BBC's Kay: "[A]s a Clinton," Hillary must "come across as somebody who is prepared to use military action"
SUMMARY: On The Chris Matthews Show, Katty Kay said that Sen. Hillary Clinton's "calculation" in her presidential campaign "is that she can't stand up there as a woman and sound soft." Kay added: "She knows that as a Clinton and as a woman, she's got to come across as somebody who is prepared to use military action if it's needed." Kay did not explain why being a "Clinton" would necessitate "com[ing] across as someone who is prepared to use military action."
On the September 30 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion of Democratic presidential candidates' stances on Iran and other national security issues, BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "calculation is that she can't stand up there as a woman and sound soft." Kay added: "She knows that as a Clinton and as a woman, she's got to come across as somebody who is prepared to use military action if it's needed."
Kay did not explain her apparent view that the public sees Bill Clinton as having been unprepared "to use military action" or her apparent view that Hillary's marriage to Bill poses an obstacle to her coming across as "prepared to use military action if it's needed."
Kay's comments echo the long-perpetuated myth in the media that Democrats are perceived as "soft" on national security. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, polls actually show that the public prefers Democrats on the issue of handling the war in Iraq and on national security. Most recently, a September 14-16 Gallup poll asked: "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats?" Forty-seven percent answered Democrats, while 42 percent said Republicans. And a September 4-7 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked: "Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq." The poll found that 42 percent answered Democrats, while 31 percent answered Republicans.
Moreover, regarding Kay's suggestion that Clinton's gender also impedes her ability to convince the public that she is "prepared to use military action if needed," polling suggests otherwise. While a July 9-17 CBS News/New York Times poll asked if registered voters "have confidence in Hillary Clinton's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis" or if they are "uneasy about her approach," finding that 52 percent were "uneasy" and 42 percent were "confident," the poll also found that a majority (58 percent) of respondents believe Clinton would be an effective commander in chief, and 68 percent believed that Clinton would likely or very likely to make good decisions in dealing with foreign countries. Further, 75 percent of respondents said they believe Clinton is a "strong leader."
From the September 30 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Can a Democrat running today appear just as hawkish as the Republican incumbent and still hold the Democratic base?
KAY: I think Hillary's calculating on two things. First of all, she's got her eye very firmly on the general election and not on the primaries. She's calculating that the base stays with her if she gets the nomination, and that this Democratic base desperately wants to win the White House back and the numbers will turn out.
The other thing I think the calculation is that she can't stand up there as a woman and sound soft. She's going to be America's commander in chief. She knows that as a Clinton and as a woman, she's got to come across as somebody who is prepared to use military action if it's needed.
Maybe if she promised to launch a couple of nuclear warheads the day she is inaugurated? I think if she'd punch Tim Russert in the face people might see her as tough enough. They might even like her more.
People seemed to have forgotten about Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo (did I forget anything?).
We're Americans. We're not supposed to remember past last week. Our attention-spans are supposed to be so short we can't remember what any past administration did. All those people Bill Clinton killed? Not supposed to remember that. All those people Hillary helped kill with her votes? Not supposed to remember that. All we're supposed to do is whine about the Republicans and vote for the guy or gal with the D behind their name (and to forget all those that party has killed).
Do not forget all the times we bomb Iraq in the Clinton years. The 93 bombing after Saddam tried to kill Bush in Kuwait and the Operation Desert Fox in 1998 that the Repubs were so outraged at .
I still think the Desert Fox bombing spree was Clinton's way of getting inspectors out of Iraq before they proved Iraq was WMD-free. The big stink about the sanctions and the dead million was going around at that time and many on the Security Council wanted to lift sanctions. UN had just managed to get inspectors back in after they had been tossed because of CIA infiltration. All they were looking for was paperwork by that time, the demolition teams had destroyed all stockpiles and production facilities. They were barred entrance to one building, Ba'ath Party HQ, an office building full of bureaucrats, hardly a place that would be used for storing nasty viruses and toxic chemicals. And all of a sudden Clinton and Blair order the inspectors out and start blowing up the place. The Repubs blamed it on the Lewinsky scandal (so did the "arab street") but I think it was to keep the sanctions going and keep Iraqi oil off the market to benefit the Saudis.
Somalia was initiated by Bush 41.I think you have to take into consideration her British perspective. It was widely percieved in Britian that during Clinton's handling of Kosovo he was overly reluctant to commit ground forces while Blair was lobbying intensely within NATO for such a commitment.
This BBC dame may have worked in D.C. too long... punditry so insulated from reality, spouting the same failed cliches and dogmatic statements from the cone of silence where they do all the talking and never listen to the public they claim to be channeling.
Great name, too: Katty Kay?! kind of catty to point this out, though...
none of us are opposed to using it when "it's needed". it's the blatantly reckless use by bush that's the problem. and who really knows what's a threat when this administration has chosen to lie time after time?
Exactly. I am a little alarmed by the apparent lack of skepticism exhibited by the press toward the administration's claims about Iran. The script seems to read "Well, of course Iran is killing our soldiers in Iraq". Really? Do we have proof, or is this just the latest Dick Cheney World Conquest fantasy?
They cite the Iranian weapons found in the hands of insurgents. Okay, what percentage of their weapons are Iranian? Do we know how they got them? Where are their other weapons from? How many American weapons have fallen into their hands? It all just sounds a little too familiar to me.
While my native language is American, in school I studied "English" for a number of years (it was mandatory to take "English" courses in my school, although I don't know why because many of us probably would never go to England, and so why bother learning their language).
So having studied the language, I can translate for you, that where this katty pundit says:
katty: "The other thing I think the calculation is that she [Sen. Clinton] can't stand up there as a woman and sound soft. She's going to be America's commander in chief"
That katty's English word "calculation" as used there, means "reasoning" in our American language: as in, "the reasoning is that Sen. Clinton can't stand up there and sound soft"
Which considering that we're talking about being Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, is a point of reasoning so obvious ["can't stand up there and sound soft"], that only a pundit would waste time stating it.
Also, I'm fluent in the idiocies spoken by pundits (English or American), and can translate for you that:
katty pundit: "She knows that as a Clinton and as a woman, she's got to come across as somebody who is prepared to use military action if it's needed"
...is intrepreted to mean (in common sense American):
Sen. Clinton knows that as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, she must be prepared to use military action if it's needed.
Which again, is something so obvious to everybody, that only a pundit would waste air-time stating it.
We all know the only time this country uses force is to satisfie its imperalist ambitions. Any one with as much money as the Clintons can never be trusted to stand up for the commen man. If the were serious about their expressed desire to help us they (the "leaders of this corrupt form of goverment, everyone in washington) would give up their corrupt riches to give them to the poor and needy that are an ever growing part of this country.
Bill Clinton stopped the genocide in the Balkans militarily but he did it without all the American casualties and ruinous spending we see today in Iraq under Bush. So maybe she means Bill Clinton values American lives, and that that is a sensibility we (America or the West or whatever) can no longer afford to take given the Muslim menace as we know it today. Maybe she thinks Bill Clinton was effective and therefore smart which translates to weak to the GOP base. Maybe she thinks it showed weakness to the political right in this country to save Muslims from genocide.
Whatever, it is like a slur, she's demeaning the guy not his actions as president.
In Kosovo, Bill Clinton assisted NATO and a terrorist organization, the KLA, in destroying an autonomy deal and killed more people than the Serbs did. He also intentionally targeted civilians. The only reason he wasn't take to the Hague on war crimes is that the US never signed up to the World Court and the Yugoslavs were told the court had no jurisdiction to try him. There was no genocide in Kosovo, NATO lied.
Down the rabbit hole, redking.
This is just another nod to the FALSE narrative and framing that the Republicans have been feeding incessently to the American public as "conventional wisdom", talking points, and "truths".
All are blatantly false, but all are repeated religiously in the rightwing media as if they are valid premises. They are BOGUS. They are repeated in the rightwing-owned media echo chamber, and are accepted in an "everybody knows" manner as the basis for all discussions.
One of those FALSE assertions is that we have a "Liberal Mainstream Media" in America. Blatantly untrue.
Another is that Republicans are "fiscally responsible". A damn lie, factually DISPROVEN constantly over decades.
Another is that ONLY Republicans can defend America, and Democrats will not use the military. Absolute craptrap.
Another is that Republicans are "moral" and as a party, are great promoters of "family values". Laughably ludicrous.
This thread shows, once again, that those pearls of FICTION infused into our society are accepted without question as the "jumping off point" for political discussions.
Democrats, women, and "Clintons" are to be portrayed as sissys and pacifists who will leave America disarmed and will allow ... hell, will WELCOME ... America being attacked violently. And they will do NOTHING to defend America, because they are Democrats, women, "Clintons" or most importantly, ALL THREE.
The Rightwing Republican propaganda could not be clearer. In a thousand ways, from a thousand rightwing voices, they want Americans to believe that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the TERRORISTS. If you vote for a Democrat, you are voting yourself a horrible death at the hands of aggressors, and the Democrats will not lift a finger to help.
This mention is MILD compared to some of the blatant smears presented by the likes of Dick Cheney in his desperation to hold on to power. It is UnAmerican, it is vicious and unconscionable, to so slander fellow citizens as this Rightwing Smear Machine routinely does, but they have gotten away with it successfully for quite a long time. They're still whipping that same horse, hoping to fool just enough Americans to retain some support.
By all indications, the ride is over. This kind of over-the-top demonizing of Democrats by Rightwing partisans has worn out, and is now backfiring. The TRUTH, and what Rightwing Republicans CLAIM ... are polar opposites, and the American people have wised up. And that's a GOOD thing.
Today it seems the TRUTH and what the MSM reports usually don't square either, and that's the biggest problem facing us. We aren't getting the truth.
I'm curious Redking, if you could pick any of the candidates for president, who would you pick? Are there any Democrats you'd not favor over the Republican candidate? I'd take Edwards myself, but any of the Dems over any of the Repubs.
He's like Mikey, he hates everybody. And Gore would have been no better than Bush in Redking's world. Oh forgot, he might like Kucinich (me too for that matter but what does that matter if he can't get the nod).
Kucinich or Gravel. They're the only real liberals in the race. All the rest are right-wingers.
If memory serves, you ranted before that voting for ANY democrat would be voting for killers. You don't do the green party proud with your sweeping generalizations.
And you do the nation no good by supporting a party that supports the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, continued occupation of Iraq for the next decade, and the insanely high prison rates in this country due to the Drug War. You support a RIGHT-WING party because you are a conservative. I support a liberal party because I am a liberal.
You don't have a clue who I am. You seriously need to get off your high horse (just a suggestion, dear) and stop accusing people who vote for democrats of supporting murder.
This is the same black and white thinking we have in the White House; and frankly, you remind me of them. An ancient hermetic axiom: opposites are the same, varying only in degree.
But the Democrat Party does support war crimes and does murder people. And by supporting that party, you are an ENABLER of those crimes. If you don't want people to complain that you vote for killers, STOP doing it.
Your rhetoric is so clueless. Condemnation of others is the real killer. That's how it all starts, and you are well on your way.
Jimmy Carter stuck his neck out to present the Palestinian situation the way it is and criticise Israel; yet in your world, he is a Democrat and therefore a killer.
I notice you are using the right-wing canard "democrat party" as well.
Labeling politicians is a popular sport. Let's use Nixon. He was a mean-spirited, vengeful man with a list of enemies both real and imagined. He protracted the Vietnam war. Yet he started the EPA and opened communication with China. His presidency had its pluses but he had to be impeached. People voted for him for many reasons. To label them all as "enablers" is ridiculous.
Until our world evolves past violence, our leaders will reflect this conflict. Until our voting system changes to run-off voting, your self-righteousness will elect the worst people.
I'd even give Reagan voters a pass. But not those that voted for W a second time.
No, YOU elect the worst people. You actually vote FOR them. Don't try to pass the buck off on me. And by the way, Carter backed quite a few brutal tyrants, namely the Shah and Somoza. So you keep voting for the deaths of Palestinian and Iraqi children and leave the peace movement to us real liberals, ok?
Well Red, I don't know you except for your postings here; but I'd take Carter over you, the self-righteous voter who demonizes people from the sidelines, as the better man.