Incompetent Unannouced Presidential Candidate of the Month: Hillary Clinton

Monica Lewinsky fellow-cyber-bullying victim Hillary Clinton, who is widely-expected to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2016, proclaimed this week,  while speaking at a campaign event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people ask him what he brought to Washington, he says I brought arithmetic.”

This statement is at least as much signature significance regarding Clinton’s competence to hold elective office as Todd Akin’s career-ending claim that victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant, “The View’s” former co-host Sherri Shepard confession that she thought the world might be flat, and Sarah Palin’s falsely reported—but funny! So who cares if it’s true since we hate her?—statement that she can see Russia from her house in Alaska. Some sources explained this jaw-dropping denial of reality as Clinton “moving left.” Actually, even Stalin wouldn’t try to deny that businesses create jobs, though he would probably suggest ways to stop people from telling you that, like, say, killing them. This isn’t “moving left.” This is called “losing it.” (I think Clinton looks drunk, personally.)

It is fitting that the statement came in support of Martha Coakley, whose last campaign in Massachusetts collapsed after her almost equally ridiculous statement that Red Sox icon, Curt “Bloody Sock” Schilling, was a Yankee fan. We shall see if Clinton’s denial of basic economic realities matters to her true blue supporters as much as Coakley’s admission that she knew nothing about the culture of the state she was running to represent in the Senate (she’s also on the say to losing her campaign to be governor, thank God. Yankee fan???) mattered to Bay State residents.

We can hope. Clinton isn’t even an announced candidate, and she has already uttered enough nonsense to send a lesser icon into retirement, such as insisting that she and Bill were paupers when they left the White House, and boasting about the couple’s current millions being gained “by dint of hard work,” as in delivering canned one hour speeches for obscene fees to universities charging tuition that puts their graduates in debt for life. We don’t even have to get to her official rejection of the concept of accountability and transparency regarding the Benghazi tragedy, that, if there is any justice, will haunt her to her grave, symbolized by the quote, “What difference at this point does it make?”

The statement this week is different in kind, though. It isn’t spin; it isn’t a controversial opinion; it can’t be explained away by anything other than “Mrs. Clinton took the wrong medication,” “She knows she can say anything and Democrats will accept it, and was performing a test,” or “The next thing we can expect her to say is that she came here from the planet Melmac.” (Please note: she has not retracted her statement or explained it as I write this.)

After the chaos, division and failure resulting from a President who came to office being hailed as a genius, are Americans really going to dash to the polls to elect a woman who says thing like this in public? You never know, I guess.

Today, it’s ‘corporations and businesses don’t create jobs.’

Tomorrow, it may be…

 

29 thoughts on “Incompetent Unannouced Presidential Candidate of the Month: Hillary Clinton

  1. I have too many Democratic friends who are trying really hard to insist that this is true right now. The sad thing is that I thinks she really believes that statement. I think Obama believes it too. It is completely consistent with Democratic ideology of the last several decades. We can all have government jobs, that will make us vote Democratic, and we can all be paid with money the government borrows. Clinton Arithmetic 101.

    • What? How can they insist that? It isn’t true. Even Paul Krugman doesn’t believe it’s true. Are they all government employees? It may be the dumbest think I’ve ever heard a public official say.

      • Or the scariest. According to some of my friends who are Cuban, at first there were assurances that Castro was only going to nationalize some of the industries, not take over everything. Then one day, lo and behold, his guys showed up in every business from hotels to hardware stores and said “you work for us now.”

      • They are Democrats. They are normally intelligent people, but when it comes to the Democratic party, they are loyal as can be. They see Hillary as the natural candidate and they have to defend her positions. It is very cult-like. It is the reason they vote for a known crook with a felony fraud conviction over someone they admit is an honest, caring, and dedicated public servant. No matter how good they are, they can’t vote for a republican.

        • Loyalty is a good value, but not at the expense of turning your brain off and closing your ears to anything the other side says. Unfortunately it is all too easy to shut down your own thinking and simply default to your side’s talking points.

          • I continue to believe that people capable of rationality will eventually be rational, even regarding politics. Did I just sound like Anne Frank? That said, the internet memes from the Daily Kos and others my Facebook friends have been inflicting on me are depressing. Desperate, desperate graphic deceit designed to some way, some how, maintain that this is a marvelously run government that is just unlucky, unfairly criticized, or being brought down by racists. How do people get this way?

            • Yes, rationality. The American public would never force a front-running presidential contender to drop out because his father once rented a vacation property that some people said once had a word painted on it that some people could consider racist. That would be too ridiculous to believe.

            • No, Anne Frank was a teen who was not so pure or idealistic as people paint her who met with a tragic fate and became an icon rather than a person. You sound like someone who has basic faith in human nature, but who, for purposes of that statement only, forgot or put aside the emotional side of that nature. What we’re seeing here is something I have seen mostly in musical “fandoms” by which I mean communities very devoted to this or that musical artist. You pointed out in another post about Pete Seeger that it is best to judge artists only on their art, and not bring their personal lives, morals, etc., into that judgement, because then we would miss a lot of the good stuff and get a lot of tripe. Unfortunately, some fans, and this especially appears true in the classical crossover community (although that might just be because that’s where I move) get emotionally invested in artists to the point where they believe that, as people, they can do no wrong. They tolerate no criticism, even of decisions that are legitimately open to criticism, attack and mock those who don’t see their artist as the absolute best, and frequently respond to questions with statements like “if you don’t like it, go someplace else,” “sign on or sign out,” and “when you get YOUR million dollar contract, then we’ll listen, until then sit down and shut up.” Sound familiar?

              Obama’s die-hard supporters are like fans of rock stars. Their support is not rational, so there’s no way you can argue with it, and you are just buying yourself a headache if you do. They are now so emotionally invested in their belief that he is the greatest thing to ever happen to this country that they can’t abandon it, because to do so would to be to pull the keystone out and bring the whole bridge tumbling down.

  2. Anyone who has run a business knows that customers create jobs. That is who we work for. While I personally detest The Shrew, she’s absolutely right on this score.

    Thirty years of raw data proves that trickle-down economics does not work.

    • Non-sequitur. Who creates businesses and trickle down economics are not remotely related. One involves pure fact. The other is a theory of economic stimulation, and it certainly has NOT been disproved at all.

      Uh, if the customers created jobs, then they wouldn’t need the businesses. Seriously, you really think supply and demand is the same thing???? Customers create the demand that leads a business owner to seek to fill it, thus creating jobs. Saying customer create jobs is like saying that diseases create medicine.

    • Customers create demand.

      Others rise to meet that demand. That’s when a job is created.

      Demand can always go unfulfilled if someone doesn’t rise to meet it and no job is created.

        • (The theory is that jobs created by government go to fulfill laws that were written to meet a certain demand that the market wasn’t fulfilling on its own)

          So the principle stands. Where the debate rages is whether or not a real demand actually exists before the government artificially created supply.

  3. Hillary Clinton’s comments seem to be in response to Elizabeth Warren’s populist rhetoric and Obama’s ‘You didn’t build that’ comments. Clinton made these remarks in Massachusetts, which is deeply enamored of Sen. Warren. Warren is a real threat to Clinton so she has/had to move to the left to take a bite out of Warren’s base.

    jvb

    • 1.Well, if that’s what it was, she showed she doesn’t understand populism, economics, or the planet Earth.
      2. Warren’s not that popular—just with Democrats. You do know that the next governor is going to be a Republican, right? Massachusetts, as I keep trying to explain to people not from my home state, is not DC, California or even Vermont. It tends liberal, but they are smart liberals. Idiocy like that Clinton statement will not fly there.

      • You sure about that? I don’t think the Bay State has sent a GOP rep on any level to DC in decades except the Scott Brown hiccup. They are pretty partisan up there. Also, they were the only state that trended so liberal they voted for McGovern in 1972, when nothing about Watergate was known publicly.

        • Sure that about 50% of governors elected in Mass are Republicans? Yes. There is essentially no Republican Party in Mass, but that doesn’t mean the populace are knee-jerk liberals. Scott Brown was no hiccup—he was an expression of that conservative core. You do know why Massachusetts hated Nixon even more than every other state, right? You get three guesses and a hint: It has something to do with the letter “K”….
          (My Congressman growing up was Tip O’Neill.)

          • Wasn’t going to go there, but yes, the Boston Irish kept reelecting you-know-who until he finally tripped and hit the dirt. Tip I have somewhat more respect for since he seems to have been one of those smart liberals and he and Reagan could at least work together. NJ we also elect a fair amount of GOP governors, but good luck electing a senator. We DO have a few GOP congressmen, mostly from enclave-type districts. MA has produced not a one in a while.

      • Please don’t misunderstand my comments. I didn’t intend to justify what she said – I thought Clinton’s comments were truly idiotic from historical, economic, political and rational perspectives. Clinton gave those comments at a campaign rally for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley_ and Elizabeth Warren was there, as well, So, Clinton thought she would score political points with the hard leftists and progressives.

        It seems to be that she is utterly tone deaf to the rest of the nation. Obama and Warren both rightly caught a lot of flack for the ‘you didn’t build that’ nonsense. Clinton has since explained what she meant to say, “Let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades: Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

        jvb

        • 1st Statement: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people ask him what he brought to Washington, he says I brought arithmetic.”

          I’ve bolded the problematic statement. Minus that and her comment is simply just a statement of her Keynesian ideas. The bolded bit is plain dumb. But let’s giver her benefit of the doubt. Maybe it is “short hand” for something.

          Here’s her explanation:

          “I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades.Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

          1) That doesn’t explain anything from her first comment.

          2) You can’t assert something, then while defending your assertion, assert the exact opposite.

          “London Bridge is a vegetable”

          WHAT????

          “I’m sorry, that was short hand, what I meant was London Bridge is not a vegetable, but actually a structure spanning a body of water”

          • Right, exactly. This isn’t a “you didn’t build that” statement, which has a clear if annoying and hopelessly stretched point to make….I am amazed the progressives are defending it or even trying to spin it. As I seriously offered in the post, it is the equivalent of “I am the Lizard Queen!” It is flat out stupid, and her clarification is like saying, “I didn’t say bananas were marbles! I was just shorthanding that Cape Cod is lovely this time of year, and that’s nothing new with me!”

            Hillary herself is less frightening than her fans, who seem to be operating in some kind of parallel universe where the woman isn’t dishonest, manipulative, phony, unqualified, and waaaay past her pull date.

  4. Today Clinton clarified what she said, as in “somebody pointed out that what I said was jaw-droppingly stupid, ” and said this..

    “I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades.Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

    Ah. Of course, that’s not “short-handing.” That’s saying one thing and claiming that you meant to say something completely different. How, exactly, does “Let’s not hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.” translate, short-hand or anything else into “Businesses and corporations don’t create jobs”?

    I want someone, anyone, to explain to me how they could support this empty pants suit to be anything more demanding than the Ambassador to Fiji. Anyone. Integrity? No. Honesty? No. Demonstrated skill in management? No. Proven leadership? Trustworthiness? Charisma? No,no, no.

  5. Now that my comments are getting through again…

    But corporations and businesses don’t create jobs – these days, net. Rather, current incentives are for them to reduce their staffing. As they are starting off with a base under which jobs are around at levels that were built up under other incentives under which they did create jobs, these days they destroy jobs in aggregate.

    • Current businesses aren’t creating jobs, that’s true. I’m not directing any plays, either, but someone who says that I don’t direct plays doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • I think this may be another “two countries divided by a common language” sort of thing, as Oscar Wilde put it. In my book, you don’t direct plays if you’re not actually directing plays (“actually” has a technical meaning here); the implied time scale giving the context is the actual one, i.e. the time scale actually – currently – obtaining, unless there is something to broaden that context further. To express what you just did, I would have to say something like “I am a play director” or “I occasionally/often/sometimes direct plays” – the former having a broader implied context and the latter explicitly broadening the context.

        Back to la Clinton: I suspect that, as a politician, she probably was working within that narrow context and that the clarifications were made after realising that her audience wasn’t reading them that way. That would make it a failure of her communication rather than of her understanding. And, of course, her point matters for figuring out what to do about it, if only anyone ever bothers to look into that (that side of politics isn’t into such fixes at all though, but rather tries to maintain a drip feed of dependency; and the other side has given up on getting that vote anyway, since it is thinking in the short term).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.