In other words, SHUT UP and quit trying to hold me accountable!
Guy Benson | Nov 16, 2015
In case you missed it — and you probably did, by design — the Democrats running for president debated in Iowa on Saturday night. Bernie Sanders once again declined to address the issue of the expanding federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s improper, unsecure, national security-compromising email scheme, confirming that he has no serious intention of winning the nomination. Martin O’Malley is a polling asterisk. So these debates can only hurt the party’s presumptive nominee, aside from perhaps giving her a few reps, which is why the next debate is slated for the Saturday before Christmas. Cortney highlighted one bad moment for Hillary on Saturday, in which she refused to admit the obvious: That the administration in which she served failed to recognize the scope of ISIS’ emerging threat. The president’s past and present assessments of the terrorist force prove otherwise. Clinton also refused to identify the threat posed by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda as related in any way to Islam. While it’s true that the Bush administration similarly sanitized its language on this front, the Obama/Clinton regime has taken euphemisms to another level — from “overseas contingency operations,” to “kinetic military action,” to “man-caused disasters,” to “workplace violence.” That Hillary won’t clearly identify his scourge is especially jarring in light of her infamous comment from the previous Democratic debate:
One thing that Democrats do seem to agree upon is that climate change is a meaningful contributor to the spread of international jihadism. This is risible on its face, yet they repeat it with with deep conviction, pointing togovernment studies that have concluded that global warming “aggravate[s] existing factors” within an already-unstable region. As the theory goes, the ripple effects of rising temperatures make it more difficult for governments to provide for basic human needs, thus breeding resentment and anger. But this fails to account for the thousands of European nationals have left their stable, prosperous Western countries to join ISIS’ ranks, driven by religion and ideology — which are theactual root motives behind Islamic extremist terrorism. Voters should think very carefully about whether it’s wise to elect leaders who are unwilling to accurately label the causes and practitioners of jihad, but who are more than happy to peddle the climate change story. Priorities, etc. Setting all of that aside, and passing over Hillary’s terrible spin about a law specifically named the ‘Affordable Care Act‘ by its proponents, her worst answer of the evening may have been this one:
Notice how she kicks off this answer about accepting massive Wall Street donations while claiming class warrior status by mentioning that a majority of her donors are women, prompting a wave of ‘girl power’ applause from people who seem to think this factoid is somehow significant. (Make no mistake: When she’s in trouble, she and her allies have shamelessly played, and will continue to shamelessly play, the woman card). Then she transitions into indignantly asserting that the reason she’s raked in so much Wall Street cash is because she represented New York on 9/11. She practically argues that taking in major contributions from the Goldman Sachs set is a way to “rebuke the terrorists.” How unseemly. The journalists who were paid to watch the weekend forum were not impressed:
Republicans quickly blasted out a clip of Hillary’s former campaign manager taking a pass on defending her former boss’ non-sequitur linkage:
Politico also fact-checked Clinton’s overall claim about financing her campaign through small, grassroots donors. I’ll leave you with a remark that no doubt caught the attention of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and other Republicans angling to frame the 2016 election as a battle between fresh faces and ideas and a polarizing Beltway fossil: