From The Washington Post’s summary of Clinton’s new book:
Clinton describes U.S. reaction to the unfolding protests that became the Arab Spring, starting with the first stirrings of protest in Tunisia. She defends traditional U.S. alliances with autocratic regimes as part of balancing various U.S. interests against one another, defining a pragmatic approach that would have the United States push regimes toward democratic reform while also forming alliances with those willing to advance U.S. security interests. She describes herself as being consistently more cautious about siding with protesters who promise an uncertain future over longtime, if autocratic, U.S. allies — particularly in Egypt. She suggests her position aligned her with Biden and Gates in opposition to others in the White House, who she suggests were swept away by idealism and wanted to move more quickly to help usher Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power.
A vote for Hillary is a “pragmatic” vote for reliable dictators over people yearning to be free.
17 Comments.
Let’s cut right to the chase. I couldn’t care less about the Washington Post’s opinion of a book that either was ghostwritten for Hillary by policy wonks, edited, vetted, edited again, etc., or which she actually wrote but, again, not as an expression of something she felt, but as something her campaign manager told her she needed to crank out for 2016.
What, exactly, has Hillary Clinton done? For all the years she’s been either in direct power or in the circles of power, what, exactly, has she done? I see she voted to limit credit card interest to 30%. That’s good and all, but how much of a hard sell was that in the first place? That’s like being against fires in crowded theaters.
Does anyone know her record and public statements well enough to provide some background?
Better still: don’t vote. It only encourages them.
That’s like being against fires in crowded theaters.
While we are still waiting on the results of the focus group, we assure campaign donors that we are being consistently cautious and pragmatic when taking a stand against fires in crowded theaters. We are committed to ensure there being just the right amount of smoke to balance raising money, media impact, triangulation, and electability, otherwise referred to as interests of state. Any questions, preferably about hair style?
“Anything other than a vote for Hillary is a vote for people who want to set up dictatorships in this country over those who will improve people’s lives here (no matter how small the improvement)”
Fixed that for ya Ted. I’m amazed that you still don’t get how the system works, frankly.
I amazed you still think the system works …
The system works fine when used properly by people who grasp how it works.
The left hasn’t been able to claim the last two points in over 40 years.
“Progressives” currently are like THAT kid. All of us old enough to remember arcades should know THAT kid- the one who clearly didn’t understand the rules of the game he was trying to play, and stomped off claiming the machine was broken, every time he lost.
Guess what kids? The machine isn’t broken- you just suck at playing it.
> Guess what kids? The machine isn’t broken…
Of course not. The machine does exactly what it’s supposed to do: take money from the naive & give it to its owners.
Kids pump quarters in & hope to hit the jackpot; grown ups realize that the game is rigged.
Whimsical,
You know, I think that’s one of the most accurate and precise analogies I’ve read in a long, long time. Bravo!
Sorry, its the kids who whine about the game being rigged because they can’t be bothered to figure out the rules and how to play by them in order to win.
Mature folks have the patience to figure out the rules and play by them in order to get what they want. They don’t stomp off in as huff trying to project their own lack of patience and/or IQ onto the game.
“Sorry, its the kids who whine about the game being rigged because they can’t be bothered to figure out the rules and how to play by them in order to win.”
I assume you speak from the experience of getting what you want from the game.
Many people know exactly how to play the game and get exactly what they want.
That’s fine for the lobbyists who have the time and money to win, but not so good for the people who vote and vote again and again, faithful to their beliefs that, with persistence, in another hundred years or so the apotheosis of the state will finally be achieved, not only in their imagination but in objective realty.
I remain an atheist in relation to the god generated by the apotheosis of the state.
Please list three recent examples of “winning.”
Hey, do you remember THAT kid?
You know, the one that never scored any points but insisted that his team lost because everyone else played it wrong?
but are egyptians really better off now than they were under mubarak? sometimes pragmatism has its place.
but were the Iranians really better off under the Shah than they were with their own democratically elected government (which the CIA overthrew in the name of pragmatism?) Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeni, and Muammar al-Gaddafi were likewise due to that same pragmatism …
… and 9/11 was the long term outcome.
um, what does any of that have to do with egypt? i said “sometimes”.
Egypt’s in the Muddle East and has been dealt with in the same ‘pragmatic’ manner as the rest of the area.
We’re always looking out for short term profit & propping up Israel. That always leads to long term problems.
*A vote for Hillary is a “pragmatic” vote for reliable dictators over people yearning to be free.*
.
A vote for any of the sock-puppets who win the nomination of their Party yields the same results. I tend to agree with *Glenn* about not voting – but that’s like a surrender to those politicians who don’t give a damn in the first place. They’ll still be in power.
.
What can the People do to insure that a REAL representative of the People gets elected?
.
Ted, do you want to throw your hat into the ring?