More reasons NOT to vote for Hillary

Initial questions

1. Are you a Democrat?
2. Are you even thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton?
   
3. Are you tired of the dishonesty and lust for power that has exemplified the Bush administration?
   

If you answered "yes" to each question, then answer the next question.

WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU EVEN THINKING ABOUT VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON?

Intended audience and objective of this post

I had promised someone that I was going to post on this subject by the end of last week, but a rather nasty case of food poisoning prevented that. Then again, maybe it wasn't the tainted food but the thought of Hillary Clinton winning in Iowa that caused me to retch repeatedly. Anyhoo, better a little late than after the results in Iowa...

This post is directed toward and intended for Democrats. I'm not saying that Republicans cannot join in the discussion (and I'm oh so sure it will have heavy participation), but this is not for them. I am basically going to explain--again--that 1) Hillary's SOP is nothing more than the Republican/Bush SOP, and 2) she is disingenuous and hypocritical. I will be stating that certain tactics are part of "the Republican playbook," "Bush SOP," etc. I am not going to provide documentation or citation to back up all of those statements. If you are a Democrat and feel that such citation is necessary, you should not be allowed to operate any machinery, much less participate in this discussion. If you are a Republican and take issue with my characterizations, I don't care. See, you will not ever be voting for Hillary anyway, and my objective is to convince those who might vote for her during the primary process that they need to make another choice.

A Hillary primer

Those in need of some background on Hillary and why I strongly dislike her can read the following posts:

• Hillary Clinton: "I'm in. And I'm in to win." (January 20, 2007)
• Some more on my Hillary views (January 20, 2007)
• Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics (August 15, 2007)
• My vexation over Clark's endorsement and how Clark just pointed out a flaw in Hillary (September 18, 2007)
• Here's another reason I don't like Hillary Clinton. (September 29, 2007)

Now let's examine some specific actions from the campaign trail which show that Hillary Clinton is just like George W. Bush.

The "planted question" ploy

• What happened
  

On November 6, 2007, Hillary made a campaign stop at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa. She gave a speech and then took questions from the audience. One question came from Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff. And here's the story behind this question, as told by the Grinnell College campus paper:

But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ('10), some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. "They were canned," she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. "One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask]," she said.

Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event "they wanted a question from a college student," Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand.

The article went on to contain what appeared like a denial by the Clinton campaign, but eventually the campaign had to admit that indeed that specific question had been planted. As reported by CNN on November 10, 2007,

The Clinton campaign did not dispute talking to the student, but dismissed suggestions the senator was following a script that would ensure she only received friendly questions.

"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum," campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said in a statement. "However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

Let's see...there was no denial of the specific allegations made by Gallo-Chasanoff. That means that 1) Clinton staffers told her what to ask, 2) staffers specifically wanted a college student to ask that question, 3) staffers made sure that Hillary called on Gallo-Chasanoff, 4) Hillary, before answering the question, made a point of saying that young people often ask this same question. When you factor in how carefully scripted and measured Hillary has been in this entire campaign, if you still believe that she had no knowledge about this question being planted, it's time to "puff, puff, pass, dude."

• How this is from the Republican/Bush playbook

It has been well documented how at White House Press Briefings, friendly reporters were called on whenever things were getting too uncomfortable for the Press Secretary, and those reporters would ask softball questions on issues different from those being discussed. Anyone remember Jeff Gannon? In other words, questions were planted.

And then there was the great FEMA press conference that really wasn't a press conference because all the "reporters" were in fact FEMA staffers asking scripted questions to the FEMA spokesman.

Picking a person out of the audience, planting a question with her, making sure that Hillary calls on that person, and then Hillary acting like this is a spontaneous event is no different than the the Bush administration acts described above.

I will also point out that the Bush administration made a regular practice of producing PR pieces and then passing them off as legitimate news reports. Here's one article detailing that practice. Note that the article also says "The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration..." (emphasis added). Another indication that Hillary is no different than Bush...

Obama lied about not wanting to be President.

• What happened
  

This is so childish and shows just what kind of person Hillary really is.

Straight from Hillary's website, here is a shocking expose showing that Barack Obama is such a lying weasel:

At an event in Boston this evening (December 2, 2007), Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.

"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last fifteen years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

There are several examples of Obama telling family and friends that he has long wanted to be President, but I will highlight two. Here's the first:

Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President."

This became a favorite meme for Hillary, exemplified by this statement she made on December 3, 2007:

You decide which makes more sense: to entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one to make the decisions and the changes we need, or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience who started running for president as soon as he arrived in the United States Senate?

Here's the second example from the "expose:"

In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled "I Want To Be a President."

*******

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled "I Want to Become President."

I am shocked. Shocked, I say!

• How this shows Hillary's abject hypocrisy and true nature

Let's start with the kindergarten and third grade essays.

Are you freaking kidding me??? I think almost every little kid in this country has heard "You can grow up to be anything you want. You can even grow up to be President." And Hillary Clinton wants to berate someone for expressing this dream that was put in so many kids' heads? I guess maybe Hillary never wanted to be President until later in life (like maybe after she met Bill), so she feels justified in making this supremely childish and stupid attack on Obama. Next thing you know, she'll go after everyone who wanted to be a doctor, policeman, fireman, or cowboy as a little kid.

And for Hillary to criticize anyone for long wanting to be President is about the biggest bunch of pure shit she has ever spouted. Which brings us to the "he's been running for President since he first got to the Senate" complaint. I have already talked about this to some degree in Hillary Clinton: "I'm in. And I'm in to win." Instead of reprinting that analysis here, I will quote a blog entry by Andrew Cline, the editorial page editor for the Union Leader, a major newspaper in New Hampshire. He covers some of the same points I did, but his tone provides just the touch I'm looking for...

Hillary Clinton’s desperation is evident in her increasingly biting, and often silly, attacks on Barack Obama. Clinton suggested this week that Obama has been running for President since he got elected to the Senate. “How did running for President become a qualification for being President?” she asked.

Well, you tell us, Hillary. The ONLY reason Clinton ran for Senate from New York, a state she’d never lived in, was because New York gave her a great launching pad for a presidential campaign. She was running for President not just from the day she was elected to the Senate, but from the day her husband was sworn in as President. And by the way, how did being married to the President become a qualification for being President?

If Obama has indeed been running for President from the first day he got in the Senate, at least he got to the Senate by running in a state in which he actually lived and actually had ties. I have to stop trying to write a description of just how howlingly hypocritical Hillary is on this matter because it gets me so angry I can't focus. And for any Democrats that do not see such hypocrisy, after you pass, keep drinking deep from that pitcher of Kool Aid.

Voters view Hillary as a negative campaigner

• What happened

Here's a summary of some of the results of a December 9, 2007, poll conducted by MSNBC in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (the first three states to hold caucuses or primaries): "And here's a trend line the Clinton folks might want to worry about, in all three states, she's seen as having run the most negative campaign to date." But wait, there's more...In each state Hillary was seen as the least honest and trustworthy and the candidate who least represents change. And these are Democrats expressing these views.

• How this is from the Republican/Bush playbook

Do I really need to explain this? Negative campaigning is a primary tactic from the Republican playbook, and it was extensively used by Bush on anyone who got in his way (remember what happened to McCain in South Carolina in 2000?).

Let others do the dirty work.

• What happened
  

On December 23, 2007, Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central reported that

the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- may be preparing to go live with a Web site attacking Barack Obama.

According to a report filed with the FEC late yesterday, AFSCME has plunked down nearly $5,500 in spending for "Web site design," and the filing specifies that the expenditure "opposes" Obama.

And then four days later, Sargent reported that

Looks like the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- is set to hit Obama with another negative mailing, this time in New Hampshire.

According to FEC reports filed this afternoon, AFSCME plunked down nearly $39,000 today for an anti-Obama mailer to go out in the state.

• How this is Bush SOP

Can you say "swift boat"? Bush let groups like the Swift Boat vets do his dirty campaigning while being able to claim he had nothing to do with their lies because they were not part of his official campaign. And then there was the campaign of lies about McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

And now here is a group that is pro-Hillary, but not officially part of her campaign, that is setting up a structure to launch negative attacks against Obama.

Avoid the issue by claiming your opponent is politicizing the issue

• What happened

Thanks again to Greg Sargent, I found out about a press conference on December 27, 2007, with Obama adviser David Axelrod. Some reporters raised the subject of whether the Bhutto assassination would help Hillary's campaign (thanks to her claimed experience in foreign policy).

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

And how did the Hillary camp respond? By refusing to "have that discussion." Spokesman Phil Singer was on the job again:

This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations.

(emphasis added).

• How this is Bush/Republican SOP

The Bush administration and the GOP almost always do the same thing when faced with legitimate, substantive criticism: never address the actual issue and instead try to attack the critics by claiming they are "politicizing" the issue or "playing politics."

This is precisely what the Hillary campaign did. There are serious, legitimate questions about Hillary's record on foreign policy matters, especially the Iraq war. AND SHE STILL HAS NEVER ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS. Axelrod's response went straight to Hillary's record, and yet her spokesman avoided the issue and claimed Obama was "politicizing" Bhutto's assassination.

And Hillary her ownself made the "politicizing claim in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer had interviewed Obama the night before, and Blitzer specifically asked him about Axelrod's comments and the Clinton camp's claim that Axelrod was politicizing the Bhutto assassination. Here is Obama's response:

OBAMA: He was—he was—he was asked—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa." But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan." And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball to the extent that there are those who are claiming now that their experience somehow makes them superior to deal with these issues. I think it's important for the American people to look at the judgments they've made in the past, and then—the experience hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That's part of the reason we are now in this circumstance. He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there.

(emphasis added). In other words, Axelrod is not the one who first tried to politicize the issue. That was the reporter, and Axelrod's answer indeed was to say that if you want to talk about the Clinton campaign, let's talk instead about her foreign policy record. Axelrod never tried to say that the Bhutto assassination showed that Hillary should not be nominated. It was the Clinton campaign who tried to twist Axelrod's comments to be about the assassination. Now, one would think that Obama's explanation would put the matter to rest, but not for Hillary, as shown in these excerpts from her CNN interview (transcript excerpts courtesy of Greg Sargent).

BLITZER: Now I think he (Obama) was referring to your vote giving the President authority to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and your more recent vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In effect, he says that gave a blank check to the President to go to war against Iran. You want to respond to Senator Obama?

CLINTON: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy (the Bhutto assassination). I personally knew Benazir Bhutto. She was Prime Minister when I visited Pakistan on behalf of our government. I stayed in touch with her over the years. I don’t think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds, both on the personal level to the tragedy of this assassination.

(emphasis added). This is such bullshit. Even after being presented with the explanation that Obama and Axelrod were referring not to the Bhutto assassination but to Hillary's record on Iraq and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment regarding Iran (see Here's another reason I don't like Hillary Clinton.), Hillary refused to address her record and instead kept insisting that Obama was politicizing the Bhutto assassination. But wait, there's more.

BLITZER: What about the specific criticism of your foreign policy judgment that we heard from Senator Obama, we heard earlier in the day from his chief strategist, David Axelrod. What about that, that implied criticism that some of your decisions on these national security, foreign policy issues raise questions about whether or not you should be president?

CLINTON: I just regret that both of them would be politicizing this tragedy and especially at a time when do we need to figure out a way forward. That’s what I’m focused on.

(emphasis added). "This tragedy" has nothing to do with the question or her record or her qualifications to be President, and yet she still refused to address those matters! She was the one who politicized the Bhutto assassination and then used that as an excuse to keep from answering questions for which she apparently does not have the courage to answer.

NOTE: The "politicizing" ploy is closely related to the "I won't answer hypothetical questions" ploy, which has also been used by Hillary, as discussed in Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics.

Vote for Hillary or the terrorists win.

• What happened

Gotta love TPM Election Central...Greg Sargent was busy on December 27, 2007, for after the above referenced post, he had one about how Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana and a Hillary proxy, explained why the Bhutto assassination showed that people should vote for Hillary:

When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong. And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.

• How this is from the Republican/Bush playbook
  

First of all, Evan, you need to check Hillary's record on things like the USA PATRIOT ACT before claiming she has protected civil liberties. Now, let me see if I have this right. The Republicans have always claimed that Democrats are weak and basically that a vote for a Democrat is a win for the terrorists. And now Evan Bayh is claiming that Hillary is the only Dem candidate who is not weak. Consequently, Evan Bayh is saying that Democrats should vote for Hillary or the terrorists will win.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. Bayh did not expressly say anything like "Vote for Hillary or the terrorists win." Well, there is another favorite tactic of the Bush administration, namely say something that clearly implies a given meaning but does not use express language to that effect so that you can later deny you said anything with that meaning.

So, Bayh basically used fear of terrorists without any basis in rationality in order to convince people to vote for Hillary. That ploy is not just in the Republican playbook, it is on Page 1.

And by the way...if Hillary is so strong, why does she keep avoiding questions about her record and experience?

Conclusion

Republicans despise the prospect of "Billery," a melding of Bill and Hillary, taking over the White House. I think that prospect is unlikely, for if Hillary becomes President, she is not going to let Bill do squat--but that's another topic. Democrats need to be worried about something far worse than "Billery." Democrats need to realize that a Hillary Presidency will not be the continuation of Bill's administration, but rather a continuation of the George W. Bush administration.

Hillary has shown that she is every bit as dishonest, disingenuous, and power-hungry as Bush.

So I ask again, if you are a Democrat and you are sick and tired of the Bush administration

WHY IN THE WORLD EVEN THINK ABOUT VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON?