Say Anything Blog

Heck, McCain should use that ad against either candidate

Ken,

Competence is relative.  Hillary was there for eight years and has been in the Senate ever since.  That is 16 years in the White House and in the Senate.

Compare that experience to Obama who has been a Senator for 4 years and before that was simply a State Senator in Illinois.

Relative competence.  Compared to Obama, she has a hell of a lot more experience.  And a track record.  We know what she will do.  We either like it or we hate it, but we know what it will be.  I hate it personally.  With Obama, we are sure he will “change” things.  To what or from what, we must only guess.  We just know it will be different.

That was actually a pretty good ad.

I’d rather have Hillary than Obama in the white House. A competent person who I severely disagree with is better than an imbecile who prattles on and on about “change”.

Hillary was there for eight years and has been in the Senate ever since.  That is 16 years in the White House and in the Senate.

I’d put Obama’s real experience as an elected official in Illinois over this any day. Just ‘being there’ doesn’t impress me that much. Monica Lewinsky was ‘there’ also.

It actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit where Dana Carvey asked a very similar question.

Hillary is caught between Barack and a dark face!

Her policies are too close to Obama’s to have any meaningful debate in a Leftist primary—as a matter of fact she is a bit to the right.

Any attempt, even legitimate attempts, to counter his messianic rise have been countered with the subtle undertone or overt accusations of racism, not by the candidate but by proxies (including the media).

That has put Hillary dead center between Barack and a dark face.

BTW, I didn’t mind this ad.  Fear mongering has been dragged out so often by the screaming left that even accurate reporting of the dangers is now called mongering.
DKK

Are you sure about this?
Why didn’t they give her a security clearance?
She would have put in for one—it’s almost automatic (everybody knew she was going to be involved at every level).
I have a hard time believing that she would be denied a clearance, even if she struggled with the polygraph.

I just find this very hard to believe that a first lady—indeed, somebody who marketed herself a co-president before her husband took office—could not gain access to a commonly held clearance (I do believe Linda Tripp had one, for God’s sake!).

And, the alternative I find harder to believe: that Hillary would have contented herself to a being a spectator of history—from the cheap seats—is hardly imaginable.

So, I have to ask you to prove a negative.
Prove that she had no clearance.

Meet the Depressed Sunday showed a very similar ad that was used by Walter Mondull against Ronald Reagan, with the phone call in the night and all.
Sure worked well for old Walt, now, didn’t it?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.