I apologize in advance for bringing you all an irrelevant column about lightweights.
I was looking forward to bringing my readers the conclusion of the Bill O’Reilly interview of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I will be delivering.
I had the pleasure and honor of attending one of the most intelligent debates I have ever witnessed. Either that means I do not get out enough, or the three participants were brilliant. Perhaps a bit of both is true.
I will hold off on revealing who the debaters were, since I will be blogging about it for several days. Nevertheless, after watching and meeting heavyweights, O’Reilly and Clinton did not measure up. They are both heavyweights in a vacuum, but for reasons that will be articulated soon enough, they are not the best and brightest. This is not to denigrate them. It is just that I witnessed intellectual greatness, reducing the perceived quality of a merely very good discussion between Bill O’Reilly and Hillary Clinton.
One thing O’Reilly did after the interview was address his using of words such as “bull” and “bupkus” in disputing Hillary’s assertions. He pointed out that had she been President and not just a candidate, he would have been more tactful. I felt he should have been more tactful with somebody seeking the office. One can be tactful without being too deferential. O’Reilly was better in the second half of the interview. His self analysis was noble, but I still found his reasoning flawed. I may not like Hillary, but she should be treated with the respect that comes with being First Lady, and until a month ago, a serious candidate for the White House.
With that, here is the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton interview by Bill O’Reilly.
Hillary Clinton does believe we are in the middle of a shooting War on Terror. She believes Iran is a significant danger. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. She claims she would be very tough on Iran.
Yet then O’Reilly pointed out that withdrawing from Iraq was good for Iran. Hillary claimed the mission is done, since Saddam is gone. This is what President Bush said when he said “Mission Accomplished.” Hillary I guess agrees with the President.
Hillary believes that Iran picking up arms would galvanize the Iraqis. O’Reilly disputed this by saying that withdrawal from Iraq will be seena s weakness, and that Iran will not be stopped, as oil prices would skyrocket.
Both O’Reilly and Hillary believe speculators are driving up oil prices. Apparently supply and demand is lost on both of them. On the way home in the car, I heard Mark Levin for the first time. He said that the only thing O’Reilly knows about oil is what he puts in his hair.
Hillary was asked if she knew where the primary Taliban haven was. Hillary seemed to have a pretty goo grasp of this issue, knowing it was in Pakistan. She did not know the city of Quetta, but most people would not know that.
Where Hillary is wrong is in her insistence on getting tough with Musharraf. If Musharrraf goes down, the fundamentalists that would take over would be much worse.
Nevertheless, Hillary came across as an adult on this issue. She has done her homework. This does not make her right, but at least she can discuss issues in depth.
O’Reilly praised how the Bush Administration has decimated Al Queda since 9/11. He wanted to know if Hillary would support waterboarding under extreme conditions. She would not.
George Tenet and Michael Scheuer both support it. They are far from the end all be all, but Hillary would not say who supported her position. Hillary wants an aggressive Al Queda effort, and do whatever it takes, but will not engage in waterboarding.
Hillary correctly pointed out that all three candidates are against it, and that Senator John McCain knows more about it than her and O’Reilly combined.
Again, from a political standpoint, she is completely wrong. However, a cold impartial analysis showed a woman who was well prepared for a tough interview.
Hillary stated that she would not crack down on sanctuary cities. She cited the example of people not willing to report crimes for fear of being deported. This was the Rudy Giuliani position.
Hillary wants to go after employers. That is not wrong, but she seems to blame corporate America for everything. She also disagreed with O’Reilly on what the meaning of a sanctuary city actually is.
Hillary falsely claimed that those against illegal immigration want door to door searches.
She criticized President Bush on the issue, even though he favored a guest worker program. Then again, she disagrees with him because he exists.
When challenged as to if the interview with Hillary was his most fun, O’Reilly joked that it was not because he once interviewed Cher. Hillary laughed.
If I did not know Hillary, this interview alone would get me to consider voting for her. Luckily I do know enough about her to never consider that as an option.
O’Reilly conducted himself better than in the first half of the interview. He was more respectful. Hillary did well during both halves. O’Reilly had a bad first half, but redeemed himself after the midpoint.
When O’Reilly joked about Lanny Davis revealing that Hillary Clinton was a naughty schoolgirl in law school, Hillary shined in her response. She joked she would support torturing Lanny Davis in this extreme situation. It was a genuine funny moment.
Then she danced around like a naughty schoolgirl with Van Halen’s “Hot for teacher” in the background. No, not really. The Carl Jr. “Flat Buns” teacher in the burger commercial would be more appropriate. She is more butt plus than butt minus.
Hillary delivered a solid performance. Most importantly, Hillary looked…human.
Had she done interviews like these a year ago, she would be the nominee as inevitably thought, not the afterthought who crashed and burned against a political novice.
eric
“She cited the example of people not willing to report crimes for fear of being deported. ”
Thats like saying we’ll protect the criminals who squeel.
What ? Are all the illegals suppoosed to be some kind of special informant base for the cops ?
As far as illegal on illegal crime goes. HEY ! Thats the chance you guys take being here illegaly. Both your butts are going back.
All these people are criminals to start with and then theres the additional crimes commited by them not in connection with their immigration status.
When you look at the costs involved in illegal immigration it only makes sense to one point.
Dont tick off the Latino vote.
TYGRR;
“Yet then O’Reilly pointed out that withdrawing from Iraq was good for Iran. Hillary claimed the mission is done, since Saddam is gone. This is what President Bush said when he said “Mission Accomplished.” Hillary I guess agrees with the President.”
Actually she said the military has accomlished its “missions” and that there is no military answer to the situation. This gives to her delusion that we can just pull troops out sooner than later.
Also by acknowleding with Bush that the one mission of removing Saddam was completeted I hope we can finally put to rest all the BDS fanatics that keep using that banner as a (“Bush lied”) conspiracy basis.
These morons need to learn the difference between a mission and a war.
“Both O’Reilly and Hillary believe speculators are driving up oil prices. Apparently supply and demand is lost on both of them.”
Enron ring a bell?
Estimates range from 10% to 30% of the price of a barrel of oil is the result of the utterly unregulated commodity speculation.
It sounds like O’Reilly and Clinton know more about economics than Mike Levin will ever know.
JMJ
Commodities speculation is part of the supply-demand cycle. Nobody mentioned the fact that the dollar is worth less than 60 cents. With China and India buying oil like mad and Euros being worth almost double the value of the dollar, what do you think will happen to the price. Now add in the problem with the enviros blocking drilling here, no new refineries built here in the last 30 years, different gas formulas in every state (some states have winter and summer formulas) and the irrational reactions when anybody mentions nuclear. How does the price go anywhere but up?
“Nobody mentioned the fact that the dollar is worth less than 60 cents.”
Excellent point!
“Now add in the problem with the enviros blocking drilling here, no new refineries built here in the last 30 years,”
This is not true. Environmentalists have NOTHING to do with why we have as few refineries (and nuclear palnts) as we have. Refineries have been monopolized by a small cartel and downsized to maximize profit. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either lying about it, profiting from it, or ignorant of it.
Remove the current value of the dollar, unregulated speculation, the war in the Middle East, and add worldwide reserves, and bango – you’ve got a natural $50 (or so) barrel of oil. Tell me otherwise with good stats and you’ll prove nothing but your own cognitive dissonance. It’s a fact.
I also disagree about the states models out there. What ever happened to federalism, Martel? Is it only convenient when it’s convenient?
JMJ
JMJ:
“This is not true. Environmentalists have NOTHING to do with why we have as few refineries (and nuclear palnts) as we have”
Boxer and Fienstein have voted against it because of pressure from environmental groups who are worrisd about waste disposal.
Boxer and Feinstein are not the be all and end all of senatorial conclusion. There are plenty of other potential votes. What the H is your point? Are you really so delluded that you believe “liberals” and “greeniacs” actually impact your way of life? What? Do you live in friggin’ Oregon? Oh yeah, Hawaii! Hey, there’s the perfect microcosm of America! Yeah!
JMJ
Your critsism of my state really says alot about you. Ignorance would be the word.
Iget all the same info any one else does.
And I was living in florida before you were even born. I have also managed to travel most of this country for 30 years and three other countries..
My delusions if you will call them that are by no means to be compared to your insane belief that the republican party is the host of the end times.
Heres my delusions in real form. I guess that would make them “non delusional”
This is just a short list
http://www.cane.org.za/2007/09/10/nuclear-energy-related/keep-nuke-waste-away/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5060/is_200408/ai_n18434200
Bruce Geiselman Two environmental groups have notified the U.S. Energy Department of their intention to file a lawsuit against the agency in connection with plans to clean up contamination at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley, Calif. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Committee to Bridge the Gap will file the lawsuit unless Energy officials address their objections, according to a July 19 letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/11/nuclear.commentary/index.html
But three decades later, we’re facing the same nuclear issues. And to counter this threat, we are organizing once again.
One of America’s most critical financial and ecological decisions is now before Congress. The atomic energy industry wants at least $50 billion in loan guarantees for a “new generation” of reactors that have already begun to fail, and that Wall Street won’t finance.
That took about 3 minutes and I can pull a slew of groups that feel the same way.
And then theres the oil companies too
This is Ralph Naders organization.
Check it out.
http://www.citizen.org/CMEP/
“Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, serves as a viable proposal to move our energy sector away from the polluting and hazardous energy sources of the past by demonstrating the feasibility of eliminating our dependency on finite resources.”
Of course I realize you side with the greeniacs in foil caps so it kind a puts you in an akward position because as environmentalist yourself you are arguing against them.
Hmm.
Living in California, I can tell you the environmentalists have had major roles in preventing off shore drilling and the building of refineries in my state. The regulations this states legislature have placed on these activities (when they have not strictly prohibited it in some locations), is what has made it NOT PROFITABLE for the “small cartels” to build this infrastructure. California’s legislature is heavily influenced by the environmental movement.
On a side note it is not the Alaskans who oppose drilling in ANWR a state which overwhelmingly supports it, but it is prohibited by the federal government.
Back to the previous thread. Since when is somebody who favors a womens right to an abortion, opposes the death penalty, favors gun control, and supports aggressive measure in combating global warming a right wing extremist? These are positions Bill O’Reilly holds. The Clintons and their supporters were very successful at labeling anybody who felt that perjury in a sexual harassment trial on a line questioning the feminist movement actively supported making admissible as right wing zealots.
Bill O’Reilly may be a self-important, self-righteous,arrogant, pompous jerk (or at least that is his public persona) but he is far from a right wing extremist.
Isn’t CBS news people who used fabricated evidence against George Bush just before the election against Kerry, and many times in 60 minutes broadcasts which they had to recant. Far from the sterling journalistic organization you describe them as. I won’t even go in to the problems at the NY times or Washington Post. All news agencies have their biases and integrity lapses and the key is to read as many as possible to filter the truth for yourself. Fox is no further right than CBS is left.