Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Flatbed Hillary": Her working class hypocrisy. ( Short article with some very valid points.)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 10:16 PM
Original message
"Flatbed Hillary": Her working class hypocrisy. ( Short article with some very valid points.)
While I would obviously have many disagreements with this author (and even with a few of his points in this article, it is one where there are some real truths regarding Hillary's supposed love of the working class.)

Flatbed Hillary
By Quin Hillyer
Published 5/1/2008 12:08:24 AM

One of the more bizarre developments of this campaign season has been to see Hillary Clinton, of all people, turned into an electoral favorite of blue-collar white voters. The reality is that very few people in politics have more contempt for white workers than does this product of Park Ridge, Wellesley, the Senate Watergate Committee, and the super powered Rose Law Firm.

This is the woman who, according to three, independent, respected, credible witnesses, at least one of them a strong Clinton supporter, responded to Southern whites workers voting Republican in 1994 by telling her husband: "Screw 'em. You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

This is the woman who last year insulted the whole state of Mississippi in an interview with Iowa's famous columnist David Yepsen, noting the lack of elected women in both states: "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" she asked. "That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

This is the woman whose mentor and philosophical guiding light, Saul Alinsky, wrote that the white working classes were always "eeking some meaning in life, they turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith. Now they even develop rationalizations for a life of futility and frustration."

This is the woman who tried to foist a massively bureaucratic health care plan onto the American people in 1993 and 1994, but when told that her plan would be devastating to the small mom-and-pop shops that provide most jobs in America, dismissed those concerns with these words: "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."

(This was the same government-knows-best health plan of which Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that "anyone who thinks can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it.")


IN TERMS OF POLICIES, her actions and positions have been directly opposed to the interests of blue-collar workers who pay taxes. Take welfare reform, for instance. Perhaps the single most successful programmatic reform in the past 30 years, it saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, gave people incentives to find jobs, and quite arguably played a big role in a decade of improving statistics in areas ranging from drops in crime to drops in the teen birth rate and the divorce rate. (The old welfare system encouraged divorce by making it in many cases more lucrative to be a single mom.)

Yet her husband Bill not only vetoed welfare reform twice, but did so in accord with Hillary's fierce advice against reform. (He signed it at the third opportunity only to take the issue off the table in his 1996 re-election campaign.)

This is also the woman who has spent an entire career supporting legal positions (and judges) that are contrary to the deeply held views of most white workers. Strong support for racial preferences? Check. Support for partial birth abortion? Check. Judges who rule against basic Christmas displays in the public square? Check. Letting the government take working class homes in order to use the land for big corporate developments? Yes again.

Her Whitewater-related shenanigans left taxpayers on the hook for tens of millions of dollars, while old folks expecting retirement housing were left high and dry. Her treatment of White House career employees was notoriously nasty. Her profiteering in the cattle-futures market, and her money-grubbing in cases too numerous to mention, gave evidence of a sense of public entitlement completely at odds with the values and the daily concerns of laborers. And her opposition even to the middle-class-heavy Bush tax cuts of 2001, if it had carried the day, would have cost most workers well over $10,000 in the seven years since.

Yet now Hillary Clinton is depending on white, working-class voters to power her attempted primary-season comeback. They ought to remember that she and her husband Bill once fancied themselves such racial conciliators that Bill welcomed the sobriquet of being "the first black president." Yet in this campaign season we have seen just how quickly the Clintons have fanned racial animus in an attempt to cause a white backlash against Barack Obama.

Lesson: The Clintons are for the Clintons, and only for the Clintons. They will abandon any voter group the moment such abandonment can gain them an advantage. The Hillary Clinton who is suddenly the champion of white laborers today can just as easily be saying "screw 'em" again tomorrow.

Their votes for her are votes against their own interests and values.


Quin Hillyer is an associate editor for the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator. He can be reached at qhillyer@gmail.com.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wish I could rec that, but its not readable with it crossed out
Edited on Thu May-01-08 10:19 PM by DJ13
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sorry. Must have been an encryption feature from the source site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. No you left in some items that does that
review it again and take those out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
That Guy 888 Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. I may not like where Senator Clinton has gone with her campaign, but...
I really hate seeing Democrats reaching into the American Spectator cage to pick up flying monkey right crap to fling at any Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I understand what your saying How do you feel about
Hillary & Richard Mellon Scaife,Operation Chaos and the MSM barage on Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
That Guy 888 Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Like I said "I may not like where Senator Clinton... etc."
I support Senator Obama, and hope that he is our next President. Some of the things that really turned me off of Senator Clinton's Presidential run was her getting cozy with Scaife, having rupert host a fund-raiser, and other irrational actions pandering to the right ("latte drinking liberals")

I'm damn glad that Senator Obama IS NOT licking Scaife's boots, or sucking up to conservatives like limbaugh.

As far as the MSM... it's been the "Dean-scream" round two. The owners don't want anyone from the "reality-based community" at all. If Senator Obama is as good as we hope he is, and doesn't sell us out like the Clintons did when things got tough, it would not be good for the corporations which own the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Speaking of getting cozy with Scaife...
do you know who funds The American Spectator, the right wing mag from which this article was taken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. Can't we leave the right wing propaganda to the Clinton campaign?
I'd rather be able to confront the sid vicious apologists with a clean conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruby slippers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. put it on large print....makes a difference for everything.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here's the link for that article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruby slippers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Flatbed Hillary...love it. I can just see her in the big rig
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barack the house Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
10. Explains a lot especially one reaction I got from someone. They are so dangerous.
Edited on Fri May-02-08 12:11 AM by barack the house
Rven the Bush family didn'[tgo this far. I was all foreign policy really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
12. You're reposting crap from the American Spectator?
What's the matter? Was the American Nazi Party site down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC