• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watch Right-Wing Media Praise Hillary Clinton

I think being polite to her is a smart tactic, just as it is to avoid looking too aggressive when debating a woman. Her age and sex seem to call for somewhat dignified treatment. I don't need to use that tactic here, so I will say I expect that lying commie hag to play the woman card as she tries to become her party's nominee, and if she does, to play it some more against her Republican opponent, assuming that person is a man. Most audiences tend to disapprove of a man who takes a very aggressive tone when debating a woman. She knows that as a lawyer and will surely take advantage of it.

But Mrs. Clinton has a lot of disadvantages, starting with the fact that just like her fellow commie that is currently disgracing the White House, she is a habitual liar and crook. Like Comrade Obama, she cares only about her own power. The callousness she displayed after she had negligently contributed to the jihadist murders of four Americans in Benghazi--"At this point, what difference does it make?"--will not make many people warm to her, as they view it over and over in campaign ads. As if she had an ounce of Reagan-like charm to begin with. That cold, strident outburst just seemed to show, in a nutshell, the person many Americans already saw her as--a particularly nasty bitch, the Leona Helmsley of politics.

The biggest disadvantage of all for Lady Cankles, though, may be her age and health. She would be the second-oldest president ever inaugurated, and a lot of voters may not buy the story that she fainted from dehydration associated with having the flu. The unusual glasses she wore when she left the hospital after that incident apparently were the type someone would be prescribed after suffering a type of stroke that affects vision. I think Marco Rubio would be especially effective against Ms. Clinton, not least because he is much younger than she is, and looks it. In his announcement that he was running, he was already implying she was a worn-out figure from the past.
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow, so people saying one thing and then changing later. That's certainly new.
Click to expand...

You clearly miss the point here.

You could argue that most of the praise and admiration these Republicans pundits were giving to Hillary Clinton was to rally support against Obama as a presidential candidate, BUT if you watch the clips very closely much of that praise came well after Obama became President in 2009. Some even came after her latest book was published.

So, the bashing that's coming from the Right now isn't being done because these pundits had a sudden change of heart about her or their opinions of her evolved over time. This shift in tone and characterization of her is all about politics.
 
Grim17 said:
The title of your thread is "right wing media praise Hillary clinton" and you posted that Media Matters video as proof... Brit Hume saying she would not be a great Secretary of State, is not praise... Of course the out of context comments from Media Matters say that, but in context, they prove the dishonesty Media Matters and the fact that you have been duped again...

So let's hear your excuse for the out of context clip of Laura Ingraham I alluded to on post #14.

If you want another example of their dishonesty, I'll be glad to show you another one of the out of context clips on that video, and another after that.
Click to expand...

Ah but the following is praise which is well deserved and true.

She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state
Click to expand...

Then he offers his opinion:

but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
OMG, I forgot all about this. Hilarious :lamo
Click to expand...

Curious why you find this humorous. Are they lying about Hillary? Did you want them to be vile, ugly, repulsive, and ad hominen? I guess you can't make up your mind what you want. Do you want civility?

She just is a)not the best qualified Presidential candidate, b)not the same now as she was 8 years ago, and c)has done numerous questionable things in the past 8 years, And people can change their minds to go along with her change in beliefs and values.
 
Grim17 said:
Good idea Pete, let's do that... But instead of taking a snip-it from what he on Special Report last year like those honest brokers over at Media Matters, let's look at his ENTIRE comments:

HUME: I think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. They do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on Burma had been done by the previous administration. And the administration properly followed through on it. You look across the world, now at the major issues. Are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with the photo-op in Moscow with the reset button, has they lead to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state? Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? I think the answer to all those questions is that she has not. And those are the kinds of things that might mark her as a great secretary of state.

She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.​

I'm glad you suggested that Pete and guess what? There's more from that segment and you can watch it right here... Pay very close attention to his exchange with Juan Williams

Brit Hume: Case For Hillary Clinton "Being A Great Secretary Of State Is Exceedingly Weak" | RealClearPolitics

I know I sound like a broken record, but you have been duped once again by Media Matters Pete, just like you will be the next time and the time after that. They feed you exactly what you want to hear, so you couldn't care less whether it's true or not... That's why you go back to them after every time they lie to you.



.
Click to expand...

dilbert - 4-3-15.jpg
 
Eric7216 said:
Curious why you find this humorous. Are they lying about Hillary? Did you want them to be vile, ugly, repulsive, and ad hominen? I guess you can't make up your mind what you want. Do you want civility?

She just is a)not the best qualified Presidential candidate, b)not the same now as she was 8 years ago, and c)has done numerous questionable things in the past 8 years, And people can change their minds to go along with her change in beliefs and values.
Click to expand...
It's funny because that's not what they are saying today. You don't understand that?:shock:
 
Grim17 said:
Pete, this is a Media Matters production, so what do you think the chances are that they took many, if not all of those comments out of context?
Click to expand...

But the fact that the video montage was presented by Media Matters doesn't change the fact that the compliments and praise came from prominent Republican political commentators, strategists or journalists who also happen to be prominent figures on Fox News. In this case, you're attempting to kill the messenger but ignore the multiple sources of the message!
 
fox.jpg
 
Objective Voice said:
But the fact that the video montage was presented by Media Matters doesn't change the fact that
the compliments and praise came from prominent Republican political commentators, strategists or journalists
Click to expand...
who also happen to be prominent figures on Fox News. In this case, you're attempting to kill the messenger but ignore the multiple sources of the message!
Click to expand...

Actually they ARE still saying these days she's a smart lady ... but that she just hasn't had any significant accomplishments ... and, no, a lot of air trips is not an accomplishment.
 
Kobie said:
He is (well, at least was) attacking the source rather than the argument.
Click to expand...

True. But that's not an ad hominem (personal) attack, is it?

And frankly, to have doubts about Media Matters and their typical slanted and out of context articles is hardly an attack. More like common sense and awareness of their typical style and track record to date.
 
Grim17 said:
Good idea Pete, let's do that... But instead of taking a snip-it from what he on Special Report last year like those honest brokers over at Media Matters, let's look at his ENTIRE comments:

HUME: I think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. They do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on Burma had been done by the previous administration. And the administration properly followed through on it. You look across the world, now at the major issues. Are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with the photo-op in Moscow with the reset button, has they lead to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state? Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? I think the answer to all those questions is that she has not. And those are the kinds of things that might mark her as a great secretary of state.

She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.​

I'm glad you suggested that Pete and guess what? There's more from that segment and you can watch it right here... Pay very close attention to his exchange with Juan Williams

Brit Hume: Case For Hillary Clinton "Being A Great Secretary Of State Is Exceedingly Weak" | RealClearPolitics

I know I sound like a broken record, but you have been duped once again by Media Matters Pete, just like you will be the next time and the time after that. They feed you exactly what you want to hear, so you couldn't care less whether it's true or not... That's why you go back to them after every time they lie to you.
Click to expand...

Mr. Humes makes a very good attempt to undermine her here, but a little common sense tears the above to shreds.

First off, much of the problems we see today in the Middle-East did NOT exist during the Clinton years. For all practical purposes, the ME was pretty stable prior to 9/11, the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. I really can't speak in-depth to the Burmese issue except to say what was started under the previous Administration(s) was certainly completed in a satisfactory manner under the Obama Administration w/Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. The failure for Israel to broker a peace deal is, in large measure, their own undoing. NorKor getting a nuke was done long before Obama/Sec. Clinton ever came unto the world stage at their relative positions as President and SoS. Efforts at an Iranian nuclear energy agreement really didn't take off in earnest until after Hillary Clinton resigned her position as SoS. About the only thing that can be said here is perhaps efforts to broker a deal were vigorously pursued under her watch as SoS. But since the SoS doesn't set the foreign policy agenda for the Administration, it's pretty hard to lay blame at her feet. This includes issues surrounding NorKor and Russia in Crimea.

I get what Brett Humes is trying to get at. However, all he's done is set up a very impressive straw-man...until you really apply common sense to the issues he presents.
 
pbrauer said:
It's funny because that's not what they are saying today. You don't understand that?:shock:
Click to expand...
Really? They are now saying that she wasn't a Senator, didn't travel to 112 countries? Rather typical in politics. John McCain was a media darling until he was the candidate.
 
Objective Voice said:
But the fact that the video montage was presented by Media Matters doesn't change the fact that the compliments and praise came from prominent Republican political commentators, strategists or journalists who also happen to be prominent figures on Fox News. In this case, you're attempting to kill the messenger but ignore the multiple sources of the message!
Click to expand...

Those were comments taken out of context and presented as the title of the thread indicates "Watch Right-Wing Media Praise Hillary Clinton". Those people were not praising Hillary Clinton.
 
CanadaJohn said:
OMG, the right wing thought Clinton would be less of a disaster than Obama. OMG, why is the left too dumb to see this?
Click to expand...

The biggest mistake that I made was voting against Hillary (and for Obama) in the 2008 primary. I realized that Obama was incompetent and unreliable by the national election but regret the primary support. She would have been bad but better than Obama.
 
pbrauer said:
It's funny because that's not what they are saying today. You don't understand that?:shock:
Click to expand...

Hey Pete... Want another example, or have you eaten enough crow for today?

Oh what the hell, let's look at ALL of Laura Ingraham's comments:

Today is Hillary Clinton's first day really as a private citizen. And "Newsweek" marks the occasion by declaring the former Secretary of State the most powerful woman in American history. The article kind of reads more like a piece of campaign literature than a serious examination of her record and her accomplishments.

Certainly, look, Mrs. Clinton is highly intelligent, she is a global celebrity and she reached a level that few men, let alone women ever reach in our country. Yet titles don't tell the entire story. The Benghazi attack, a failed reset with Russia; a more powerful and emboldened China. An Iran closer to a nuclear weapon, Islamic terrorists fanning out across North America? Simply put, under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the U.S. has been unwilling to lead. And this has left a huge vacuum on the world stage.

In a recent assessment of Secretary Clinton's tenure, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution wrote "Even an admirer such as myself must acknowledge that few big problems were solved on her watch. Few big victories achieved." Mrs. Clinton's work at the State Department should be judged on whether she's left America's foreign policy in stronger or weaker position.​


Again, you can watch the ENTIRE segment here:

Laura Ingraham: Lionizing Hillary Clinton | Fox News
 
bubbabgone said:
Actually they ARE still saying these days she's a smart lady ... but that she just hasn't had any significant accomplishments ... and, no, a lot of air trips is not an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

The role of Secretary of State:

The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.
Click to expand...

The Mission of the Department of State (in part):

The Department's mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.
Click to expand...

If all people will do is look at Sec. Clinton's "accomplishments" through the prism of peaceful negotiations out of chaotic situations on foreign soil, then I suppose they should be disappointed in Sec. Clinton's sparse record insofar as brokering peace. But just as Mr. Humes gives credit for "the previous Administration laying the ground work" for the successes SoS Clinton accomplished, the same could be said for her successor, SoS Kerry being successful her her heels as well.

Foreign policy is no easy thing to deal with. There are lots of twists and turns. The marching orders come from the POTUS. The plan, which can take time to formulate, is executed by the SoS and said execution could take years in the making. Unfortunately, too many people think about foreign policy accomplishments in terms of presidential cycles, i.e., if this or that didn't get accomplished in 4-8 years, it's a wash.

Reagan got his nuclear arms reduction deal done only because both sides wanted a deal. They both sought peace. Iran was only influenced to come to the table because they were made to see a "win-win" situation where they'd come out in a better light in both the long and the short term. Russia is finally coming to terms with Crimea but only after some very tough economic sanctions were put in place, sanctions that ultimately pressured them to back down. NorKor...they really haven't done anything except continue to be blow-hearts.

The "what have you done for me lately/what forieng policy accomplishments can you claim as feathers in your cap" is a good strategy, but I don't think it will truly play out as excepted in the long run because what will matter to most people isn't what their foreign policy strategy is (although that's part of the President's job). It's what can you do on the domestic front that most voters will see as being of more significant importance. Fact is, foreign policy always comes at the end of the presidential nominee process. Republicans will certainly try to put it up front, but they'll lose if all they focus on is...say...Benghazi.
 
Grim17 said:
Those were comments taken out of context and presented as the title of the thread indicates "Watch Right-Wing Media Praise Hillary Clinton". Those people were not praising Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but I'm willing to accept that they were as I've often listened to talk radio host who quote snippets of what the President says during any given speech only to know that's not what he meant. As the saying goes, context matters. Nonetheless, from what I heard from those clips it would seem each person who spoke where being sincere in their praise for her.
 
Objective Voice said:
I don't think so, but I'm willing to accept that they were as I've often listened to talk radio host who quote snippets of what the President says during any given speech only to know that's not what he meant. As the saying goes, context matters. Nonetheless, from what I heard from those clips it would seem each person who spoke where being sincere in their praise for her.
Click to expand...

What most of them were doing is being classy... They injected a few kind words in the midst of their criticism of Clinton.
 
Grim17 said:
What most of them were doing is being classy... They injected a few kind words in the midst of their criticism of Clinton.
Click to expand...

And that "classiness" may come back to hurt them once they start criticizing her. They'll look like two-faced jerks who flipped on her for political purposes.
 
Objective Voice said:
And that "classiness" may come back to hurt them once they start criticizing her. They'll look like two-faced jerks who flipped on her for political purposes.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I'd rather the people who represent my point of view keep it classy even if it is used against them by dishonest political brokers like Media Matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom