Hillary vs. Barack, part 1,345
I found the following videos from fromer Chicago NOW president Lorna Brett Howard to be riveting. Up until just a couple weeks ago, she was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter. Active in pro-choice groups, Ms. Howard had previously hosted fundraisers for Hillary, yet she is now advocating strongly on behalf of Barack. Take a moment to watch them, if you have the time:[youtube OVuMYKs8iJs]
(Video is here if you can’t see it in your reader.)
Her video about Barack being the only US Senator to step up to the plate in the 2006 South Dakota legislative effort is here, and her response to Clinton’s attacks on Barack’s record is here.
What Ms. Howard discovered is what the Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday (thanks, Don!) — the Clintons “will say and do whatever they ‘gotta’ say or do to win.”
Much has been made of Hillary’s strength: she’s tough, she’ll fight, she knows how to take a punch. But strength that comes from a need to deceive in order to accomplish your goals isn’t strength, it’s cowardice. Hillary doesn’t trust the electorate to pick a candidate on the strengths of their record and character, so she insists on lying about who Barack is and what he’s done, in the hopes that the voters will fear him enough to decide that they really have no choice but to vote for her. That’s not strong, it’s weak. To those who claim this is politics as usual, it’s only usual if we let it be.
Let’s sum up the latest Clinton lies about Barack:
- He was weak on choice. Wrong.
- He did legal work for a slumlord in Chicago. Wrong.
- He didn’t really accomplish much while a state legislator. Wrong.
- He voted “present” a lot because he wasn’t willing to stand up on critical issues. Wrong.
- He was inconsistent in his opposition to the war. Wrong.
- He praised Reagan and the GOP, claiming their ideas were better than those of the Democratic party. Wrong.
Need I go on? After Iowa, the Clintons figured out they couldn’t win on ideas alone. So now they have resorted to lying about their opponent, taking what can only be described as a “devil you know” strategy in order to try and win the nomination in a bloody war of attrition. If that’s leadership, I fear for where the country will be led when Hillary and Bill re-occupy the Oval Office. We’re 7 years into an administration that believes it’s perfectly reasonable to lie to the electorate in order to advance your agenda — do we honestly think that’s the conduct in the White House we want to see more of?
Given the choice (which, thankfully, we still have), I’ll take the candidate who speaks to the best of what this country is about, knowing that he brings with him not only a rhetorical gift that can inspire millions, but the judgment, the legislative ability and the intelligence to unite and lead this country.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment