Sponsored Links

[Victoria Silverw...]

I found this quote on a completely unrelated thread:

Hillary Clinton . . . is a known socialist . . .

I dispute this. I would say that there is no major American politician who could accurately be called a socialist (let alone a Socialist.) This perception comes about, I think, from the position that any political position which is not firmly conservative is socialist. It's a good scare word, now that "liberal" is not quite so poisonous a term as it was during the Reagan years. Frankly, I think it's as inaccurate as calling any political position which is not firmly liberal "fascist."

Don't take my word for it. Let's ask William F. Buckley, one of the great intellects of modern American conservatism, what he thinks.

Link

Well, she is sort of ... left-wing, no?

Well, not entirely. In her early political life she was a cheerleader for Barry Goldwater. If she had married George Wallace, and if he had then gone to the White House, is there any reason to suppose that she would not have espoused the views expected of Mrs. George Wallace?

There are those who point to her preposterous health plan as evidence of her ideological naivete, her capacity to fondle statist models for dealing with social issues.

Well, yes, she is certainly a liberal. But there aren't any grounds for believing she is a hard-core socialist.

There are only grounds for believing that she is comfortable occupying positions that maximize her political popularity. She does this with a broad smile, a lovely face, and a piquant sense of destiny. Barack Obama has to pry out a position more central, and then center in on it. Either that, or find for the Democratic party some other, engaging view of what to do for our fatherland/motherland.

(I deliberately choose a firmly conservative commentator who is no fan of Senator Clinton.)

Opportunist, yes. Socialist, no.

For the sake of fairness, let me offer an opinion from someone who thinks that Clinton really is a socialist.

Link

Since the day she became a United States Senator, she has been running for president. Toward that end, she understands better than any, that she has to successfully deceive enough Americans into believing she is a “centrist” -- instead of the committed socialist she is – in order to obtain the most powerful office in the world.

The fact that this article ends with an utterly paranoid nightmare about President Hillary Clinton speaks for itself, I think.

Washington, DC – September 11, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton received the following joint communiqué from the leadership of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez: “Because your policies so easily allowed us to reconstitute our powers and infiltrate your pathetically porous borders, we have hidden three nuclear weapons in three major American cities. If you try to find them, we will set them off. If you do not give in to our demand, we will set them off. Our demand? That you surrender your nation to us or suffer the loss of millions of Americans. There will be no negotiation.”

Washington, DC – September 12, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton surrendered the United States of America to terrorists.

(Never mind the rather bizarre linking of Chavez with Islamist fanatics; this whole scenario is absurd.)

To Be Debated:

Is Senator Clinton a socialist? Why or why not? And what definition of "socialist" are you using, anyway?