minivan2020

Is this really Hillary Clinton talking?

9 posts in this topic

On NewsMax: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/24/125521.shtml?s=lh

"Excerpt:

"Early on in the CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate, a California resident posed these questions on his video: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”

Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On NewsMax: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/24/125521.shtml?s=lh

"Excerpt:

"Early on in the CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate, a California resident posed these questions on his video: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”

Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

What gives?

She's doing a "John Edward" thing here. Cold reading the audience, giving everyone something to hold on to, but actually speaking contradictory nonsense. If I may;

""I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms"

Great so she's an individualist

"who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together"

Uh oh, collectivist

"when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family"

So you're still paying for everyone else's welfare bill

So, how does this square with believing in individuial rights and freedoms? Of course it doesn't.

It's the kind of meaningless doublespeak we had from Blair for ten years so I'm hyper-sensitive to it. It contains no pledges, no non-contradictory belief systemn at all. Classic "Clinton-ism"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really find anything surprising in there either. She uses the word "progressive" because most people don't know what it means yet. Once it becomes as unpopular a word as "liberal" they'll have to pick yet another word, but it's all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, she is trying to co-opt the increasingly acknowledged observation that "liberal" has come to mean the opposite of liberty, and confuse the issue so that this reversal remains safely in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't really find anything surprising in there either. She uses the word "progressive" because most people don't know what it means yet. Once it becomes as unpopular a word as "liberal" they'll have to pick yet another word, but it's all the same.

They don't use the terms 'socialism' or 'left' much anymore for the same reason. It doesn't mean they don't still want it, now mostly in the form of fascism.

'Progressives' are not in favor of individual rights any more than the new left of Hilary's origins (and which she never gave up). They are also trying to hijack the term 'individual rights' (which she avoided defining). Hilary thinks government medical 'care', viro controls, taxing the 'rich', etc. are all on behalf of 'individual rights'. Notice that neither the new left nor progressives 'standing against big power' ever meant opposing power of the government unless it was used (rightly or wrongly) on behalf of business. As Ayn Rand observed, both the left and the right of contemporary politics generally want to use the government to control what they think is most important. The rest is word games designed to sell the agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't really find anything surprising in there either. She uses the word "progressive" because most people don't know what it means yet. Once it becomes as unpopular a word as "liberal" they'll have to pick yet another word, but it's all the same.

They don't use the terms 'socialism' or 'left' much anymore for the same reason. It doesn't mean they don't still want it, now mostly in the form of fascism.

Is this really true? I'm not asking this because I'm questioning your statement, but because I'm interested. I had heard that Leftists deliberately abandon some terms because of the negative connotation they themselves have earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't really find anything surprising in there either. She uses the word "progressive" because most people don't know what it means yet. Once it becomes as unpopular a word as "liberal" they'll have to pick yet another word, but it's all the same.

They don't use the terms 'socialism' or 'left' much anymore for the same reason. It doesn't mean they don't still want it, now mostly in the form of fascism.

Is this really true? I'm not asking this because I'm questioning your statement, but because I'm interested. I had heard that Leftists deliberately abandon some terms because of the negative connotation they themselves have earned.

It is sure what I have observed. They have the same observed goals and mentality but use different words as you simultaneously observe the unpopularity of the older ones. Also notice how 'global warming' is becoming replaced by the broader 'climate change'.

Careful selection of words to use in politics, especially campaigns, is now a 'science'. They do polling and 'focus group' studies to figure out what terms and slogans will have the effect on people they want. It is very cynical and manipulative. Whether or not they did something so formal with 'socialism' and 'left' isn't something they are likely to admit, but the effect is the same. It also does not mean it's all a giant word conspiracy. Sophisticated operators think about these things but trends evolve throughout the various factions. You have to watch them and analyze what they are saying constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
(Emphasis mine.)

That's what she said three years ago:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
(Emphasis mine.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Don't you love her definitions here?

"We're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you"

As if she owns your money and is generous if she allows you to keep some. Like she can 'give' you your own money.

On another tack, why aren't the Republicans rubbishing her for weakness and toleration of Billy's various antics?

You watch any chat type show, and when the husband admits or is detected in any kind of infidelity, censure is absolute, and women who refuse to censure are potrayed as weak, brainless, hapless victims. I would have thought they could turn that around nicely? i.e. if she was weak with Bill, she could be weak on significant issues. Of course the whole marriage may well have evolved into a political union of convenience, but they did the bunny-hug thing, so it might be nice to seem her hoisted on her own petard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites