“If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.” – Sect. Hillary Clinton
Call her Obama’s pit bull.
Sitting next to her good friend and colleague SecDef Gates on “Face the Nation,” Sect. Clinton said what I wrote the other day after Pres. Obama announced his new nuclear policy. That “all options are on the table” at all times when it comes to U.S. national security, regardless of who is president. It’s just unfortunate she was the one who had to imply it by channeling male lingo. We get Pres. Obama creating 21st century strategic nuclear policy using 21st language, while his female secretary of state is left to rattle sabers to send messages to America, but particularly to the right, that the Obama administration isn’t soft on national security. Considering Obama is targeting an American for assassination, going one step further than Bush-Cheney, it’s astounding that the Administration feels the need to go on the defensive at all.
However, that’s where we are, which was proven recently in a Democratic poll showing that since George W. Bush left office, the security gap is back.
On national security, the poll found that 50 percent of likely voters prefer Republicans, while only 33 percent prefer Democrats. It’s the return of a “security gap” that all but vanished in 2008 because of Obama’s popularity and Bush’s mishandling of Iraq, Bennett said.
It’s Sect. Clinton’s job to defend Pres. Obama’s policies, but it’s easy to see how she got into trouble on Iraq, as her language remains moored in 20th century shaping. It’s one reason why Obama likely picked her for State, along with her world grasp of issues. But beyond her voice on women’s issues, Clinton’s language doesn’t do much for placing women beyond the 20th century macho military machine mumbo jumbo. The impression Clinton leaves behind using this “all bets are off” bravado is that women don’t own their own language, or can’t use it if they do, or they’d be considered soft.
After all, even though Pres. Obama is more like Bush-Cheney on security issues, at home and abroad, he’s got a security gap when compared to Republicans. We expect men to defend their positions using bellicose language. However, Pres. Obama is progressing forward by re-invigorating nuclear zero and putting it as a priority.
Perception is reality in politics, so get out there and rattle those sabers, Sect. Clinton, rattle them.
Even the smartest woman we have on the international scene won’t shake the 20th century language of war. As if talking about nuclear zero, plus the beefing up of conventional weaponry and other technology, isn’t enough to show toughness, without resorting to the macho, cringe-worthy swagger of “all bets are off.”
Clinton’s language close to a defensive response to Liz Cheney speaking at the SRLC:
Cheney told the roughly 3,500 conservative activists and donors gathered for the conference that there are three prongs to the president’s foreign policy: “apologize for America, abandon our allies and appease our enemies.” “The Obama administration is putting us on the path to decline,” added Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Both women, though on opposite sides and of widely different stature, seeing who can one man up the men or at least perpetuate their talking points more effectively.
Segue to Sarah, who responded to Obama questioning her nu-cular, as Mrs. Palin pronounces it, acumen, saying “all that vast nuclear nucular expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president.”
Palin went on to say that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything regarding North Korea or Iran.
“In foreign policy now we’ve got the makings of the Obama doctrine, which is coddling enemies and alienating allies.” – Sarah Palin
To Sarah and Liz, diplomacy is “coddling,” while expecting Israel to stop settlements that are causing trouble on peace “alienating allies.” Mrs. Palin even going so far as to say settlements in Israel were just “a zoning issue.”
We have come to expect women on the right to channel Margaret Thatcher, because they don’t have a prayer with their base if their language isn’t strapped on.
There is, however, no longer any excuse for Sect. Clinton, as she has no base to keep, her political years now behind her. But still we get the unimaginative machismo of “all bets are off.” It’s discouraging as much as it is lazy.
As for our current challenges with Pres. Karzai, as I predicted, Liz Cheney made brothers of Mr. Karzai and Prime Minister Netanyahu:
Afghan President Karzai, whose support we need if we are going to succeed in Afghanistan, is being treated to an especially dangerous and juvenile display from this White House. They dress him down publicly almost daily and refuse to even say that he is an ally. There is a saying in the Arab world: “It is more dangerous to be America’s friend than to be her enemy.” In the age of Obama, that is proving true.
So, we’ve got Sect. Clinton talking about “all bets are off,” while Obama invokes nuclear zero and a progressive 21st century nuclear policy. Liz Cheney accusing Obama of “appeasement.” While Sarah Palin criticizes Pres. Obama’s reaching out as “coddling.”
Pres. Obama gets to sound progressive and forward thinking, while the women remain stuck in 20th century war rumbling.
Pres. Obama talking softly as Sect. Clinton wields the big stick may be a good mix and useful for the Administration, but Clinton’s willing acquiescence perpetuates the stereotype of a supposedly serious national security spokesperson that can only be represented through swaggering male lingo.
If Hillary, Liz and Sarah are any representation, and they’re the leading women on the scene right now, even understanding that Hillary Rodham Clinton is out of politics for good. What we’re headed for in the future is a woman acting like a man as president. But women can’t simply mimic men, talk like them, manufacture machismo in order to effect change on national security and diplomacy, and hope to win the presidency and make the first female president matter by leading differently than her male counterpart might.
So, if we get a Liz or Sarah, what’s the big deal about having the first female president some day? That goes double because the left has no anti-Sarah/Liz. At this rate, the way these three talk on national security, I’d say it would be a wash.
Unless you think that looks are all that matter.
Are these women saying things publicly that they don’t believe privately? Peace
Did HRC scratch her crotch while she said it followed by spitting Tobacco juice from her chaw?
But it IS nice to see someone respond to the Warsow.
Yeah its the old “I have to be tough like one of the guys” things. I don’t know if this sort of thinking will change anytime soon.
Clinton’s speech does not strike me as “cringe-worthy.” To the contrary.
GREAT avatar!!!
Thank you secular.
What a bizarre slant for a post. Sect. Clinton gives a lucid and candid response to questions, showing that she’s both an intelligent and informed individual, and what you take away from it is that she used the term, “all bets are off.” She used the term as a statement of fact, not to rattle sabers . . . and then you compare her to the talking point duet on the right? Come on!
We’re all agreed then that all of these women are warmongers. Consensus is always a good thing. Peace
We’re all agreed that imhopless is a tool. Consensus is ALWAYS a good thing.
Speaking as a man’s man, I like to think that men first learned the secret to “talk like men” by listening intently to their mothers while children. We’re really no different from women, just a cruder-sounding and uncouth version of humanity, that’s all.
I’d offer that to effect a positive change over time, mothers are going to have to collectively re-assess how they raise their sons, and choose to govern them from a position of both strength and enlightenment, and further, show no tolerance toward the early signs of d!ck-swinging machismo and sexism when it first rears its ugly head in grade school.
That’s how my own mother, widowed before the age of 30 by the Vietnam War, raised her three young sons as a single parent, and I’d like to think we all turned out well for her efforts. It’s about empowering and respecting the inherent matriarch within oneself, and conducting oneself with grace and dignity in the face of life’s challenges. Is it any wonder why the two most profoundly influential persons in President Abraham Lincoln’s life were not other men, but rather, his mother Nancy Hanks, and after her death when Lincoln was nine, his beloved stepmother Sarah Bush?
But then, what do I know? I’m a man, and what can you expect from men like me? Here, pull my finger …
Circumcision. If you’re looking for the root cause of violence in the world you need look no further than the circumcised male. Take Israel for example. Peace
heh-heh… Lucid assessment, DfHA.
It is also about women adopting the philosophy and courage to not reflexibly all talk like they’re trying to prove something.
Clinton certainly has nothing to prove, so her example is important, but she, like the leading women on the right, use men’s language from the 20th century to make the point.
Are we going to have to elect our own version of Mrs. Thatcher first before we can get beyond the “all bets are off” (insert secularh’s imagery here), and a female president who takes us beyond where Pres. Obama is beginning to go?
I don’t know maybe I have 20th century ears but it didn’t strike me like it did Taylor. It sounded like a figure of speech to me. In fact I think I use that figure of speech and I never think of myself as a macho sounding woman.I think I have used it in a variety of contexts,none of them aggressive or warlike.To me it means; if you break an agreement then don’t expect me to live up to any conditions I also agreed to.
Hillary looks very tired to me and not particulary happy.
I will say this again:
The MYTH of RepubliKLAN party strength on national security, national strength and terrorism EXPLODED on the very plane that hit the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001. As soon as the plane hit the trade center the Republiklan party looked weak on terrorism, national security and national defense.
PS Taylor, I sent you 2 messages on facebook about Governor McDonnell and John Dean.
I too think Taylor is making too much of Hillary’s off-hand expression here. There’s nothing particularly 20th century belligerent about it. Anyway, Hillary the tomboy has always played the boy’s way with the boys. McCain said of her, “she’s one of the guys!” and she’s always been painted a hawk, too, in international affairs.
But I think you make a good point concerning the weak talk from Obama that Clinton and Gates have to make up for
Which “weak talk” from Obama are you speaking of? Peace
I wouldn’t call it speaking like a man.
She was asked if I remember correctly, if the U.S. was attacked by a biological or chemical weapon what would be the response? First she said our most pressing challenges come from terrorism, and non-state actors. Next she explained in detail that if we could absolutely verify if it came from a state, sanctioned by the government and its officials that “all bets would be off”.
Honest? Yes. But I’d like to know what her alternative answer should have been…
Obviously I have no idea if there was an underlying (consciously or otherwise) intention to “say it like a man” with Clinton’s use of the phrase. I do have some ideas, and experiences, that bring me to think that a woman can say the exact same words as a man, and be interpreted to mean something other than what she said or meant. The classic example (at least for me) is a woman saying something as simple as “I disagree,” and being accused of being inappropriately aggressive, when a man could say “I disagree,” and be seen as appropriately assertive.
I don’t know that Hillary Clinton could have achieved what she has without using “manly” language. I don’t like that. I wish she wouldn’t and wish there was no need to do it. But, when much of society still sees a man as being “tough” but a woman doing or saying the same thing as being “fiesty” at best, and frequently as “bitchy,” well, the sexist word games are still in play.