If you want to understand the, sad but deep, strain of American distrust and loathing of intellectuals read the Gail Collins column in today’s New York Times. Erudite but essentially stupid these Big Media intellectuals be.
In her stupidly titled column, Never Trust Anybody Over 49, Collins proves that as someone who long ago saw the age of 49 – by her own standards she is worthy of zero trust.
Collins calls Hillary risk adverse because of the recent debate answer on Social Security.
When she was asked if she favored lifting the cap on Social Security taxes (currently only the first $97,500 in income is taxed), all she would say was that she wanted to “put fiscal responsibility first.”
Collins also did not like that Hillary stood her ground when pressed by Russert:
When the moderator, Tim Russert, asked whether she was completely ruling out the idea of lifting the cap, this is what Clinton had to say:
“Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.”
This is an excellent example of how to string together the maximum number of weasel words in one sentence. It was also pretty typical of Hillary’s entire evening. It’s one thing to refuse to answer a hypothetical question about whether there is any circumstance under which you might ever use nuclear weapons against Iran. It’s another to refuse to commit on who you’d root for if the Yankees played the Cubs in the World Series. No young person is going to fall in love with politics because of a candidate who says: “I would probably have to alternate sides.”
Collins, one of our Big Media elite intellectuals, has so bought the Ripublican bias on Social Security that she does not see the wisdom in Hillary’s response. Collins and other Big Media buffoons also laughed at Bill Clinton when he fought the deranged 105th Newt Gingrinch Ripublican Congress.
Those 105th Congress Ripublicans, and their schemes to destroy the hard won Clinton economic victories, which put the nation on the right fiscal track in the 1990s, were successfuly fought by Bill Clinton when he employed the slogan “Save Social Security First”. Collins, trapped in her self-imposed dotage, appears to have forgotten that Social Security battle.
We wrote in Hillary Clinton And American Voters Lied To By Tim Russert a mild refutation of Russert’s views on Social Security, which Gail Collins needs to read:
The more substantive battle between Hillary and supposed non-candidate Russert was on the question of Social Security. Russert repeatedly demanded that Hillary and the other Democrats accept his formulations on Social Security which lead to “accepted” Social Security “solutions” by the wealthy elite of elites of Big Media.
Hillary, wise woman that she is, firmly focused on her wiser policy of ‘first things first’. First, you adopt fiscal responsibility – then you see the results of fiscal responsibility. Only after that post-fiscal responsibility accessment do you begin to devise solutions to the situation. Russert was a glum plum.
Collins was befuddled with the Iran question (it was about Israel attacking Iran). It is also charming that Gail Collins is so hip she knows how young people process thoughts on baseball and Hillary.
Collins is also distressed by Hillary’s answer on second graders reading books about two princes in love.
In that last debate, the candidates were asked if they thought it was appropriate for a teacher to read young children a story about a handsome prince who marries a — handsome prince. Clinton started off by taking an all-purpose stand against divisiveness and ended with a plug for hate crimes legislation. In between, she said this: “With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that, obviously, it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation.”
Now people, don’t you think the most gifted person of her generation could do better than this?
That’s a pretty good answer we think. Collins of course does not provide her brilliant answer on this question so we don’t have the benefit of a comparison answer. Collins could grace us, days after the debate, with a better response to the question Hillary answered at the spur of the moment.
Collins also does not say if she is satisfied that any other candidate on that stage gave a better answer. We recall what the other candidates replied. The other candidates’ answers were only “an all-purpose stand against divisiveness”. Hillary added to that Collins ridiculed answer with the need for hate crimes legislation as well as understanding that there is a parental role on this issue. We would love to hear Gail Collin’s answer on this question that is better, but we doubt the great New York Times intellectual can come up with one no matter how much time she is allowed to respond.
Gail Collins today warned us not to trust anyone over 49. Gail Collins is correct in at least one instance – herself.
I just found that NC poll on Hillary’s Web site. I can’t believe Edwards is losing his own state that badly, lol. Then again, maybe I can …
yeah…the n.c poll is something…..ha ha!
on another topic, i am an exception here….i find hillary’s laugh “OK” as long as it not overused. i think she used it too much in the msnbc debate…and laughing at gravel for chiding her over the iran vote is a serious issue…not something to laugh at.
Of course, i finally understood what the iran vote was for…not a war againt iran but still…not something to laugh at…and she needs to explain this very smartly.
I don’t think she needs to explain anything. I like her laugh.
on another topic today, i am annoyed with bill….yes we all have our off days even with whom we normally agree with.
For hillary’s sake, bill stay off comapring the relatives strengths or weaknesses of other dem. candidates….you were doing fine with “why i think hillry is great; and all the others are great candidates” mantra…
She does not need tol read every word you speak nd remember and havign to defend it…..I know she can but she does not have to ….that is all I am saying…
bill…talk about the house is chappaqua, your new book, your dog, your foundation etc etc …..and why you support hillary…just hillary……
OK bill?
PS: i am volunteering at the club 44 event in oakland (SF) tomorrow….
I like it too.
mp, What Bill comments are you referring to?
Collins is a dried up Obama prune hoping for inclusion in his Genxyz generational demographic. Ain’t gonna happen miz collins.. Doubt you ever fit in to the Boomer Generation of doers and sheer out of Luck now that you have relagated yourself to the Misfit Hall of Flame.
Happy Landings..
Mrs.S.
Disagree again, MP. Obama has made the claim for months that Obama has the same experience as he did when he ran. Bill has every right to set the record straight. Hell, I’m hoping my new Governor runs in 8 years(assuming a Dem wins the next election, and a second term, if not than sooner), and I don’t even know any of my state legislators names.
New York Times has a video article on Obama’s different definitions on experience as the campaign progresses. “Sniffles” still wants to blame Democrats and Ripubicans for the problems the country faces.
The NYTimes also has an article on Obama’s “lightly attended” speech today in Concord, NH.
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=14d2915326d8e42185b2ec8914fe5b9586cb0164
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=ae8c4a5beae005d46f34af96ee5a543daa705d2a
NYTimes video on Obama rally attendees. They sound like Dawn Summers, not too enthusiastic.
Obama pushed the Social Security talking points of Ripublicans in the crowd of NYU students he thinks are too stupid to know better.
On an aised, I do not think Edwards supporters will go Obama if Edwards falls in Iowa. Look at NH. Edwards has never been viable there and that has been to Hillary’s advantage, NOT Obama’s.
aside not aised.
admin:
watched the two Obama videos. The students went to the rally as a an activity. Something to do instead of sitting in their dorms. They still have no clue.
The morphing comparisons in the Feb video are nothing more than that. Obama’s record hasn’t changed, neither has his experience. The only visible difference is his comfort level speaking in front of an audience which is no more than a result of on the job training.
Obama is trying to sell Community Leadership as a good enough credential for the presidency. He lies about his credentials as a Law Professor. When he was nothing more than a Guest Lecturer..
Checking on one of his biographies, he’s never ever tried a Constitutional Law Case in court. As far as I’ve read, all he’s ever done as an attorney was research and writing briefs for other attorneys.
He needs to be called outright on his credentials. We know he’s the Great Pretender. Do we really “HOPE” for another Pretender presidency?
Mr. S.
Admin., Hillary’s answer to Russert on the Social Security question, namely that we must restore fiscal responsiblity before we can decide what the funding options are recommended is the proper answer.
If we fail to address fiscal responsibility up front, and simply throw more money into the pool by raising the cap then we may create a $10 broom to clean up a $1 mess (metaphorically speaking), or raise the eligibility age when we do not have to. Also, we give Congress a greater incentive than ever to continue borrowing from the fund. Finally, this provides the parties with the right set of incentives to address the question in a sensible bi-partisan way.
I am no expert in this area, but the logic seems fairly straightforward. Collins implies that the response is evasive, i.e. weasel words. When I look at the overall thrust of her editiorial I am reminded of something the head Teamsters in Alaska told me during the days of the pipeline: “what good is power if you do not abuse it?” in this case through a very one sided editorial.
LOL, the nutrooters are going ga ga over that iowa newsweek poll. if hillary was in the lead they would have bad mouthed it.
Do we have a link on that newsweek poll on Iowa?
Also, above, “Hillary’s approach” provides proper incentives to address the problem in a bipartisan way,
(Note> hard to scroll down to edit before sending. Sorry)
OK- Here we go!
OBAMA FIGHTS BACK AT BILL CLINTON JAB!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/29/387282.aspx
removed the ht to the address..
If he calls that *fighting*…. His advisers must have directed him to DRAW BC into a headline argument with him. Seeing they’re tired of waiting for Hillary to falter. They’re knocking on a window of opportunity!
Beware…
Mrs. S.
My two cents:
Obama has hired many, many political strategists from GWB’s inner circle. As recently as last week, Obama hired a well known Bush lobbyist who represented Poppy Bush’s Caryle Group to work for him (no one knows in what capacity). I wouldn’t be surprised if Rove is hiding in the shadows advising Axelrod as well. They want BO bad. Obama is damaged goods. He’s sold his soul to the mob long ago.
I have a list if needed of the inner circle dudes working for BO.
Mrs. S.
Wow, that’s hardly a confrontation, lol. Obama’s comments are pretty tame.
Mrs. Smith- I guess that’s what Obama means by bi-partisanship: bringing in Republican operatives into the campaign to attack the Democratic frontrunner. That being the case it is not implausible that Rove is also involved. But of course Obama knows nothing about it, and neither does Sergeant Schultz: ” I know nothing!”.
wbboei, there is a link to the Iowa poll at the right hand column Polls section.
Thanks Admin. My oversight.
I hear you, wbboei..
Mrs. S.