Hillpocrisy
There are so many instances of Hillary Clinton being a giant hypocrite, that I think it is now appropriate that we create a new word to describe the phenomenon: Hillpocrisy. |
|
Yesterday, just a day after her ridiculous questioning of the strength of Obama’s denunciation of Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Ohio debate based on some apparent distinction between the words “reject” and “denounce” (in Hillaryland, “reject” is much stronger than “denounce”, and this is apparently also very important), Hillary was faced with her own bigoted supporter problem to respond to. Yesterday Dallas Hispanic leader Adelfa Callejo, a Hillary supporter, commented that black politicians have done little for Hispanics, and that Barack Obama “simply has a problem that he happens to be black.” When asked to respond to the comments she said:
I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an African-American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I’m very, very proud of that. I want people though to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we’ve done.
A total dodge, coming from the same woman who had just lectured Obama on the need to be “stronger” in his denunciation and explained the necessity of leaving no ambiguity on the topic (in fact there had been no ambiguity, ever, in his denunciation of anti-Semitism), and she wouldn’t say anything negative about the statements. Her campaign later issued a statement (most likely after they realized the hillpocrisy of the whole thing) saying “After confirming that [the statements] were accurately portrayed, Senator Clinton, of course, denounces and rejects them.” I’m sure there will be disagreement, as some may take the Clinton campaign at their word, that they just wanted to get independent confirmation of the comments, which were made to the exact same station that was asking her the question, were accurate. However given that there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the comments, and even if there was, she could have at the very least say something to the effect of:
This is the first I have heard of these comments, but I firmly denounce and reject them if they are indeed accurate. I reject any assertion that there is any inherent racial divide between blacks and Hispanics, and there is no reason to suspect that Senator Obama would not be very attentive to the needs of Hispanics as president.
What would have been so hard about that? Nothing. She could have strongly rejected the comments (and similar comments in general) even without confirmed them and been no worse off for it even if the quote had somehow turned out to be false (which wasn’t likely since the statements were made to the very same station). The fact that she didn’t even mention the supporter in question or the comments in her original response shows that she was more interested in pandering than she was in making clear that she didn’t support those kinds of comments, which is much worse than what she challenged Obama on, as he has been consistently clear on his denunciation of anti-Semitism. This doesn’t matter to Hillary Clinton though, because all she cares about it trying to score points by attacking, with zero regard for how ridiculous her attacks may be, or how hypocritical—I mean, hillpocritical—those attacks may be.
