neo.
I would speculate that she had made some sort of agreement that in exchange for Obama giving her the opportunity for getting foreign policy experience for a 2016 run, Hillary would go along with his policies (and not resign in protest). Win-win. Except that Obama seems to be supporting Warren, and Hillary is now criticizing him. May they both be brought down by this.
* * *
Carl in Atlanta – If I had millions I would make an ad of that Hillary moment – probably the angriest I’ve ever been at a politician – and just run it on all channels for the next year. Her constantly referring to Amb. Stevens as Chris, blaming the video (which was an obvious lie even then) and the little story about locals holding signs apologizing for the attack is vomit-inducing.
You have the little malignant Lambchop nailed, N-Neo.
What is she?? ‘She ain’t nuthin’ but an appetite.’
That was the disgusting Rev. Jesse’s summation of her Billy Boy during the Democrat Primary season of ’92. Yep, Revrund, it sho’nuff takes one to know one,’Yo, don’t it?
Same routine as Sec’y of State as when she was FLOTUS. She’ll “stand by her man” just so long as it’s politically expedient for her.
I remember the first time I ever listened to Hillary Clinton–the 60 Minute interview “Look, I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man baking cookies, here.” I immediately thought, these people are nothing but oily politicians. For the sake of our country, I wish I wasn’t right about that.
Carl in Atlanta. You meant that this speech was in 2012, not 2014. Her speaking here is an excellent example of her certain promotion of the lie about the “awful Internet video”. Thank you for the link.
Slick Willy and HRC have a deep hatred for the messiah as he denied her the title of first female president. But they knew they had to play nice when the msm fell in puppy love with mister tingle up the leg. So making the best of the situation the Clintons bargained in order to put sos on her resume. Bho wanted the public image of solidarity with the old guard of the party and Bill stumping for him on the campaign trail. We should remember that Bill was very effective during the 2012 campaign.
Now that some of the msm infatuation has dimmed, and bho’s ‘foreign policy brilliance’ has started to open a lot of startled eyes, the Clintons can begin the process of inserting the messiah under the bus. They are wooing the msm into switching alligence. And I suspect the msm will come to the conclusion that utopia is still possible with the right leader, the first female president.
Alan F: Right, 2012. Brain cramp on my end. She does that to me.
ALL morbidly interested in HRC are encouraged to read Ed Klein’s recent book, “Blood Feud”. The whole squalid bunch made me very tired.
Anyone here love Hillary’s “laughter” when she lets loose?! How’bout that faux, rash causing Black accent when talking down to an auditorium full of black folks,’Yo?!
Maybe if Hillary keeps talking in this hawkish/neoconish way, Bernie Sanders will throw his hat in the ring. Wouldn’t beat her for the nomination, but his very run could bring her much grief by drawing off the anti-war folks and depressing their vote for her in the general election.
The Washington Post has a piece on him today.
Most of my objections regarding a woman President center around most women’s inability to send men and women into harm’s way, when knowing it’s a death sentence. A President has to be able to make the ‘impossible’ calls, when the only choice is between really bad and… even worse.
IMO, the two most prominent women who could, if necessary, make that call are Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. It’s not Hillary’s tough mindedness I doubt, its her allegiance to Marxism and personal maliciousness that disqualifies her for the office.
Interestingly, Robin Williams had something to say about putting women in charge; “If women ran the world we wouldn’t have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days.”
Bill and/or Hillary are smart enough to have known that Obama is utterly incompetent – they saw him up close and personal. The world simply does not work the way he thinks it does. So why did Hillary agree to be his Secretary of State? Did she think this would work out well? Did she think it would leave her unscathed? Did she think to herself, “what difference, at this point, does it make”. It is a mystery to me.
GB funny line by Robin Williams but a probable methodology to be used by Elizabeth (granny) Warren.
She has the absurd academic attitude ( & neo pointed it out) THAT, Isis & Iran & hunted religious minorities can reach a negotiated settlement ! Because of course there is no real evil in the world just mis understood people !
MollyNH,
I’m uncertain as to whether Warren actually believes that or is just speaking to her base to generate enthusiasm for her political ambitions. Or she may think that her ‘solution’ can work in 98% of the cases and in the ones where groups have ‘mistakenly’ embraced evil and are ‘unenlightened’ enough to ‘cling to it’ that ostracism by the world would be a viable strategy for dealing with it.
But regardless of how divorced from reality Warren may actually be, all isms of the left are, to one degree or another, forms of rejection of reality. And denial of reality is at base, denial of personal responsibility and accountability.
Retail Lawyer:
I speculated a bit on that here (2009) and here (2012):
if his policy was so bad, why didn’t you resign earlier with a public statement of how you disagreed and why, when it might have made a difference?
to avoid the obscurity which is worse than the downside of that
How do you explain the depth of your own betrayal and hypocrisy?
you dont
as far as what is going on..
read catechism of the revolutionary, its covered in that.
your useful till you aint, and there is no sentimentality
and you have help until you dont…
many times a convert did so when they dropped and the whole of the behavior changes towards them, and the wtf moment grabs hold.
tsun tsu explains it too.
all war is deception
when strong appear weak
when weak appear strong
when close appear far
when far appear close
and of course, who picks who to support?
thats who calls the shots, not who benefits from it.
sorry hit enter
who (openly) benefits is who is being led around
neo & retail lawyer:
By dint of the election finance laws and practice and custom:
By becoming Secretary of State ALL of Hillary’s previous (massive) campaign debts were washed away.
She no longer had to pay a cent.
Look it up.
This HUGE NUT stood between Hillary and ANY FUTURE CAMPAIGNING.
By dint of law and custom, she’d have to dedicate ALL of any of her future campaign funding to retiring this old slug of debt.
By becoming the Sec State the ‘system’ paid off her debts. I forget the purse, but in the essentials: her electioneering mechanics were promptly paid off by the US Government consequent to her being approved by the Senate.
IIRC, the monies come out of the $1 check off — and there’d be plenty, since lord Barry didn’t tap any of them.
Take a wild guess which political bodies slipped this gifting mechanism into the public finance provisions of electioneering.
Bill, of course, drove the calculus. Hillary didn’t see the play: Bill did. He knew that her staggering debts would sink her political future. She’d gone into the hole at over a million dollars a day towards the end.
Yiikes.
neo writes: “Hillary being Hillary, she’d have various lines of spin with which to answer. ‘Obama’s policies only got really bad after I left.’ ‘I did protest and differ; just more privately’ (which she more or less says in the Goldberg interview).”
Welllll . . . hmmmmm . . . how ’bout . . .
“What difference, at this point, does it make??”
[screeching]
It’s all the spin she needs. Enough of the people enough of the time . . .
Rightly or wrongly (wrongly, IMO), recent history has suggested likability is the deciding factor in presidential elections.
And that’s Hillary’s! Achilles’ heel. She’s not well-liked, even on the left.
I’m not that worried about her.
Matt_SE:
Well, Obama said she’s likable enough.
I can’t see that either is the least bit likable. But if I absolutely had to choose, I’d choose Hillary as least unlikable.
Clinton was only offered the job in Obama’s cabinet to ensure she wouldn’t run against Obama in 2012. She got nothing in return. Nothing.
blert:
Do you have a link for what you’re saying about Hillary becoming SOS and her campaign debt?
If it were true, then why would you have this sort of thing?
I’m not that worried about her.
Were you worried about the Left or Hussein O in 2007?
Ymarsakar:
I was very worried about the left in 2007. The anger and hatred for Bush, and the 2006 elections, made me very worried (heck, I was very worried in 2004 that Kerry would win).
As for Obama, I don’t think I was worried at the outset of his campaign. But I was worried long before he was elected, because I thought he would win and I thought he was a leftist. I hoped I was wrong, but it had become quite clear by this point and even somewhat earlier.
YW, She got a star on her msm homework; all the she lacked was the tingle up the leg and sharply creased pantsuits.
Neo, How could you not know the messiah was not hard left?Was that not plain as day going back to his days in the Illinois senate?
parker:
DId you read what I wrote? I compared him to Hugo Chavez, saying I thought he was not just soft left, but hard:
I tend to worry less about Hillary than Obama because, although she, too, is a leftist, I don’t think she harbors a deep-seated animus towards America, while Obama does.
She does not realize that she does not yet stand much of a chance to become president, because … there wer studies done in the 1960s and 1970s that led to the conclusion that for white as well as black men in the US there are preferences: a ladder from “white man – black man – white woman – black woman”. No one will ever tell her but Obama was ahead of her from the start because subconscious voter preferences still won’t choose a woman over a man at least for a long while it seems.
When HRC was offered and accepted the S’o’S post from Obama, I took it to mean that His Majesty had successfully debollocked both Clintons. They could have been out there snaking at their leisure, particularly Mr. Malignant Narcissist Billy. With Hillary high in the cabinet they were entirely muted. They, I figured, saw it as a “plus/win-win” for keeping her ‘in leadership’ and prominently newsworthy(cough)with a very popular(cough)president. Build-Up for later power.
Gawd, what true slime they all are.
NCS, it’s like a NAP. Non Aggression Pact
The quoted section I had was from Matt, so I’m not sure why Neo was responding to it, although the answer isn’t a problem with me.