Updated: In the text, below the video.
Today Politico is advancing the notion that Hillary Clinton has issued a “warning” to the Tea Party. We’ll report, you decide. Is Hillary Clinton talking about the Tea Party or someone else?
Clinton’s warning for the tea party
Getting elected will bring candidates propelled by the tea party “down to earth,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview on Thursday.
“Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things, and then when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it,” Clinton said, “I’ve seen them become very sobered, very quickly, about the challenges we face domestically and internationally.”
“You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo, who said, ‘You campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.’ Sometimes the poetry can get kind of hot,” Clinton added, “and a little over the top, but the prose brings you down to earth.”
Clinton spoke in Jerusalem with Christiane Amanpour of ABC’s “This Week,” which will show the interview on Sunday.
Um… who has campaigned “in poetry” with flowery words? Certainly it has not been the Tea Party activists. If anything the charge is that the Tea Party is a bunch of screaming loons. There is someone… who provided “tingles” up the legs of Big Media “personalities” but it has not been Tea Party people.
Has Christine O’Donnell campaigned “in poetry”? Has Sharon Angle campaigned “in poetry”? Has Sarah Palin been a font of poetic language? Certainly that has not been the charge.
There is one person who gave flowery speeches that Hillary Clinton knows all too well. Who is that?
[Update: JanH found a link to the Hillary interview. Unfortunately the code is disabled but you can watch the video HERE. Notice how Hillary answers the question about foreign policy and the Tea Party by adding “domestic” policy into the mix. As to the Hillary is “out of politics” line by Amanpour, lately Hillary reminds everyone that “by law” she is out of politics.
And any doubt that Hillary Clinton was referring to Obama in the clip is dispelled with this find by Fifth Dimension:
“Yes, found it. From January 2008:
“COMMERCE, CALIF. — Lately Hillary Clinton has taken to quoting former New York Governor Mario Cuomo on the stump. “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose,” Clinton tells her crowds. It’s another subtle way to target Barack Obama. The Clinton camp feels that the path to the Democratic nomination runs through her ability to paint Obama as a “talker not a doer.”]
Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct when she says that results are what matter. Saying you will close Guantanamo Bay prison is easy to say. Closing Guantanamo Bay, when zero facts have changed from the time you made the promise to the time you assumed office, is another matter entirely.
Saying you will be a “uniter not a divider” is easy to say. Talk is cheap. Cheap hucksters say things all the time. It’s results that matter.
It’s results that matter not “Hope” or promises to “heal the planet”. Results.
As Wbboei pointed out “Logos are one of Obama’s obsessions.” Not results but logos. More propaganda rubbish.
“One of the first was the totally-made-up “Office of the President Elect”, with their cutting-edge logo around it.
Maybe we’ll see a new, equally historic, new logo soon, “The office of the outgoing (lame duck) President”, and below it could say “Historic marker No. 345, BO historically becomes the first black president to lose his bid for a second term”
The “lame duck” logo – that will be “unprecedented” to employ one of Obama’s favorite idiocies. Perhaps we can expect a logo to explain why Republicans have the “hot” candidates and Obama Dimocrats have losers. In an article about why there are no equivalents to Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck on the Left there is this bit about the Obama “brand” which is the only thing that has concerned Barack Obama ever (recall why Obama dumped Jeremiah Wright – it wasn’t “God Damn America” but rather Wright’s personal slams against Obama):
“Certainly President Obama himself has had celebrity similar to Beck and Palin, says branding expert Mark Stevens. But that celebrity has taken a beating. “For a pure branding perspective, it’s the greatest rise and fall of a brand in world history, he says. Obama had risen to a rarified stratosphere of fame and impact, he says, the kind achieved by few – a human brand on the level of a Martin Luther King or Muhammad Ali. But that turned around quickly. “When Obama had his hand on the Lincoln bible at inauguration, he never could have believed if we would have told him Glenn Beck’s brand would be more important than his two years later.”
To have goodwill associated with a “brand” the product has to be a worthy one. The Obama obsession with his brand and the sparkling new DNC/OAF logo is a joke because the product they are trying to brand is a piece of junk. As we wrote yesterday:
“At the center of the
Oval Officewebsite redecoration is the new logo for Obama Dimocrats – a big “O” surrounding a little “D”. No doubt this is some sort of Maoist paean to Barack Obama and now the once great Democratic Party of FDR is the “O”bama Dimocratic Party.
To us however it is a call for Obama Dimocrats to continue to OD on death dealing Hopium peddled by an addled flim-flam con artist from Chicago.”
The new DNC/OAF logo is but the latest flim-flam from the Obama operation. A few days ago Jon Stewart’s interview of DNC Chair Tim Kaine provoked guffaws:
With the midterm elections looming and the Democrats looking to take more losses than many predicted just a few months ago, DNC chairman Tim Kaine bravely joined Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night. Stewart has been a consistently vocal critic of the Democratic Party’s political efforts and was not reluctant in sharing his criticism to the former Governor of Virginia and current party chair. The segment opens with Stewart plainly stating “you’re in trouble dude,” and gets more entertaining from there.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
You’re in trouble dude because your obsession with logos and brands and poetry only fascinate Haiku writers like “creative class” Hopium drug mules like Chris Bowers. As to Kaine’s assertions that so much has been done by this Corrupt Congress of Doom, Julian Zeilzer has a warning:
“The list of legislation that has passed the 111th Congress is impressive: an economic stimulus bill, health care reform and financial regulation, among others. Some commentators have compared this Congress with the 73rd and 74th (the early New Deal) and the 88th and 89th (the Great Society).
It is too early to tell whether this Congress will have the same kind of impact as those earlier ones. We don’t yet know what will happen to the measures that have passed when they are implemented, whether they will have the same kind of long-term success in achieving their objectives as measures such as the Wagner Act (1935) and the Civil Rights Act (1964). Nor do we know whether the bills will last over time. It is important to remember that there are many landmark bills, such as the loophole-closing Tax Reform of 1986, that unravel after passage.”
Zeilzer has a warning about the “poetry” that has been forced on the nation:
“But we can discern three important differences between the current Congress and those of the past that can help us understand the challenges facing everyone who operates in the current fraught political environment.
The first difference is that the 111th Congress passed major controversial bills that impose many costs but don’t provide a clear set of universal benefits.
One of the defining aspects of the New Deal and Great Society periods was that Congress passed legislation that provided sizable benefits to large portions of the population. Between 1933 and 1936, millions of Americans went to work and received paychecks as a result of the public works programs that Congress put into place. Industrial workers could finally join unions and act as a collective bargaining force as a result of the Wagner Act. The law gave workers a new sense of economic security and a path into the middle class. The Old Age Assistance and Old Age Insurance programs, both part of the Social Security Act of 1935, alleviated the problem of poverty among the elderly.
Similarly, the 88th and 89th Congresses delivered. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 transformed the lives of African-Americans by ending public segregation and protecting their right to vote. Medicare provided hospitalization insurance and physician coverage to all elderly Americans who had participated in the work force. The Immigration Act of 1965 ended the national origins quota that had been a source of anger for two generations of Americans — most of them middle-class voters — whose families had entered the U.S. between the 1880s and 1920s. In both periods, Congress offered powerful incentives for beneficiaries to remain loyal to the Democratic Party. Even after the conservative revolution of the 1970s, conservatives would discover the difficulty of retrenching these popular programs or winning over Democratic beneficiaries.
The new Congress has not passed as much legislation that offers these kinds of universal benefits. The economic stimulus bill came closest, but Democrats, with the White House resisting, did not devote as much to public works programs as in the 1930s or to assistance for state and local governments. While the health care reform legislation will provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans, the bill will also leave a majority of middle-class Americans holding the same health care plans as before and will require millions of others to purchase coverage. Future cost savings are unclear because many provisions were stripped from the bill in response to the health care lobby. The financial regulation attempts to curb certain kinds of speculative behavior on Wall Street, but the bill does not deliver tangible benefits to most Americans.”
Obama’s national health scam is the same scam he ran in Chicago. Obama conspired, at the height of his popularity when he did not need to strike corrupt deals, with the very people (Billy Tauzin) he attacked during the campaign “in poetry” to produce a “reform” which is a lie.
Perhaps we will get a new logo to explain why Dimocratic candidates are spending more money on anti Obama health scam advertisements than on pro Obama health scam advertisements. Perhaps we will get a logo to explain why in the golden age of Obama poverty is soaring. More from Zeilzer:
“Congress has passed these programs, moreover, with few bipartisan votes. This leads to a second difference. The 111th Congress is much more polarized than those of the New Deal and Great Society periods.
While partisan tensions remained high throughout the 20th century and the leaders of the parties were always willing to fight over key issues, bipartisan coalitions formed on a large number of bills from 1933 to 1936 and from 1965 to 1967.
Within most congressional committees during those earlier periods, bipartisan alliances were strong (to the frustration of many liberals). Southern committee chairmen worked closely with ranking Republicans to pass bills that some members of both parties could support. Within the House Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.) worked closely with Rep. John Byrnes (R-Wis.) to design the fiscal and administrative structure of programs such as Medicare. When Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) helped him end the Southern filibuster and brought 27 GOP votes. [snip]
The third difference is the frenzied media environment in which legislators now govern.
The earlier Congresses took place at the height of the newspaper-based, objective era of professional journalism. Reporters tried to keep their viewpoints out of stories, and politicians had time to consider their response to them. When Johnson was president, there were still only three television networks, each of which devoted only a half-hour to the news.
Today, the media have gone wild.”
Obama supporters who deplore Republicans somehow can’t explain the broken “uniter not a divider” promise. Hillary Clinton warned that the special interests would not go away. She was mocked by Obama goons who heard celestial choirs. Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans would stick by their political viewpoints and guns. Hillary was denounced, by Barack Obama himself, as the problem whose “scars” were due to her own intransigence and unwillingness to work with Republicans.
Likewise, the many Obama supporters who called for Obama’s election because he was a “media darling” now bemoan the news reports of Obama’s bumbling. The JournoListers made Obama the “media darling” and now we all pay the price. The Big Media Party elected their unqualified stooge and foisted him on the American public and now the public is fighting back.
Barack Obama and his thugs want to “brand” a piece of junk. The Nobel Peace Prize used to have a great brand – the gold standard of achievement. But now the Obama “brand” has reduced the Nobel Peace Prize into a solid gold piece of junk. It was an undeserved award to a man of zero accomplishments.
The DNC/OAF can wave their new logo or Nobel Peace Prize medal like a glass marble in the hands of a hypnotist all they want. But logos and prize medals won’t change the fact that the underlying product is a piece of junk.
This November Americans will throw out the garbage.