The vapid thinking of Hillary Clinton 8

“This is what we call Smart Power, using every possible tool … leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand, and insofar as is psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems [and] determine a solution, that is what we believe in the 21st century will change the prospect for peace.”

That, John Hinderaker of PowerLine reports, is what an “audience of diplomats and other officials from all over the world” heard Hillary Clinton say at Georgetown University. The title of her speech was Smart Power: Security Through Inclusive Leadership.

She would respect, for instance, the ISIS decapitators? The Taliban oppressors of women? She can empathize with their “perspective and point of view”? She hopes to “define the problems” in warm chats with them and so “change the prospect for peace”?

John Hinderaker comments:

The hall was at least half empty. Which may not mean anything. … I am not sure whether the public was even invited.

What does deserve ridicule, however, is the content of Hillary’s remarks, which remind us how vapid her thinking is. …

So that’s what they call Smart Power? No wonder it didn’t work: diplomacy as envisioned by a naive but well-intentioned elementary school teacher.

She went on to deplore the scarcity of women in high-level international diplomacy.

Considering the paucity of success in her own career as Secretary of State, and its resounding failures – most notably a failed “re-set” with Russia, and the horrors of Benghazi – she may not be the best representative of the fair sex to advocate for this cause.

One of the problems with the liberals’ approach to national security is that wherever they look, they see opportunities for affirmative action. If it isn’t women in combat, it’s women in the foreign ministry:

Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.

She asked:

“Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?”

Upon which John Hinderaker justly exclaims –

It’s enough to give non sequiturs a bad name!

He goes on:

But beyond the easy ridicule, there is a serious point: liberalism of the Clinton variety is utterly out of ammo.

Hillary has no ideas of any intellectual or strategic significance. All she can do is utter platitudes and pander to 1970s-style feminism.

And for this she gets $300,000 a pop?

But affirmative action requires the US to have a female president next time.

No matter if she cannot think. No matter if she was bad at the only important government job she tried to do. No matter if she, like the affirmative action president now in office, comes out of the Saul Alinsky stable of hate-America communist wreckers.

To the Left, to the foolish voter (I am being redundant here), it is enough that she is a woman. And married to Bill Clinton (ironically, the hound of women!).

Will the American electorate again make a disastrous choice of president in 2016 and elect Hillary Clinton?

Surely not – if a plausible candidate is at last found by the Republican Party.

There’s the rub.

  • Don L

    If only Rand Paul would commit to No Nukes for Iran.

    Just a reminder…Cruz does not have a high squeaky voice or a clothespin on his nose.

    • Sorry, Don L. Even with a clothespeg on his nose, and even though he carries on sometimes about “God”, I still think he’d be the best candidate out of the range of possibilities. I’d prefer Reagan or Harding, but they go on being dead.

      • Don L

        I know, I know…it’s just been so long since “a good choice”. This chronic “settling for”…well, you know too!

  • liz

    “Surely not” ? – that’s what I said before the re-elections of both Clinton and Obama. I’ll never make THAT assumption again! In fact, I’ll be surprised if the American electorate DOESN’T make a disastrous choice of president in 2016.
    Guess I’m becoming a pessimist.

  • But who does the GOP have waiting in the wings? There’s no Reagan in the offing.

    I kind of like Rand Paul, but would prefer someone with more executive chops. Scott Wilson might be all right. Oddly Ben Carson is a name you hear among the religious social-issues conservatives a lot, but I would prefer a candidate who didn’t come Godding at me constantly, and while I think Carson is probably a fine man in many ways, he does seem to bring religion into most discussions. And Jeb Bush? Hell no. If we want to lose another election, let’s go ahead and nominate another Bush. We don’t need political dynasties. We have enough trouble as it is.

    So, who then? Do we have a Man for All Seasons (being intentionally ironic here) around someplace?


      Carson seems to be a good man. As I too dislike the term “God” thrown at me in every other sentence, we Conservatives must wage the important battles first.

      And that would be wresting the reigns of what is left of our country away from the miscreants of the Left primarily using the more numerous votes of our religious Conservative friends.

      This is of the utmost importance, in my humble opinion.

      The battle for one’s own mind is the private individual’s job. People cannot change other people’s minds by their debating with them against such a strong and formidable opponent like religion.

      Remember when you debate one of these types that they fortify themselves with what their ‘good book,’ and their religious friends and ministers expect of them. To most of them, this way of being has become an untestable habit.

      The’re cautioned that to believe in any other knowledge which is obtuse to the bible is probably the “D’evil” trying to knock them off of their “path.”

      If the faithful are subjected to what is anti-religious fact, and they remain in the habitual insecurity and comfort of their inner structure, they will cling to their old beliefs.

      Religion’s main precept to their ‘flock’ is “Test nothing!”

      • Don L

        Not sure if this is related, but:

        For 99.9% of my life as an atheist, I have not had much contact with other atheists. I’ve known they (we) are out there…but until I came upon this site only ‘just’…I might come across someone who said they were an atheist maybe twice a year…over 50+ years…and typically without any further discussion or contact (mere pass bys).

        In all that time I never needed a book or weekly pep rallies to maintain ‘atheist’. It isn’t an unsupported faith…It’s a knowledge that once come upon cannot be altered…IS is IS.

        “See ya next sunday” not on your life! LOL

        • REALBEING

          Great point, Don. It seems like Atheism is one of those ‘self-supporting’ viewpoints. Low maintenance is our way of life, especially being Conservative and Atheist.