Haaretz provided the full text of a Sarah Palin speech you never heard. You never heard it because of Democratic partisan politics. I am literally seething with anger and it’s taking the full reserve of my will not to direct that anger toward supporters of the Obama campaign.
To be clear, Obama had nothing to do with this mess. But, there’s a mindset I see amongst Democrats, a groupthink, that makes it increasingly difficult to not cast the sins of one prominent Democrat upon another. And, by logical extension, their supporters.
What has me seeing red, you ask? On Monday there was a rally to protest the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the U.N. Hillary Clinton was invited to speak and she accepted the invitation. Then Sarah Palin was invited to speak as well. Later, Clinton heard of Palin’s invitation and backed out. Palin’s invitation was then rescinded and neither woman appeared.
Clinton’s excuse?
Clinton aides were quoted as saying that they had been “blindsided” by the decision to invite Palin, which they called a partisan move.
Partisan politics indeed. There was partisanship going on, but it wasn’t at the hands of the event organizers. Clinton refused to share the stage with, I suspect, another powerful woman. Had the event only invited a Democrat to speak an argument of partisanship could be made. You can’t invite both a Democrat and a Republican and claim partisanship.
So, instead of standing up to a monster, instead of speaking in defense of the nation of Israel’s right to exist, Clinton chose to champion domestic politics over speaking out against true evil.
This, my friends, is the modern Democratic Party. Give true evil a pass if it means sharing the stage with a political rival.
I am sickened. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult not to assign blame to the men and women that vote these debase people into power.
So, you supporters of Clinton, you proud Democrats, give a reason not to pin some blame on you. Tell me how Clinton was correct in deciding to uninvite herself to an anti-Ahmadinejad rally only upon hearing Sarah Palin was invited. Tell me how in not putting up with partisanship (if that’s what she really believed was going on) the greater good was achieved in relation to the murderous policies and rhetoric of Ahmadinejad.
Tell me how. Or tell me what you’re going to do to make sure no one in your party ever does this again.
{ 22 comments }
It’s simple:
Democrats are bi-partisan or non-partisan.
Republicans are partisan unless they’re following the Democrats.
Anyone who disagrees is a liar.
/snark off.
What am I supposed to be outraged about?
These Presidential campaign seasons just get sillier and sillier.
What are you supposed to be outraged about? Oh, I dunno…
How about a former Presidential candidate, a sitting U.S. Senator, refusing to attack evil if it means sharing the spotlight with a Republican?
It comes down to if you believe a murderous tyrant is less dangerous than your political rival.
Hillary let her position be known and, if you’re a Democrat and you have any kind of conscience left, you should be outraged.
This isn’t an issue of campaign shenanigans to shake your head at. Clinton had an opportunity to stand up against real evil and only backed down when she found out the spotlight was to be shared.
If you need this broken down like this… I have to wonder if you’re not already lost.
To say that the Dems have become hyper-partisan and have gone off the rails is an understatement. They went beyond hyper-partisanship in 2000 and they’ve gone off the rails, ploughed through a schoolhouse killing all inside and blown up in the town square.
I too am sick of what the Dems and Obama are doing (and I could spend the next week listing all the outrages); but I choose to focus on the positive and ignore them and work to get McCain elected.
I’m not a Democrat (though I’m currently registered as one), but this only pegs the outrage meter at about a 2/10 for me. Politicians have many opportunities to "fight evil" that are weighed against calculations about their political survival.
Practical evil fighting of Hillary attending that rally: 3/10
Practical damage to Hillary’s political ambition within the Democratic Party by appearing to support Palin by playing into the GOP’s explicit campaign strategy immediately prior to a presidential election: 8/10
8>3 = Decision to pull out.
The only thing that actually pegs my outrage meter to high levels is when politicians make decisions or statements regarding life and death that hinge on naked political calculation. Like, say, pulling troops out of Somalia after they’ve been bloodied. Or attacking intervention to stop genocide in Kosovo because a Democrat is president. Or folks in 2006-2007 agitating to withdraw troops from a region of incalculable strategic value, no matter the state of the war at the time or human consequences.
And even then, that’s only about a 7 or 8. 9 and 10 on my outrage meter might be broken.
Not practical to expect Hillary to be on the same stage agreeing with Palin.
I’m sure there will be another zionist demonstration in the near future that will see Hillary there in full support.
Perhaps they shouldn’t have been such pussies and kept Palin’s invitation intact. Other sources of news say both invitations were rescinded because of pressure from other Jewish organizations that having only Governor Palin would make the event appear to be a partisan event. So because a bunch of people whined, instead of allowing political figures to speak at this important event, they decided to call the whole thing off (The speakers not the event).
So by your logic: Hilary Clinton backs out of a rally, the rally organizers decide to rescind invitations so they can present an aura of non-partisanship and because of this, the supporters of Clinton are somehow to blame.
Please explain your logic.
*Puts on his tinfoil hat*
*Straps himself into a comfortable chair*
I have to agree with Bill. My outrage meter barely hits 2/10 on this one.
Hillary and Sarah could have both gotten great political mileage by appearing together onstage, doing a recap of the Tina Fey bit, criticizing sexism in Iran.
But that would require imagination, courage, and the ability to think outside of the box. If Hillary had those qualities, she would never be where she is now.
I’m not a big fan of Clinton’s but this doesn’t bother me much. Frankly, speaking at a rally within one’s own national borders to a cheering crowd doesn’t really strike me as ‘standing up to a monster’, no matter who’s doing it, and failure to give a speech condemning evil at one specific event isn’t equivalent to condoning it overall. This wasn’t legislation, it was just a speaking engagement. I fail to condemn Ahmadinejad in all kinds of contexts every day; doesn’t mean I support him.
That said, I think the people who organized the rally should have held it and let Palin speak alone, after announcing that Clinton was invited but had to cancel for her own reasons.Â
I love how BillNDC and others have quantified the selfish political calculation made by Hillary when confronted with a clear and present "good vs. evil" situation and they support Hillary’s ambition over making a statement against that evil.
Am I outraged by Hillary’s petty political calculation here? No. It’s what I expect from Hillary and from most Democrats. After all the REAL enemy are the Republicans. They make that clearer and clearer every day.
And as much as Bill and jrogge and others find this to be politically expediant and as much as I have to admit that it has been a masterfully successful political strategy for the Democrats…
I still find it morally and ethically repugnant.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cosmic’s iPod Sampler?
jrogge,
Palin wasn’t uninvited until after Hillary canceled, and yes, that uninvitation was due to pressure put on by leftist Jewish organizations. You left that bit out.
Those organizations had nothing to do with Hillary excusing herself.
So, to recap the series of events:
Hillary invited – Palin invited – Hillary uninvites herself – leftist Jewish forces rescind Palin’s invitation – Ahmadinejad wins – left rejoices in keeping Palin off the stage.
And while it seems most here aren’t as pissed as I am about this ordeal, there are few opportunities for a politician to take a real stand again unqualified evil and Hillary chose not to in the name of partisan politics.
All Democrats should be disgusted and all Americans should shudder that the woman got as close as she did to the Oval Office.
I don’t think much of Governor Palin’s being disinvited, it does seem tacky. Although I imagine what happened is that leftish members of the group objected to giving what would be tantamount to a free campaign event for the McCain/Palin ticket, which probably led to their asking for Senator Obama or Biden, which probably also resulted in the other two being too busy (their campaign events are going to have been already scheduled weeks in advance) and settling for the less-busy Senator Clinton. And if she wouldn’t come, they’d probably have pushed to have no politicians currently running for office come.
However, I don’t understand the outrage at Senator Clinton, because surely anyone who understands politics (and she is, like everyone else in this race, a professional politician) would know that her appearing with Governor Palin during the height of campaign season would be viewed very negatively by many people in her party and some outside of it–either as crass opportunism ("I’m really running for President, or should be you fools who supported Obama!") or betrayal ("She’s endorsing Palin and McCain!").
I don’t see the outrage in the Senator’s not wishing to be thrown into that briar patch. She has had, and will have, many many opportunities to denounce the ridiculous powerless sock-puppet non-elected “President” Ahmadinejad anyway.
Oh, and: "What Elizabeth said."
I love how BillNDC and others have quantified the selfish political calculation made by Hillary when confronted with a clear and present "good vs. evil" situation and they support Hillary’s ambition over making a statement against that evil.
1. Hillary can make a statement against evil. She shouldn’t have to do it in conjunction with Sarah Palin prior to an election, especially when not originally aware of the terms when she agreed.
2. "Supporting her ambition" isn’t quite accurate. "Getting or not getting outraged about her decision", however, depends. If Hillary’s future ability to "Fight Evil" (FE) is directly correlated to "power" (P) and power would drastically diminish as a function of choosing to "fight evil this time" (FEn), then it’s a simple equation and she is conceivably actually making an ethical (to be clear, I’m being theoretical here; see postscript at the end of comment) as well as rational political calculation.
Skillful/successful (moderately) ethical politicians necessarily know when and how to prioritize stands that can do them harm. (see: John McCain, Iraq)
I tend to believe that getting angry about perceived black and white distinctions in many political calculations is the province of folks who construct giant paper mache puppets of political figures. (no specific offense intended to the author of the post)
Which is why the key coefficients are relevant - how big the impact of fighting evil is vs. how big the political gain or loss.
I’ll save my outrage for the things that actually matter, like the disposition of US troops, thank you. On this other point, Hillary has indeed failed to take any courageous stands … though failed less miserably than many others in her party.
PS – Not to mention the x factor that REALLY dips the outrage meter: the Clinton factor. A family of political figures with rarely seen qualities of political calculation, IMO. Ask yourself: why did Clinton agree to speak at that rally in the first place? I don’t think the main motivation was to “fight evil.”
But that would require imagination, courage, and the ability to think outside of the box. If Hillary had those qualities, she would never be where she is now.
Amen. :) *Salute*
leftist Jewish forces rescind Palin’s invitation
Nope, the people holding the Rally rescinded the invitation. Unless the rally was being held by leftist Jewish forces?
Now I can agree with you about it being tacky that Hilary didn’t show up. In fact, if I have a case of beer and a comfortable talking environment I can go all day about how glad I am she is not the presidential candidate.
However, by your logic, if a kid whines to a stranger to get him a Playboy magazine, and the stranger buy him one; it is the kids fault he has a Playboy magazine. The event oganizers were the ones that decided to rescind the invitations. They were the ones that wussed out and gave into whining children. Don’t go on a massive anger-rage bender on Hilary supporters. This is not their fault. All the organizers had to do was say that they invited people, and if those people don’t want to show up then it is their right to do whatever they want but the show must go on.
Instead they caved. You see the children can whine all they want but it’s the adult the makes the final decision isn’t it?
Bill:
The irony of your post is that the end result of Hillary’s canceling is that she appears to be petty and Sarah Palin appears to be magnanimous.
Perhaps Hillary’s calculations were a bit off on this one, eh?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cosmic’s iPod Sampler?
The irony of your post is that the end result of Hillary’s canceling is that she appears to be petty and Sarah Palin appears to be magnanimous. Perhaps Hillary’s calculations were a bit off on this one, eh?
Depends on the audience. You and me and especially most of the electorate (who pay less attention) won’t really remember her passing up this speech as a defining moment of whether Hillary Clinton is a good and noble public servant or not.
The Democratic Party establishment, however, will have a long memory about Hillary (apparently) helping McCain’s strategy of siphoning off Hillary votes via Palin if she appeared with the GOP VP candidate after a contentious Dem primary battle. Different audiences, different memories, IMO.
Also IMO, I find it amusing how Hillary is lukewarmly supporting Obama after the nasty primaries. She really doesn’t want him to win, and she’s walking a fine line in her appearances. Appearing with Palin was perceived by her as crossing over that line. And the political instinct is correct – Drudge would have grabbed the co-appearance with a big picture of them standing together and it would have set the Cable News Cycle for 24 hours.
I think Bill Clintons comments are far more obviously hurting Obama than Hillary’s are. And he’s got a gleam in his eye when he says them.
You Lefties can make whatever excuses you like. Hillary’s decision was a cold, calculated political decision that put her political future ahead of the need to confront evil.
The fact that you think that is the RIGHT thing to do does not reflect well on your own values.
IMHO.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Insanity on the march?
I’m having a hard time imagining conservatives not attacking Hillary for "crass opportunism" and "shameless self-serving politicking" for having the nerve to make what was "clearly a political appearance with Palin" to hurt Obama and help her odds in 2008.
I’m really not sure she would have won with you guys if she’d appeared, in other words. Maybe with you and Kevin, but on the whole, I find it remarkable just how much of a Rorschach test an event like this is; do you honestly think that Republicans would have applauded and called it "statesmanlike" or whatever for her to appear at that event right at this time?
Do you honestly think that Republicans would have applauded and called it "statesmanlike" or whatever for her to appear at that event right at this time?
No, no one does. But, you won’t hear that here.
Also IMO, I find it amusing how Hillary is lukewarmly supporting Obama after the nasty primaries. She really doesn’t want him to win, and she’s walking a fine line in her appearances.
This is why the Democrats really need to reconsider who they throw out of their party and who they keep. You see, when push comes to shove, after the primaries are over, the Republicans seem to grasp the concept of teamwork and jumping in line behind the winner. Self-serving politicians like Hilary Clinton don’t serve the Democratic party’s interests, they serve their own. She’d watch this country burn, but only if she held the match.
Well, you didn’t hear it here, but you did read it because I wrote it. ;-)
Oh, uh, except I don’t endorse the negativity toward Senator Clinton at all. I think well of her, and even better of her after her impressive primary fight. I really might have voted for her, and I would have been quite comfortable with her if she’d won regardless.
I want to understand why Hilary would do this…but I really feel that politics should not take 1st position is important issues. Look – initially Hillary had my vote. Then – I began to see patterns of selfishness in her behavior. What some call her toughness – I saw a relentless disrespect for her peer although at the time an opponent.    I have to say, I think it a self-serving move. It would have been a time to put aside the party…but HC would not want to be one uped by Palin if we are honest.   I doubt she would be….having the best interest of the party should never be more important than the best interest of our citizens.
Comments on this entry are closed.