Strength And Experience Is NOT Hillary Clinton
2 comments July 9th, 2007
Hillary Clinton knows she must fabricate an image divorced from reality to win the presidential race. Thus, her official campaign website’s homepage boasts that Hillary is the change agent in the 2008 campaign because, “Strength plus experience equals change.”
What a bizzare talent for nonsensical word formulation there is in this odd world called Hillaryland. Think logically. How is a second Clinton administration (another “twofer,” to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s description of the co-presidency that characterized his administration) a manifestation of change? It can’t be. Voting for Hillary Clinton is repeating the 1990’s, end of story. However, to neutralize the value proposition of Barack Obama’s campaign, the Hillary people claim their candidate is the change candidate. For “proof,” they pick out “qualities” they claim that Hillary Clinton, but not Obama, possess, even if these attributes have nothing to do with change. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that strength and experience do amount to change. So where is Hillary strong and experienced?
No one will deny that those accolades describe her political aggression and ambition. However, in the realm of statecraft, Senator Clinton is neither strong nor experienced. Her record shows no meaningful experience in the arena of foreign policy, geopolitcal strategy or economic policy. Don’t be fooled by Hillary’s propaganda; going on an overseas congressional junket is not an expression of deep-seated knowledge of foreign affairs.
Then there is the question of strength. In 2002 Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George W. Bush to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, leading to the present Iraq catastrophe. How does that equate with strength? Only the most fanatical Hillary partisan would make that absurd claim. In fact, Hillary Rodham Clinton demonstrated the opposite of courage and strength by casting her vote in favor of war, solely for her own politically expedient reasons.
Hillary Clinton is neither positive change, nor strength, nor relevant leadership experience. She is merely continuity with the worst excesses of the previous Clinton administration. It was that appalling administration that enabled a certain George W. Bush to claim he would represent a profound change from Clinton due to his “strength” and “experience.” Is history repeating itself?
