FREE PASS FOR HILLARY??
February 12th, 2007
Over the weekend a voter at a New Hampshire “town meeting” for Presidential aspirant Hillary Rodham Clinton asked THE question. THE question of course is a call for an explanation of Hillary’s vote in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq—the start of the Iraq War.
What’s interesting is not that THE question was asked, but who asked it. The question came from a citizen, a voter in New Hampshire’s first in the nation Presidential Primary. It didn’t come from the media.
We track the media and find it interesting that THE question hasn’t been asked much by the media, either national or local reporters covering the race for small town papers in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early decision states.
Undoubtedly part of the reason is that Senator Clinton’s handlers are keeping her away from rough and tumble give and take interviews and in ‘controlled environments” like the town hall meeting she hosted over the weekend.
But does anyone really doubt that there’s another reason? Isn’t the national media giving the junior Senator from New York a free pass on the compelling issue of the early campaign??
It’s not just the vote that needs some ‘splainin.’ Take a look at the remarks Hillary made on the floor of the Senate during debate on the Resolution (October, 2002) and the remarks she made earlier this month. Amazing. Even her husband would have a hard time parsing those words.
Does Hillary get a free pass?
3 Responses to “FREE PASS FOR HILLARY??”
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
February 13th, 2007 at 01:42 PM Of course Hillary gets a free pass. Liberal Democrats are always held to a much more lenient standard than conservatives by the mainstream media, and it seems that they are only too happy to oblige her handlers' attempts to portray her now as soft, human and approachable. They're also willing to let the Iraq war vote slide because everyone knows she didn't really mean it . . . it was just the popular thing to do at the time. You know, 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's minds and actually doing something about changing the culture that breeds terrorism still seemed to make sense. So, let's agree with the pollsters for a moment and accept the prevailing wisdom that Hillary's White House quest is unstoppable (even by Barack!). Is there anything that those poor backwards Republicans can do to alter Ms. Hillary's predestined greatness? There is, and at the risk of apostasy, his name is Rudy. Under ordinary circumstances, Rudy Giuliani would be a non-starter as a presidential candidate for a social and economic conservative such as myself. But these are not ordinary times. We are at war and a frightening number of Americans -- including a galling number of Republicans -- have gone wobbly and seem to have lost their sense of direction concerning national-security issues. Securing our way of life at home and defeating Islamo-fascism wherever it threatens our interests are the overarching issues of the day. Rudy REALLY seems to get this. McCain seems to get it, but he's such a hard guy to trust on matters that aren't embraced by his pals in the MSM. Who else among the candidates is really credentialed? Duncan Hunter, sure, but he's the darkest of horses and lacks a compelling story. Ya gotta love Newt on virtually every level save one -- he'd cancel out Hillary's negatives. Rudy, on the other hand, is not only credentialed, but he is the only candidate who has "earned the right" to air the 9/11 video footage of which America so desperately needs to be reminded. Perfect he's not, but can anyone believe that the next President Clinton will do a better job of defending our security at home and abroad? If lawyer Rudy can commit to appointing strict constructionist judges -- law and order judges, if you will -- then I'm on board. This is an election where we need someone who is right on the big issues more than we need someone who is right on all the issues. -- John Shirvinsky Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
February 13th, 2007 at 07:35 PM The media may give Hillary a pass on the Iraq issue, but the left-wing blogosphere sure isn't. They are all whooping it up for either Obama or Edwards & are pretty cool toward Hillary because they think that, despite her liberal image, she might be too "soft on America" for them. The more she moves to the left to nail down the nomination, the more she hurts her chances in November.
February 15th, 2007 at 04:33 PM Speaking of Hillary… Much was made in 2004 of the fact that George W. Bush spent Vietnam in the Texas Air National Guard. CBS and Dan Rather, as the world now knows, tried to convince Americans through the use of phony documents that Bush’s then Congressman father had gotten Bush special preference to keep him out of Vietnam. Bush, and many others who have supported a tough American military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq were dubbed “chicken hawks” - i.e.: too chicken to serve when they could have done so themselves, but hawks when it comes to sending someone else off to war. While this argument is breathtakingly ignorant of history (Did the fact that FDR did not serve in WWI make him unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief in WW II? And did Lincoln’s brief stint (weeks!) walking around in the woods looking unsuccessfully for Black Hawk Indians mean he was unqualified to serve as president in the Civil War?) lets take it at face value and move on to the star of the 2008 campaign – Hillary Rodham Clinton. A noted and proud feminist, young Ms. Hillary Rodham was in the pink of youth and health in the 1960’s when many a woman was joining the service. Does this mean that her refusal to join the military in the 1960’s should, following the 2004 logic of Kerry supporters and Dan Rather, disqualify her to be Commander-in-Chief? She has, after all, emerged as a hawk on Afghanistan and was certainly gung-ho on taking out Saddam in 2002. Where is the media on Hillary’s lack of enthusiasm for upping after Wellesley? Or are chicken hawks suddenly now in fashion?