Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Is In It to Win It

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted January 22, 2007.


The august Senator from New York kicks off her campaign by stealing lyrics from cheesy teen idol singer, Corbin Bleu, and uttering market-tested DLC nonsense.
Advertisement

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures." -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, last week

I'm pleased to be able to share this National Conversation, because that is what this election ought to be: not a shouting match, but a conversation with the American people about our ideas, our values, and our plan for a stronger America." -- Presidential candidate John Kerry, remarks to Democratic Leadership Council, May 7, 2004

I first heard John Kerry float his "national conversation" schtick in Dover, New Hampshire, sometime in November of 2003. I remember it clearly because while I usually used Kerry speeches as opportunities to catch up on lost sleep, this one had me awake from the start because it was so bizarre. After months of looking like a stiff disinterested creep, Kerry suddenly came bounding out onstage, goofily caressing the mic like Phil Donahue, imploring the audience that "I really want to have a conversation with you." He said it in a crazed tone that suggested the sentence was unfinished, that maybe the second part originally read, "...and then eat your liver."

He followed the "conversation" line up by asking the audience to "look into my eyes and into my guts" to see if he was just the same old typical Democrat, or if he was something different and perhaps better. Newspapers subsequently changed the "guts" line to "gut" in quotes.

That was John Kerry in a nutshell. He decided to take the big step of inviting his audience to examine him as a person and search out the glistening originality of his character not two seconds after trotting out a "let's have a conversation" line that was not only a hideously-worn old saw of Democratic campaign speechery, but was also a bald concoction of the party's corporate PR slaves at the Democratic Leadership Council, which had been hosting a "National Conversation" annual conference since 1997. The DLC's "national conversation" was actually a series of strategic meetings and plenary sessions between the group's member elected officials and its more prominent (i.e. monied corporate) members; the council's idea of a "national conversation" was probably Bruce Reed and Evan Bayh hitting the links with a pair of Union Carbide executives.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton announced her run for president last week. Now, she was hitting the "National Conversation" line four sentences into her first speech as a national presidential candidate. You have to wonder what it says about a political candidate when she runs out of her own ideas less than fifty words into her national sojourn.

Actually, it took less time than that; the very first lines of her speech ("I'm in. And I'm in to win.") were a cheap ripoff of Disney teenie idol Corbin Bleu's "Push it to the limit" lyrics. Think about that; in preparation for what was clearly the biggest and most important speech of her life to date, Hillary Clinton sat down, plucked the inspirational top from a crappy teenie boy-band song, and then plunged right into a student-body-right regurgitation of DLC focus-group campaign gobbledygook, rhetoric that was still bruised and squashed quite flat from the pounding it took on the Kerry campaign trail two years ago. This was her way of introducing the future President Clinton's "new ideas" to the world.

It's somewhat unfair to bash a politician for literary unoriginality these days, mainly because the vast majority of them are guilty of using the same robotic, machine-generated, market-tested campaign rhetoric. But Hillary's opening speech was really remarkable for its computerized coldness even compared to such notorious campaign robots as John Kerry and Wes Clark. It was a surprisingly impersonal, almost defiantly by-the-book recitation of the DLC formula for national Democratic campaigns - bash the incumbent, talk tough militarily, and then try to beat the Republicans in the middle on the issues of health care, the environment, and a balanced budget. Take a look at the opening of Hillary's speech:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, election08

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess by Justin Raimondo
Posted by: rwa on Jan 22, 2007 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.

The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Right now, the main political obstacle to the peace movement isn't George W. Bush and the Republicans: they are plummeting in the polls, in part due to voter dissatisfaction with the way the Iraq war is going, and will be lucky if they can retain control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The main danger isn't the GOP, it's the DLC – the Democratic Leadership Council, one of the main engines of the War Party's influence over the Democratic elite. It is the DLC that has so far prevented the anti-interventionist wing of the Democratic Party from asserting itself at the national level.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary for President? by Cindy Sheehan
Posted by: rwa on Jan 22, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thirteen people killed in a helicopter crash yesterday in Iraq. Four other soldiers and one marine were also killed.

30 people dead in the last two days in a war that Senator Hillary Clinton has supported since she first voted "yea" to give Bloody George carte-blanche to invade Iraq and her continuing support via her "yea" votes on giving the war-addict in the White House the key to the treasury.

Soon after Camp Casey in August, 05, I was meeting with some Hollywood people who pretended that they supported me, but really were big money donors and supporters of Hillary. I was told that the Senator was really against the war, but she was waiting for the politically correct time to come out against it. I was told that she was the best hope for the Democrats in 2008, and I should give her a break.

I don't know who Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood and Mr. Hollywood Got Rocks thought that they were talking to. My son was used as a "soldier of Christ" in BushCo's crusade against the world and a political pawn in such pro-war Democrat's moves to the White House. I was disgusted and noted this in many blogs that I wrote at the time.

I supported the candidate for Senate in New York that ran a very courageous, anti-war race against Clinton: Jonathan Tasini. CODEPINK New York did amazing work dogging the Senator and her supporters everywhere that she went and outing the fact that she is a Republican in Democratic clothing. Unfortunately, the people of New York spoke and Clinton, the pro-war candidate beat out Jonathan. The conservative area that she and President Clinton moved their carpet bags to after their presidency was over, had a major impact on the last elections.

I, my sister, Dede, and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Sen. Clinton in DC in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson, of the Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw." She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George's line and using our son's
sacrifice to justify her war-mongering.

On Thursday, January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq set at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as the non-binding resolution and a politically safe move. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton would have taken a moral, instead of political stance?

This occupation of Iraq can't be won by being smarter -- it was lost before we went in. The US, again, were big losers in a capricious military expedition with the support of Senator Clinton. She is an amazingly brilliant person and she cannot say that she was fooled, or lied to by George. We, the American public can be brilliant to, and we can't buy that baloney.

In 2005, I was dying to support Hillary for president: finally a bright woman with experience. However, she is a champion fence sitter and politically heartless.

I, again, affirm my commitment to peace. I don't care if it is a man or a woman; Democrat or Republican; white or black; Christian, Jew or otherwise. I will only support a candidate who is courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace.Hillary Clinton is not that person. She never will be. History speaks louder than words.

dissidentvoice.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boilerplate
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 23, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Taibibi and Rolling Stone have discovered...flash... candidates make boilerplate speeches.

Now let's see whether Mark Taibibi can get past boilerplate commentary.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boilerplate Posted by: Eat Politicians
The Wall Hillary cannot get around
Posted by: wawa on Jan 23, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On November 15, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha’aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it “is against terrorists” and “not against the Palestinian people.”
Senator Clinton did NOT visit the Little Town of Bethlehem, which is Occupied Territory, to see what The Wall has done to the Bethlehem economy.

But I have....

...The Israeli government and Senator Clinton both claim The Wall is all for Security. The International Court of Justice in The Hague has deemed The Wall illegal and that it must come down.

The concrete boa constrictor and electrified fence is a master plan to divide, separate, humiliate, dominate, control and deny inalienable human rights to the indigenous people of the Holy Land....

..."Do Americans understand what happens to children when they are buried alive? We need a solution fast so that our children can live like American children! We want human rights! When Hillary Clinton visited Jerusalem and said the wall was not against the Palestinian people, she killed us too! Christians who do not care kill us too!"-Resident of Bethlehem who has been walled in on 3 sides by The Wall

-EXCERTED from "Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let the conversation begin...on exposing Hillary
Posted by: Paul Buckle on Jan 23, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt has done a great job of picking Hillary up on this. There’s something very sad about the sight of an intelligent woman stooping to that kind of witless self-marketing. Her announcement speech was pathetically over-engineered and absolutely leaked insincerity. She gave the impression of a desperate salesperson knocking at the door with a dodgy vacuum cleaner under her arm. We don’t expect much of politicians these days but we are entitled, at the very least, to expect a modicum of dignity from one of her supposed stature. Watching this from a European perspective, I am baffled as to how any intelligent person could take anything useful from such a cliché-ridden mass of gobbledygook. Hillary’s approach will cripple her amongst those who have contempt for such flimflam. Unfortunately, that may not be enough to stop her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

indeed....
Posted by: peridot on Jan 23, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A conversation with America. Such bullshit. America had the conversation, it was called an election, but she didn't inhale....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who does Hillary answer to?
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US.

Fox Network revealed over the weekend that Saban has donated approximately USD 13 million to various candidates.

According to the report, Saban, a close friend of the Clintons, is one of the major donors to the Democratic Party, though he has also
contributed to republican candidates, including President George Bush and Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger...

http://www.ynetnews.com/arti cles/0,7340,L-3355786,00.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby By Joshua Frank
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn't the least bit happy about the compromise.
In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel."

As Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's fraudulent posture on Iran, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the continued shelling of the Gaza Strip over the past year.

Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct ­ even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/81/1/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks for that.
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 24, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A little truthtellin' is a nice thing:

It's obvious that Hillary sees the pursuit of the White House by means of the tireless upchucking of hollow, computer-generated horseshit as the ultimate man's game in Washington, and she wants to show she can play it with the big boys. So she's slinging twice as much crap, twice as much bullshit. What she fails to see is that, while she's playing the game right, the game is the problem, it's a crock of shit. It would have been nice if she'd had the courage to be different, which she incidentally already is, by default. Instead, she's choosing consciously to be just another lousy corporate politician -- one who'll deserve all the abuse she'll get for playing that same old tired game.

That pretty much sums it up. "She's in"=we're all fracking dead. Where's Ralph Nader when we need him? Oh, he's morphed into Hillary. Spoiler. Bigger balls. Spits futha than Geroge. Loves War more than Bush. Pay no attention to that carpet bag behind the curtain. Love to Hate her. We vote Hil, we'll get Bill. Neolib=Neocon. yada. yada. Puff goes the dragon. Bang.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little context, Matt
Posted by: Euprattin on Jan 28, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt,

Hilary's speech was delivered at a high-school. I appreciate the teeny-bopper attempt(however lame) to enfranchise the notoriously apathetic youth. Also, the speech was actually much longer than the posted excerpt. I found her to be unusually charismatic.

However, I too am tired of the generalized, sensational rhetoric. The Governator has it down...."We don't need Republican or Democrat health care. We need health care!" --- What does that mean?

Regardless, your an awesome writer and you usually have me rolling on the floor laughing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's rightist agenda
Posted by: zunes on Jan 29, 2007 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a reason Hillary Clinton is so vague in her language. She wants to hide the fact that she is a liar and a war-monger.

She voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, a blatant act of aggression in violation of international law, and tried to justify it by falsely claiming that Iraq still had "weapons of mass destruction" they had actually rid themselves of years earlier. She has since voted to authorize more than a half billion dollars to support the occupation -- which has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- money which could have gone to support health care, education, housing, public transportation, the environment, anti-poverty programs and other human needs.

Responding to public opinion polls which show growing opposition to the war, she has recently begun to criticize the way in which the Bush administration has prosecuted it, but she still defends her vote authorizing the invasion and supports unconditional funding for Bush's war to make sure the U.S. occupation of that oil-rich country continues indefinitely.

Clinton staunchly defended Israel's destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure this summer, which killed over 1000 civilians, and she denounced Amnesty International and other human rights groups for the temerity of documenting Israeli war crimes. She was among a minority of Democrats who voted against a bill to restrict the transfer of U.S.-made cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian targets. She has also denounced the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 ruling upholding the obligation of signatories to uphold the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the treatment of civilians in wartime. She is also a big supporter of the neo-liberal corporate-led model of globalization and has defended the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, etc.

In other words, on foreign policy issues, Clinton is essentially no different than Bush. This idea that she is some kind of liberal/progressive is a myth.

She is also unelectable. If she gets the nomination, she will likely lose the general election because most conservatives and moderates believe this myth that she is some kind of leftist and will vote Republican while many progressives like myself will vote Green because we cannot in good conscience vote for someone who has such contempt for human rights and international law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]