Friday, February 22, 2008

Words matter, but actions speak louder !

"Words are important and words matter but actions speak louder than words," Hillary said. Did Hillary steal that idea without giving credit to the Gibbs? Look at the video on the sidebar and you decide!

Hillary's speech normally states that she is the candidate with 35 years experience and she will be “ready day one.” Sounds good, but is it only words? Is Hillary Clinton truly “ready day one” to assume the role of President?

Let’s look at her most recent actions and judgments to decide just how presidential she is. Hillary severely mishandled her own campaign for the office. The assumptions of Mrs. Clinton and her staff was that she would have this nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday and that she was the presumptive nominee. Hillary and her staff had no real game plan after February 5th. Barack Obama on the other hand was prepared.

Mrs. Clinton is spot on when she says "Words are important and words matter but actions speak louder than words." Self confidence is a needed quality in a leader, but underestimating your competition is a sign of over confidence and arrogance. Today, we watch as Hillary is clamoring to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, in a race that was hers to lose. We see a lack of foresight to properly plan a political campaign, and frankly that is one telling sign of a candidate’s fitness for the job itself.

Let's take a look at her 35 years experience as a reason to place her in the oval office. Hillary starts the 35-year clock with her experience at the Yale Child Study Center, the place she revisited—and had her second "tearing up" moment at—shortly before Super Tuesday. Then in 1974 she served as a junior staff lawyer on the House judiciary committee's Nixon impeachment panel .

So why isn’t her important work on Watergate at front and center of this campaign? And why is it such a big deal that Ted Kennedy is backing Barack Obama ? Well lets listen to life long Democrat Jerry Zeifman and draw your own conclusions:

her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.”

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy's lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick-as well as Kennedy's chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.” (link)

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with-or take depositions of-any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department's special Watergate prosecutor.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary's recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into "a troubling set of events." That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted-at committee expense-by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

I am not going to go through a list of Hillary sins and accusations. But, from the beginning of her career to now she has had troubling patterns of personal and professional judgement which call into question her ability to be President of the United States. As Mrs. Clinton says, "Words are important and words matter but actions speak louder than words


juandos said...

"Hillary's speech normally states that she is the candidate with 35 years experience and she will be “ready day one'...

Words matter?!?!

Hmmm, depends on the words and who's speaking them, doesn't it?

Note these words from Dick Morris: When she [Hillary] says she can “hit the ground running,” she pretends that she is addressing her vast public policy experience. But it is irrelevant that she was in the White House for eight years. So was the pastry chef

35 years of experience, eh?

Well if the hildahag was married for 35 years to a philandering surgeon instead of a philandering politician would any hildahag supporter let her operate on them if an operation was needed?

During a recent publicity outing, Hillary sneaked off to visit a fortune teller of some local repute. In a dark and hazy room, peering into a crystal ball, the mystic delivered grave news.

"There's no easy way to say this, so I'll just be blunt: Prepare yourself to be a widow. Your husband will die a violent and horrible death this year."

Visibly shaken, Hillary stared at the woman's lined face, then at the single flickering candle, then down at her hands. She took a few deep breaths to compose herself. She simply had to know. She met the fortune teller's gaze, steadied her voice, and asked her question.

"Will I be acquitted?"

John said...

Thanks for the laugh senor!
I hadnt seen the piece by Morris, but then again, it would take a fleet of movers for all the baggage seh brings with her.

I heard she made it on the top ten porkers list this year, with our buddy Murtha topping the list.
Check this out too: