Posted on 11/18/2007 7:46:27 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Triangulation Gone Wild
Hillary Clinton effectively batted back attacks from her Democratic rivals in last night's CNN debate, but laid the seeds for future Republican attacks on her trade positions, which to be charitable appear evasive and tricky. She's an effective debater, but in large part because she so clearly manages to avoid answering specific questions about her views.
Asked if she agreed with Ross Perot that the 1993 NAFTA free trade agreement her husband pushed through Congress was a mistake, she immediately commenced evasive maneuvers. "All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts." When pressed, she would only say: "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we hoped it would."
Mrs. Clinton is clearly trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she waffles on NAFTA and calls for a "timeout" on any new trade agreements. But she also doesn't want to explicitly repudiate her husband's free trade record. As the Los Angeles Times reported last month: "Appearing before free-trade supporters, she has praised the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement, which is loathed by many unions. But speaking to a union audience as a presidential candidate, Clinton said NAFTA hurt workers."
One of the biggest problems for Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Quote of the Day
"There's definitely something weird and cultish in the sycophantish cathexis onto Hillary of the many nerds, geeks and vengeful viragos who run her campaign -- sometimes to her detriment, as with the recent ham-handed playing of the clichéd gender card. I suspect the latter dumb move, which has backfired badly, came from Ann Lewis (Barney Frank's sister), a fanatical Hillary true believer who has been spouting beatific feminist bromides about her for the past 15 years. Hillary seems to have acolytes rather than friends -- hardly a reassuring trait for a potential president whose paranoia has already been called Nixonian. Isolated monarchs never hear the bad news until the people riot and the lynch mob is at the door" -- liberal cultural critic Camille Paglia writing at Salon.com.
Hillary and Willie are both liars. The difference is that Slick’s personality makes people want to believe him, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The Hildebeast does not have that quality.
I believe Bill has the useful ability to believe his own lies while he tells them. I suspect he could pass a polygraph while telling you he had personally found a cure for cancer.
She must be shown to be the evasive, mean-spirited socialist who does not want to speak about her plans or anything substantive. And the press must be shown to be the ideological enabler that it is.
“All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts.”
And Blitzer let her get by with this answer...
That wasn’t a “Debate”, it was a 2-hour infomercial for Hillary, at ZERO cost to the campaign...
She’s an effective debater, but in large part because she so clearly manages to avoid answering specific questions about her views.
:::::::
This woman and her so-called husband are psychopathic liars and criminals. They will NEVER tell the truth or disclose their power-centric, Marxist control agenda. This should be all the reason in the world for NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON to vote for these carpet-bagging power merchants who care nothing about America. The MSM and the so-called “debates” are being sponsored by their lackies and lap-dogs who will not hold her responsible for answering the questions or provide questions which expose her REAL agenda for America.
The credibility of these “side shows”, which serve only to put this Medusa in front of the cameras, is a obvious sham. She just continues to lie, to flip-flop, to tap-dance to every tune thrown her way. An obvious fraud.
For God sakes, wake up America.
Have to disagree with the point in the article that Hillary is an effective debater. No, she is not. She babbles. She is unable/unwilling to give straight answers. She had something going with Blitzer. She plants questions. It can be a pain to listen to her to struggle with and spin her answers.
CNN was willing to lie for Saddam, and only admitted it when they were about to be exposed.
Just IMAGINE what they will be willing to do for a Clinton!
That’s giving her a little too much credit, even though the stamp is worthless, it makes her appear 20 years younger. More flattering than she ever looked in the White House.
One could also do a take on the identity theft ads and have it be obvious that the voice coming from the questioner (and throwing the softball questions) is not his or her real voice.
I think the McCain supporter was more accurate -
One of the biggest problems for Mrs. Clinton is that she's a bitch!
CNN Defends ‘Diamonds vs. Pearls’ Question [semi-satire]
Viewers who may have been puzzled by the Democratic debate’s final question to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) got an interesting explanation from the Cable News Network. At the end of the debate, Maria Luisa, a UNLV student, asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred “diamonds or pearls.” After being inundated with criticisms over the “frivolous” nature of her question, Luisa revealed that CNN instructed her to ask the question.
“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa said. “When my turn came, they forced me to ask the frilly question instead of the one about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository I really wanted to ask. Now, I’m just embarrassed.”
Presidential rival Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accused CNN of “lobbing a softball to help her look good.”
CNN spokeswoman, Shirley Paltry denied Obama’s accusation. “To a man like Senator Obama this may look like a ‘softball’ question,” Paltry said. “But to the women of America it is very salient. Men just cannot grasp the importance of achieving the right look. Luckily for them, they can rely on their wives for guidance. Hillary, on the other hand, has to make these kinds of decisions herself. The women of America will understand the importance of the question and appreciate the skill with which Hillary answered it.”
Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) agreed that the question was worthy, but said it should have been directed to him. “I think the voters can see that I am best qualified to answer such a question,” Edwards asserted, adding that “it’s also a good metaphor for my ‘two Americas’ message.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
I have to agree with you. I was stunned when the post-debate spinmeisters immediately declared her the victor. I found her lack of specificity annoying and did not think her evasive performance praiseworthy at all.
debate: to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion
Hillary has never actually participated in a ‘debate’.
As has been said, hillary merely stars in her own infomercials, at no cost to her campaign.
Every time I hear her name or see her face I want to barf. It is like a trainwreck that you can’t tear yourself away from. I only hope it IS a trainwreck and she is derailed.
I only hope it IS a trainwreck and she is derailed.
::::::
God help America if she isn’t. No one else will be able to.
I was stunned when the post-debate spinmeisters immediately declared her the victor.
:::::::
That is because the Clinton mafia was keeping an eye on them. Something as grotesque and fraudulent as Hillary does not and cannot happen on its own — it has to be engineered and FORCED TO HAPPEN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.