Hillary Clinton at the DNC - her words and meanings

Finally the question is over. Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken at the Democratic National Convention. And she has made her position clear.

As completely expected, Senator Clinton started her speech with her stated support of Senator Obama. Not a surprise, but it’s just so telling that she has said something that her husband – Bill Clinton – refuses to do. Not that she expressed any personal belief in Senator Obama, or mention his positives. That would have been a surprise, selfless and so anti-Clinton as to make you think you were in an alternate universe.

Now as I expected Senator Hillary Clinton did not refute any of her Primary attacks on Senator Obama. She did not refute Bill Clinton’s racist remarks. She didn’t even mention Barack Obama’s name until the 4th minute, and did not give a reason to support him til the middle of the speech (11:48). This speech was about her and how good she can make herself look.

So I went over her speech, line by line. And I looked for the honesty within the polispeak. And I pulled out the facts from the spin. And I exposed the raw ambition that will do anything to win, including selling out a fellow party member for a shot down the road.



Senator Clinton started with the same old campaign polispeak ‘misquotes’ she loves. She mentioned her “35 years in the trenches” – though she only got into elected office 8 years ago, and Bill did all the work in the past (except for a couple of months failed work on a nationalized healthcare plan). I would call that a lie, but I’m not a politician.

She mentions her “fight for women’s rights”, like her efforts while she was at Wal-Mart (never a single word while she was a Board member and had the power to change things in the company).

She mentioned how hard she and Bill have worked. Now while they are multi-millionaires, politics is hard. Not as hard as construction or retail but hard. Though I have to wonder how hard she has worked since I don’t recall the last Congressional Bill she passed into law, and I have yet to see the 200,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York to get elected as Senator (in fact there has been a net decrease in jobs of 30,000 during her time in elected office). Hard work indeed.

But she continued as we hit 6 minutes about the horrors of a guy in a Marine t-shirt. The assumption was that he was a Marine (but she failed to make that clear, or why he was in need of medical help) and wanted his buddies to be taken care of. Meaning leaving Iraq, I suppose, a war she voted for and urged others to vote for based on her extensive research of the facts (look it up, she’s on video saying it).

She then went for the heartstrings in discussing a mother that had her hours cut at a minimum wage job. Now was that after or before the Democrat-led Congress raised minimum wages forcing businesses to cut hours because they can’t afford the increase?

And Clinton correctly stated that in the last couple of years things have gotten tough. Though I have to wonder if things are better or worse than when I watched the internet bubble burst and take out businesses and retirement funds, and family savings because Bill Clinton was too busy looking good, and trying to define “is” – while Hillary was ducking invisible bullets, to stop the impending carnage. How tough was that.

How tough did it get after the Clinton’s allowed Bin Laden to live and escape the crosshairs of our military, thus giving him the chance to plan and execute the 9/11 attack? Somehow I think that was a tougher time for America.

She hinted on Iraq, the war she voted for, and Iran, a country that would like to see America wiped of the face of the Earth and where Senator Obama would talk without condition. She stated that China has bought into our banks. And it is true, and troubling. But the alternative of letting our banks fail sounds worse to me. Not that a single Democrat has a better option to present – unless it’s a secret and therefore they prefer America to be in a dangerous position financially rather than tell us.

She claims that Democrats will help Americans save for college and buy homes? Now is this like her quickly dropped campaign promise to give every child $5,000 for college – paid for by some unknown source (taxes). Does this savings happen before taxes are increased, not on the rich but everyone who makes over $31,850 as she voted for this year (along with Senator Obama and Senator Biden as well as I recall)? Or is it after taxes are raised to pay for her nationalized healthcare, causing businesses to close from the cost?

She discussed the various things she wants to promote next. Promoting clean energy – which she never advocated while Bill was in office, and only mentioned after polls showed it popular.

She wants to promote unions, who are in the pockets of Democrats. Though she skipped her time at the union-less Wal-Mart (where like women’s rights she said nothing during her time on the Board).

And her desire to promote equal rights and stop discrimination seem hollow from a woman that can’t even stop her husband from making racial remarks, at least, in front of cameras.

She desires a “nation of immigrants”, because only she can answer yes, no, and maybe when the issue of immigration is asked of her on national televised debate – all in 2 minutes too (Michael Phelps beware her polispeak speed).

And she desires to end “private plunder”, which I think means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her efforts to promote energy alternative that increase her personal stock investments - which she does not disclose to the public - is in trouble.

Senator Clinton wants to talk about America’s efforts to end genocide. And I believe her because she has said so much about Darfur during, or since, the Primaries. Or is it only genocides in White nations?

But this Democratic National Convention is not about Senator Clinton. It’s about Senator Barack Obama, and in the middle of her speech she finally speaks about him for a moment. She makes a great question when she asks what her supporter are for. But she forgets to ask if they were voting for her because she is White, or a woman. Both were reasons she campaigned for in the Primary and I would like to know if they were reasons they are so fanatical now?

And she mentions that ‘global warming’ (an unproven yet Democratically sound concept) is a problem that America must fix alone in the world. Never mind the growing industrialization of China and India. Nor the potential fact that some Democrats are using this subject to make money while denying any other alternative including domestic drilling.

But Hillary Clinton is correct that America should not “favor few”. Like Hollywood stars and executives, or eco-fanatics that would have you use on sheet of toilet paper, or alternative energy companies, or big money fund raisers that are criminals evading the law for 15 years (Norman Hsu).

And I want to pause here because Democrats say that Senator Obama is a good choice for America. She never said he would be great. She never mentioned a single quality for Obama.

But she did ask Americans to “imagine what America will be”. Now I do remember when she was in Bill Clinton’s White House (because he was elected and the political power not her) I recall that no major promised initiative ever was passed (correct me if I am wrong). But I do recall that Bill was busy with dictionaries, and teaching America to lip-read, and her serving tea to end the conflict in Ireland, and avoiding Whitewater.

But If I were to imagine the America she envisions (and liberal Democrats as well) I suppose it would involve being overtaxed, unemployed, under terrorist attacks, without power, on lines to get medical care, isolationist, with Spanish as the main national language and without the funds to allow Americans to retire. There is Hillary’s America as she has explained it to date, and that most liberal Democrats prefer (oh, and Senator Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress, Joe Biden is 3rd).

But Hillary emphasizes that national healthcare, especially under her plan, is great for America. Though no Democrat can explain how it will be paid for. Or how it will be efficeint. Or run on budget.

But remember that under a Democrat-led Presidency, especially as Clinton envisions it, America may well be too busy running from Iraq, and Al Quida to worry about that. Watching anti-American groups gain power as we try to create new sources of power without oil, and sending even more money to the Middle East.

But not to worry because Senator Biden is a great guy, and by default she implies Obama is not. And don’t consider that a Democratic win means an Executive Office that will be split since Biden and Obama don’t agree on Iraq and other national issues. Heck, Biden – like both Clinton’s – does not even think Senator Obama is qualified or experienced enough to be President. You can imagine how smoothly that Administration would run.

But at this point Senator Clinton looked to the past. I don’t mean Senator John McCain’s age, or his 35 years of service to America. I don’t even mean the 30+ years of Congress (and thus solid stance in old politics) of Senator Biden. I mean the Carter Administration, where many of the current Democratic policies seem to have originated.

The Carter Administration stood out for its stagflation, something the Democrats definitely did before. Along with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, and having Americans taken hostage by Iran (hey, don’t they still have a beef with us? Aren’t they building weapons to kill us? Didn’t Carter talk with them – and not release a single hostage?) Don’t believe me, ask someone 40 or over.

President Carter didn’t like domestic drilling of oil either. Today oil costs 1000% more than when his Democratic Administration was in charge. President Carter and Democrats didn’t like nuclear energy, a new plant hasn’t been made in decades. And all the jobs that are involved in creating those industries, and the power they provide went up in the smoke from tankers importing oil to us from overseas.

But back in the world of today Senator Clinton misquoted the policies and ideals of Senator McCain. Her “friend and colleague”, a man she said would be a good President with experience – something she has not said about Obama – was now described as being a bad choice.

I’m confused. Is he better than Obama or not? Or is it that she just wants to look helpful without being helpful?

But the last part of the speech I want to address are the points on her mother and Harriet Tubman.

I understand that her mother could not vote and her daughter can. And I’m glad they can. But I’m reminded that my Great-grandfather’s generation could not vote. And my grandfather’s generation was blocked from voting by Jim Crow laws. My parent’s generation was beat up for voting, and sitting in the wrong spot, or asking for a good education. My generation now has a chance to see the first Black President, and Senator Clinton is trying hard to do nothing to allow it. In fact her husband has been active in trying to prevent it. So excuse me if I’m not impressed that Hillary is miffed.

Because of that reason I was upset she dared to mention Harriet Tubman. Was that supposed to make me feel better? To unify the Party with the name of a Black woman that made inroads for the rights of African Americans and inspired women of the time (if not now as well).

Taking Senator Hillary Clinton’s words a bit out of context,

If you heard dogs behind you Obama, it’s Hillary trying to chase you off track. If you see torches, it’s Bill Clinton lighting the path for your competition. Don’t stop, don’t slow down.

I may not agree with Senator Obama and his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t make sure Hillary is revealed for the snake in the grass viper that her speech proved her to be. She did what I expected in her speech. Strike 2 for the DNC. Next up is Bill Clinton, what do you think he will do?