posted by Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.com blog
This video (hat tip: Lew Rockwell) is revealing in a number of different ways. First of all, it shows up Hillary Clinton for what she truly is: an opportunist who is only tenuously acquainted with the truth. She now claims that if she had known then what she knows now, she would never have voted for the war: but in this video, in which she meets with members of Code Pink, the antiwar women’s group, she downplays the “weapons of mass destruction” rationale for war, and emphasizes, instead, the brutality of Saddam’s dictatorship.
Secondly, I would note the unctuousness of Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin, who shamelessly kisses up to Hillary in her introduction, and even declares that she “knows you secretly agree with us” about the war. The fun begins when Hillary sternly disabuses Ms. Benjamin of this illusion, lecturing her about the absolute evil represented by Saddam’s Iraq, and reminding her of the Clintonian war against the Serbs, which, as all good liberals know, was a righteous war. Poor Medea — talk about having the rug pulledout from under you!
The best part is when one of the Code Pink women approaches Hillary, at the end, and tries to hand her a “pink slip” — some pink underpants of a decidedly delicate character. This is when Hillary bares her fangs, and lashes out: “I am the Senator from New York,” she intones, wagging her finger at the woman like a schoolmarm, “and if you think I’m going to endanger the security of my constituents you are very much mistaken!”
Wow! How telling that, when cornered, Hillary resorts to the Bushian “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” argument — and so readily, almost instinctively.
Now that the war is unpopular, however, Hillary is trying to distance herself from her previous incarnation as a hawk. It won’t work — thanks to Youtube!
Photos by Jim Bovard
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Wasn’t NATO employed for the Bosnian operation under her husband ? It wasn’t done in a vacuum of US concern. Why wasn’t that rational used for Rwanda in regards to that genocide ?
Unfortunately the 10K+ that will see that, won’t outweigh the thousands available at the drop of the DNC’s hat for a feel good what are you going to do for us now Hillary bandwagon.
Yeah, sadly.
Obama’s the only antidote for her. He’s hardly a fantastic candidate himself but he’s not Hillary, and that’s good enough for me to support him in the Democratic primaries.
Why even default to Obama Stu ? Just because Chris Matthews says they’re the only two ? WE have to promote the idea that this is WIDE bloody open, even if it’s not. While still an unabashed statist, I think Bill Richardson’s more ‘qualified’ than either Hillary or Obama. Qualified in the traditional sense. I personally advocate for the elimination of the office altogether. Don’t get soft on us buddy, brutalize them ALL as you do so aptly . . .
As a New Yorker I’m constantly horrified that Hillary and Chuck represent me. Chuck’s new book looks simplistic and cherishes that big old kiss of government that started just down the road in Hyde Park . . . curses that FDR !
I give a tip of the hat to Kucinich for being the most honestly antiwar of the bunch. He’s the only one who even showed in DC last Saturday.
Bill Richardson is better but he’s not gonna get it… Obama’s the only one who can slay the Hildabeast, sadly.
Have any of you looked at Ron Paul? He is exploring a run as a Republican, but is more of a Libertarian. He puts all of these windbags in perspective. I encourage anyone to google him and go check out what he believes. Less Taxes, Less Govt, More Constitiution, Gun Rights, and was one of the few Repubs to vote against the war. All of these others are controlled by the system of money, favors, and elite corporate power. Except maybe Kucinich. Here is a great link for some articles on Paul’s views.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
I like Steve Kubby better.
http://kubby2008.com/
I’m working on his campaign.
He’s pro-immigration, for one thing. As an immigrant, I consider that an important issue.
I’ve had a lot to say about it, much of which you can find in the archives here:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/?s=immigration
Ron Paul’s really more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian. I do support him in the Republican primary, even though he has no chance there.
I wouldn’t say Ron Paul has no chance. First off, let me submit this piece of commentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsIrHAAqqjk
The Republican primary is a mess right now. Very few strong Republican candidates want to make a Presidential bid with the current Republican President being so unpopular, and the left so much more determined to take the Presidency than the right is to keep it. Sure, there’s John McCain, but he’s so 8 years ago. If, as the previous video attests, the other Republican front runners are so unelectable (they have a good point that Guiliani will almost definitely lose in south carolina, and probably in iowa as well), the field is still wide open.
So, if the main front runners drop out, it will be a race to see which of the lowre tier candidates can take one of the early voting states. Hagel will most likely take Iowa. Ron Paul has a good chance in New Hampshire, especially with the FSP moving activists and donors in. South Carolina will probably be a face off between the Iowa and NH winners, and with Ron Paul being a Texan he has a little bit of an advantage. If he can take those two early states, the other Republican challengers will have an uphill battle trying to overcome the momentum he’ll get by winning.
If he does take the primary, I think he could win against Hillary. Sure, she’ll have him beat on funds, but she’s also got him beat on polarizing the country. No conservative is going to vote for Hillary over Ron Paul. Paul at least feels abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states, which is enough for religious southern and midwestern voters to favor him over Hillary. He voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, so many younger liberals will remove their support from Hillary if she’s up against a truly anti-war candidate. His biggest challenge will be winning over moderates to add to the conservative and far-left voters who are likely to support him.
No, sorry, you’re dreaming.
Ron Paul’s chances in the NSGOP primary are about the same as Kucinich in the Double Penetration Donkey Show Party.
Neither one will be winning the primaries, or coming close, much less the general election.
Both have about the same chance of being the next president as the eventual nominees of the LP, Greens or Constitution Party.
I hate to say that, but it’s true. I don’t gamble much anymore, but I’ll bet on that one.
I’ve already said that I’m probably switching my voter registration to Republican JUST to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries… but I hold no illusions about his chances. It’d be nice if he won though.
Loop it
http://www.libertyloop.com/story.php?id=280
Digg it
http://digg.com/political_opinion/When_Hillary_Attacks