THE ONE REAL BENEFIT OF A PROLONGED ELECTION PERIOD IS THAT IT PROVIDES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR HILLARY TO IMPLODE—AND, DON’T LOOK NOW, SHE JUST DID
THE ONE REAL BENEFIT OF A PROLONGED ELECTION PERIOD IS THAT IT PROVIDES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR HILLARY TO IMPLODE—AND, DON’T LOOK NOW, SHE JUST DID
by
Ken Eliasberg
The Clintons are an amazing couple in that few people can be as evasive and continue to occupy a place in the public dialogue. Bill did it in such a smooth manner that you almost didn’t realize that he wasn’t saying anything, but that’s because he was—and is—a real charmer, possessed of all the skills of the consummate con man. No one fakes sincerity better than Bill Clinton, and no one has more difficulty with it than his wife, who, when it comes to public relations, has a tin ear and a lead foot. And, until last week’s debate her clumsy communication skills were papered over by an adoring press. Indeed, one columnist from one of the nation’s leading newspapers went so far as to praise her for being so skillfully evasive. Now, is that we want in a leader—someone who ducks every question on every subject critical to the nation’s future? Of course not! And her cause has been furthered by the abject poverty of her competition - Obama and Edwards are small players who are clearly not ready for prime time.
However, in the most recent Democratic debate, Hillary was caught when she refused to give a straight forward yes or no answer to a question that required no other response, i.e. do you approve of Governor Spitzer’s decision to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens (or, in the words of the left-wing’s double speak, undocumented workers)? She hemmed and hawed and, on the whole, looked pretty ridiculous; I mean her efforts at evasion were so transparent that even the least astute among us could see through them. Moreover, her response was deeply troubling since it touched on matters of national security. That is, are we going to, in effect, give de facto citizenship to illegals, and, make no mistake about it, permitting them toremain in this country and giving them the wherewithal to do so, is tantamount to de facto citizenship. So, evasion on a matter of this importance is doubly embarrassing in that it (1) demonstrates your unwillingness to answer a question that should be answered and that can be answered in a simple yes or no manner, and (2) lends some weight to the well established notion that Democrats are weak on matters of national security.
And, in this vein, no one knows more about the Clintons and the deceptive manner in which they do business than Dick Morris. In a delightful column published on 11/5/07 in Townhall.com, entitled Behind Hillary’s Doubletalk, Morris observes:
“Every time she approaches a microphone, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton labors
under the necessity of fudging on her program—offering, instead, an artificial
personality and a variety of poll-tested bromides that let her duck key issues.”
Amen. If you’ll notice, on virtually every issue that she addresses she always lets you know that she “has a plan.” Have you noticed that she never lets you know the details of any of these “plans.” And until her most recent debate performance, she was able to get away with this dissembling. The media gave her a pass, and her competitors were either too inept or too afraid to take her on. All that ended on this occasion when Tim Russert, an unabashed liberal, had the unmitigated gall to ask her a simple question—does she approve of granting drivers licenses to illegal aliens? Now, folks, that’s not a tough question—a simple yes or no would do. But the Senator went all over the place in one of her more inept efforts at evasion.
And, of course, the Clintons tried to paper this over by accusing Russert (whose testimony was almost uniquely responsible for sinking Scooter Libby, which should be more than sufficient grounds for establishing his liberal credentials - assuming that any one had any doubt about his orientation) of practicing “gotcha” politics. By the way, I think that Russert, while a liberal, is a fine journalist, and so I am not using the term “liberal” here in a pejorative manner; I’m using it here merely to make the point that Russert is not doing anything here but his job, i.e. asking the candidates questions that bear, at least remotely, on the job they are campaigning to acquire. And, with Hillary, that’s a no-no. In her public appearances, she practices the Clinton approach to gays in the military—don’t ask, don’t tell. Or, more accurately, don’t ask because I won’t tell, and, if you do, Bill and I will make every effort to demonize you. And, of course, on cue, she pulled her personality out of the closet—i.e. her husband, Slick Willie—to go after Russert.
Now, let me ask you, the reader, the question - do you think that giving drivers licenses to illegals is a good idea? In this regard, it is worthy of note that a recent Rasmussen poll indicates that 77% of American adults are opposed to making drivers licenses available to people who are in the country illegally.
There’s something else going on here that needs calling attention to, and that is Hillary’s inability to defend herself when cornered. This is also typical of your typical feminist—they want it both ways. When they’re winning, they’re equal to any man, and when they’re not winning then you mean guys are picking on a girl. In Hillary’s case this became clear in her 2000 race when Lazio had the audacity to walk across the stage to engage Hillary on the subject of “soft” dollars for financing a campaign. The Press treated the incident as if poor Hillary were being picked on. Now, when she so obviously stubbed her political toe, she has to reach for the big gun (or the big mouth, depending on your perspective) in the form of her husband. Bill has leaped to her defense saying that Russert’s simple and completely appropriate question was the equivalent of “swift boating” poor Hillary. Give me a break—if you can’t play with the boys, get out of the political sandbox.
The problem, of course, is, as Morris makes abundantly clear in the above-referenced column, that Hillary can’t really let you know what she has planned for us, because, if she did, she would most assuredly lose the election in a landslide. As Morris concludes: “On issue after issue, Hillary mustn’t let voters know what she plans or what she wants to do. That’s the difficulty in being Hillary. I’ll have a lot more to say about Hillary’s very obvious limitations in the future—stay tuned.