Posted on 11/27/2007 6:58:41 PM PST by Aristotelian
In the last CNN Democratic debate held in Nevada, Barack Obama and John Edwards began the evening by attacking Hillary Clinton but soon retreated. Within several minutes, Hillary waved her magic wand, transformed the meaning of a few words—and her pitiful opponents cowered in her presence.
Bill Clinton has taught his wife the tricks of the trade. Indeed, he is an expert at semantics—as he revealed under oath when he infamously declared “it depends what is is.” His wife now follows the same pattern: When a politician is in trouble, pull a Foucault; that is, start playing word games. And that is exactly what Hillary did in the last debate. In an attempt to forestall the avalanche of effective attacks on her leadership and record, she created her own terminology.
Prior to the Nevada debate, Hillary’s campaign issued a statement denouncing Edwards and Obama for “going negative.” During the debate in Nevada she declared with a sanctimonious and self-righteous air that it is important that Democrats express “what we stand for.” She stated: “We need to put forth a positive agenda for America.” She also admonished Edwards for “throwing mud” and for launching “personal attacks” when he criticized her. The audience applauded. For the rest of the evening, when either Obama or Edwards attacked her policies, the audience booed them into submission. . . .
Evidently Queen Hillary does not care much for reason and logic: all criticisms are illegitimate for she was meant to rule. In her view, this whole process is only one painful ritual she must endure; it is one long coronation march to the altar of political power.
(Excerpt) Read more at insight-report.com ...
George Orwell in 1984 introduced us to "oldspeak," "newspeak," and "doublethink." His assertion was that changing the meaning of established words was the first step in the process of political domination. We saw plenty of that in the 1990s, with the Clinton White House, aided by a pliant press corp, redefining words to suit its purposes (i.e., pull the wool over).
You can’t blame her for trying, but you can blame the other candidates for letting her get away with it. There was a big opening for any one of them to point out that by “mud” she meant noticing that she took two positions on an issue in two sentences, and couldn’t answer a Yes/No question on a topic that is on everyone’s minds. They could also have pointed out that no one threw mud, i.e., talked about the MANY parts of Hillary’s past that are embarassing but which do not relate to policy positions.
Since Hillary says alot of her experience comes from eight years as a first laday, a good question to ask her while she trolls for votes in Miami is did she support her husband’s decision to send Elian back to Cuba.
Evidently Queen Hillary does not care much for reason and logic: all criticisms are illegitimate for she was meant to rule. In her view, this whole process is only one painful ritual she must endure; it is one long coronation march to the altar of political power.Guess again, beeotch.
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.