Skip to content

Hillary Clinton is not a doormat for Obama…

October 17, 2012

Hillary Clinton is far from being a doormat for anyone.

“First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat.” That’s what The Post’s Jennifer Rubin tweeted Monday.

Hillary Clinton attends a news conference in Lima, Peru.

Would anyone say that about a male secretary of state?    Very likely, no. If a man stood up and took responsibility for a failure in his department, he would be admired as handling the problem with a tough-as-nails manner. They would say a male secretary of state “manned up.”

Instead, conservatives are saying Obama should have manned up and Hillary should have stood down. That’s because conservatives want to make this an issue of gender when it clearly is not.

Take Sherman Frederick, who wrote in the Las Vegas Review-Journal that President Obama was hiding behind Hillary’s skirt. That echoes another tweet by Rubin. David Axelrod, an Obama adviser, tweeted to Rubin: “Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark.” Rubin replied: “so is Obama going to hide behind her skirt Tuesday night? Why would the president let Hillary end her career in disgrace?”

Then Rush Limbaugh opened his mouth Tuesday. He mimicked Rubin’s sentiments, saying, “The woman is a doormat, not a feminist leader. It’s the most amazing thing.” Of course, Limbaugh had to revisit Bill Clinton’s past sexual indiscretions against Hillary.

This shouldn’t be a psychosexual drama about how Hillary is strong and covered for Obama in an election year and Obama is a weakling who won’t take responsibility. It’s far from that.

Realistically, the federal government is massive.  Obama is obviously not overseeing the daily details in every department like state or micromanaging every embassy and diplomatic post on the planet. That’s why he appoints strong, intelligent people like Hillary.

Hillary said in the CNN interview Monday that she oversees the State Department, where information is often fluid. Within that department are security and intelligence officials who make decisions like whether a post in Libya needs more security.

Let’s be honest, though, Hillary can’t catch a break. When she was running against Obama for president, she was seen as an opportunist. Even her long-time admirer, the late writer Nora Ephron, said that many people thought back then that Hillary “will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe …”

Now that Hillary has taken an unsafe position on Libya, she is labeled an Obama administration scapegoat. The end to feminism does not arrive just because women now have power. It arrives when women are treated the same as men in the same position.

As one supporter in a forum dedicated to all things Hillary wrote: “She did not fall on her sword. She picked it up and lifted it over her head. She is going to get to the bottom of this. She has said so. It may appear to some that she has fallen on her sword, but that’s only because we see so rarely (except in her case) what she is exhibiting: real leadership.”

In 2007, Lakshmi Chaudhry wrote a story in The Nation quoting Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who said: “Put gender aside. Just treat her like you would any other candidate.” Perhaps we should take his words to heart now and treat her like any other secretary of state. WP- Suzie Parker


CNN: Clinton takes ‘full responsibility’ for security before Benghazi attack:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have  stepped up their criticism of the Obama administration’s actions before and since the attack, suggesting that the officials have not been transparent with the public about the incident, and more broadly arguing that it is evidence of a failed foreign policy strategy in the Middle East. LINK



Hillary takes responsibility for Libya but Obama’s terror policy is real problem

One of the most telling questions of the second town hall presidential debate was on Libya.

An audience member said he and his buddies had gotten together and wanted to know, “Who was it who denied enhanced security in Libya, and why?” The president dodged the question with lots of references about how no one wants the answer to that question, or cares more than he does, but in the end he didn’t answer the question.

Now you have to ask WHY?

Okay, it’s a cover up. But thanks to Secretary of State Clinton’s willingness to take the blame, it’s a coverup that’s succeeded….so far. And for the Obama administration, that’s good enough, as long as the “so far” extends to Election Day.

The mainstream media, like an overindulgent parent, believes the Obama administration’s excuses, and most people don’t care what happens half a world away when they don’t have jobs at home. Plus, as Secretary Clinton says, there is such a “fog of war” that we’re not sure what happened, never mind that the fog was deliberately created by the Obama administration’s own fog machine.

Looks like the Obama administration has gotten away with it.

But the real problem isn’t the intelligence failures, or security lapses or even the cover up. It’s the policy. Al Qaeda is NOT “on its heels,” as President Obama claimed at the Democratic Convention just five days before the Benghazi attack. Al Qaeda is larger and stronger than ever, and has moved into whole new regions in North Africa and the Middle East. The Benghazi attack was only the beginning.

Al Qaeda’s trademark is to have an escalating series of attacks until they are stopped in their tracks. They watch to see our reaction after each attack and, if we fail to retaliate, they do something even bolder the next time.

The Benghazi attack on September 11 was preceded by car bombs and assaults against British and American facilities in Benghazi throughout the summer. The September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City was preceded by attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, and US embassies in Africa the year before, and failed attack on the Twin Towers a decade before.

Compare that to Ronald Reagan’s reaction when Col. Qaddafi bombed a Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen in 1986. American soldiers were died and injured as a result. Reagan’s reaction? He bombed Qaddafi’s compound a week later. Qaddafi escaped injury, but he got the point. Don’t mess with America.

If you’re Al Qaeda how are you looking at the Benghazi attack? From your point of view it was an unqualified success – the Americans are now fighting amongst themselves, they’ve set up a commission to study what happened, and while they’re rattling a few sabers, they have yet to retaliate.

If you’re Al Qaeda you keep going. And what could be bigger and better than a dead American ambassador? FOX NEWS

  1. October 19, 2012 8:58 am

    Yay 50 baby : Rasmussen: Virginia: Romney 50% Obama 47%

  2. October 19, 2012 9:25 am


  3. Nathan permalink
    October 31, 2012 3:50 pm

    Link exchange is nothing else except it is just placing the other person’s blog link on your page at suitable place and other person will also do same in favor of you.

Comments are closed.