Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Hillary Clinton Goes Bush League [View all]
By William Rivers Pitt
Just a shade over 24 hours after 129 people were slaughtered in Paris by terrorists, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took the debate stage in Iowa and utterly disgraced herself in a way that would have been shocking were it not so utterly mundane a phenomenon in modern US politics. One of her opponents, Bernie Sanders, tagged her with the millions of dollars in campaign contributions she has received from the very Wall Street financial firms that burned down the US economy some years ago. Sanders essentially said those firms expect a return on their investment, and he was exactly right.
Secretary Clinton bristled. "Wait a minute," she replied, "he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let's be frank here." Rather than be frank, however, Clinton went completely sideways and claimed that she takes barrels of corrupt Wall Street cash because 9/11 happened, or something. I've been watching political debates of all kinds since God wore short pants, and this ranked right up there with the most vile, disingenuous, sneaky, low-road slippery debate statements I have ever heard.
To wit:
So, let me get this straight. Because Clinton has a lot of women who donate to her campaign, and because two airliners obliterated the World Trade Center in an attack that had people jumping to their deaths out of 100-story windows on live television, her acceptance of millions in dirty money has something to do with being good for the economy, and because it is a "rebuke" to the terrorists.
Gotcha.
On a peaceful sunny day, invoking 9/11 as a means of misdirecting a legitimate critique of the company she keeps, and of the expectations those friends have for the checks they write, would be grossly inappropriate. When she dropped that line, Parisians were still hosing blood off the sidewalks, sweeping up the broken glass and trying to identify the dead. The people in the US she seeks to represent - most specifically New Yorkers, who were shaken by the Paris attack and whom she invoked so passionately - were used by her to score some debate points. Her invocation of 9/11 was not some verbal oops; it was a deliberate waving of the bloody shirt at a time when the nation and the world were still reeling from the events of the day before.
A number of commentators have compared Secretary Clinton's 9/11 debate comment to the 2008 campaign tactics of Rudy Giuliani, who 9/11 couldn't go 9/11 to the men's room 9/11 without 9/11 invoking 9/11 9/11 like a verbal hiccup 9/11. That tactic worked about as well as the wax wings Icarus used when he flew too close to the sun. It was grotesque then, and is grotesque now, but doing so on the doorstep of a massacre puts Clinton into a whole other category.
In baseball, when a player pulls some punk move - headhunting with a fastball, cleat-spiking during a slide, failing to run out a pop fly - the game has a universal retort: "That's bush league." Bush league is precisely where candidate Clinton has parked herself ... and that's "Bush" with a capital "B."
This is What It All Means:
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and the rest of that noxious cabal used the false intelligence provided by Chalabi to intimidate and terrify the nation into war, fulfilling a conquest dream they had been cuddling since Nixon was chased from office. They, by way of a useful fool named George W. Bush and with the full compliance of the media, deliberately employed the September 11 attacks against the US people as a means of getting their war, and the financial/political payday it came to be. It was a crime, as-yet unpunished, and Hillary Clinton voted for it.
That she would pivot a question about her questionable campaign financing into a self-serving harangue about 9/11, one day after the Paris catastrophe, is an act of verbal violence beyond moral repair. Know this: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest created ISIS, which I shall henceforth refer to as Daesh, by way of that war. They got their war by using 9/11 against their own people at a time when those people were feeling most vulnerable. People are feeling vulnerable again after Paris, and Hillary Clinton used 9/11 one scant day after the bloodletting to get Bernie Sanders off her back, and to lay a brick to the topic, because she does not like talking about her friends in low places.
People who will say anything to win office are truly frightening, and truly dangerous. Welcome to the Bush league, candidate Clinton. You just graduated.
Secretary Clinton bristled. "Wait a minute," she replied, "he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let's be frank here." Rather than be frank, however, Clinton went completely sideways and claimed that she takes barrels of corrupt Wall Street cash because 9/11 happened, or something. I've been watching political debates of all kinds since God wore short pants, and this ranked right up there with the most vile, disingenuous, sneaky, low-road slippery debate statements I have ever heard.
To wit:
You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. So I - I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.
So, let me get this straight. Because Clinton has a lot of women who donate to her campaign, and because two airliners obliterated the World Trade Center in an attack that had people jumping to their deaths out of 100-story windows on live television, her acceptance of millions in dirty money has something to do with being good for the economy, and because it is a "rebuke" to the terrorists.
Gotcha.
On a peaceful sunny day, invoking 9/11 as a means of misdirecting a legitimate critique of the company she keeps, and of the expectations those friends have for the checks they write, would be grossly inappropriate. When she dropped that line, Parisians were still hosing blood off the sidewalks, sweeping up the broken glass and trying to identify the dead. The people in the US she seeks to represent - most specifically New Yorkers, who were shaken by the Paris attack and whom she invoked so passionately - were used by her to score some debate points. Her invocation of 9/11 was not some verbal oops; it was a deliberate waving of the bloody shirt at a time when the nation and the world were still reeling from the events of the day before.
A number of commentators have compared Secretary Clinton's 9/11 debate comment to the 2008 campaign tactics of Rudy Giuliani, who 9/11 couldn't go 9/11 to the men's room 9/11 without 9/11 invoking 9/11 9/11 like a verbal hiccup 9/11. That tactic worked about as well as the wax wings Icarus used when he flew too close to the sun. It was grotesque then, and is grotesque now, but doing so on the doorstep of a massacre puts Clinton into a whole other category.
In baseball, when a player pulls some punk move - headhunting with a fastball, cleat-spiking during a slide, failing to run out a pop fly - the game has a universal retort: "That's bush league." Bush league is precisely where candidate Clinton has parked herself ... and that's "Bush" with a capital "B."
This is What It All Means:
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and the rest of that noxious cabal used the false intelligence provided by Chalabi to intimidate and terrify the nation into war, fulfilling a conquest dream they had been cuddling since Nixon was chased from office. They, by way of a useful fool named George W. Bush and with the full compliance of the media, deliberately employed the September 11 attacks against the US people as a means of getting their war, and the financial/political payday it came to be. It was a crime, as-yet unpunished, and Hillary Clinton voted for it.
That she would pivot a question about her questionable campaign financing into a self-serving harangue about 9/11, one day after the Paris catastrophe, is an act of verbal violence beyond moral repair. Know this: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest created ISIS, which I shall henceforth refer to as Daesh, by way of that war. They got their war by using 9/11 against their own people at a time when those people were feeling most vulnerable. People are feeling vulnerable again after Paris, and Hillary Clinton used 9/11 one scant day after the bloodletting to get Bernie Sanders off her back, and to lay a brick to the topic, because she does not like talking about her friends in low places.
People who will say anything to win office are truly frightening, and truly dangerous. Welcome to the Bush league, candidate Clinton. You just graduated.
Truth Out
Oops. I goofed on the excerpt thing. Fixed
402 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I had to start also. Some are deliberately trying to bait progressives into getting PPR'd.
rhett o rick
Nov 2015
#258
That is amazing. Unlike long time actual contributers who got banned for one
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#125
Wait, is there a rule about not posting nasty PMs publicly? I think they should all be
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#157
Well I told that person when i received a PM that I don't do back channeling and would post
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#382
You do understand why don't you Mary? There is likely a connection between the trollish PM
Dragonfli
Nov 2015
#166
They forget that a lot of old posters like me are still around and remember what DU once was
Dragonfli
Nov 2015
#265
Not the pre-block warning! Is that to give you time to repent, or face the horror of being blocked?
arcane1
Nov 2015
#22
All kidding aside though, posters should always post unsolicited DU mails like that.
Autumn
Nov 2015
#121
I never go there. Maybe they're busy elsewhere. Out campaigning no doubt. n/t
marym625
Nov 2015
#349
These posts are just Sanders propaganda: Sanders people having nothing to do but bash
lewebley3
Nov 2015
#225
I am less appalled by Hillary's comments than the behavior of the Bernouts here.
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#110
"It's an interesting phenomenon at DU how divisive the contributors can be during the primary season
marym625
Nov 2015
#189
As if calling Sanders supporters "Bernouts" is contributing to the conversation somehow
arcane1
Nov 2015
#228
what substance has been brought to this thread other than from Bernie supporters?
marym625
Nov 2015
#232
"he cannot help it if some of his supporters are scum" That's more than one person.
jhart3333
Nov 2015
#130
Dunno. I commented on your calling Pitt scum while complaining about another poster's language,
merrily
Nov 2015
#186
Seriously, no one is forcing you to stay here if there is so much distain for people
Feeling the Bern
Nov 2015
#321
Again, the option is still there if DU members are that odious to you.
Feeling the Bern
Nov 2015
#323
Thanks for reminding a second time that I can leave. It gets sweeter upon repetition.
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#324
I have no friends here because I'm not looking for them online, thanks
Feeling the Bern
Nov 2015
#325
You're attempting to explain the shit on your shoes and the dung tracks everywhere you go?
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#365
That's nice. Be a good reptile and go play in the bayou. Daddy has work to do.
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#367
Facts are facts, no matter how colorfully they are presented. It was Giuliani level
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#179
Do you have anything better to offer in rebuttal than an ad hominem attack?
Jack Rabbit
Nov 2015
#21
Ad hominem? There was no ad hominem attack, just amusement. But, something better?
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#35
The nerve of some people, using her actual words and forming an opinion of them!
arcane1
Nov 2015
#6
I imagine bin Laden was in tears over Hillary getting bags of cash from Wall Street.
Spitfire of ATJ
Nov 2015
#69
"vile, disingenuous, sneaky, low-road slippery" -- couldn't have said it better myself.
senz
Nov 2015
#47
Interesting. If HRC is the Dem nominee, you will vote for her in the general?
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#392
Well, invoking 9/11 as a defense for taking huge corporate donations would be in a league of
sabrina 1
Nov 2015
#255
He didn't come back, nothing stopping others from posting his excellent writing though.
Autumn
Nov 2015
#126
+1!!! None of Hillary's fans have tried to justify or even acknowledge her avoidance to answering
Dustlawyer
Nov 2015
#172
Marshall began the DLC offshot, Progressive Policy Institute ("home of the pragmatic liberal"--LOL)
merrily
Nov 2015
#259
if a republican running for President had done this, all of du would be up in arms.
marym625
Nov 2015
#311
Another Will Pitt thought provoking piece and once again Will nailed it. Wish he'd come back to DU.
marble falls
Nov 2015
#329
Pitt hates HRC. That he's got a tiny spot in the world to say it is pathetic.
misterhighwasted
Nov 2015
#354