Hillary Is Not A Monster

Sure, like a monster would, Hillary tries to scare people, lots of people - but that's where the similarity ends. Monsters don't merely conjure and promote fear - they actually try to kill you. They growl, and grab and claw and devour. In movies, monsters pick their victims off one by one, subjecting each to terror and then death. Hillary is nothing at all like that. First off, she doesn't work one at a time; she works state by state. And second, she doesn't want to actually injure people, just frighten them - and not to death. Hillary Clinton is the scary music in the movie that gives you the creeps - not the beast that sinks its teeth into people's necks. So calling her a monster isn't accurate and isn't fair.

Calling her a politician is right on. Her most recent commercial flashes a montage of scary photos certain to stimulate frightening memories. There's Bin Laden, of course - that doesn't even surprise me at this point - but Pearl Harbor? For fear's sake, Hillary, you're invoking the Yellow Peril? I understand going back to the fear well so often, but going back 67 years?

Because she won't let up, I want to pick through the rubble of one of Hillary's earlier conjured tragedies: the 3AM phone call. We can now look at it from the vantage point of having somehow survived these two months without a nuclear terrorist event.

Hillary plays herself in that Bush league ad-fear-tisement, trying to show what it would look like if she actually did have the experience she claims Obama doesn't have. The commercial promised that she'd be awake, dressed, lit, made-up, and on the phone keeping our little blonde children safe, whereas Obama... well, who knows, because he -never having been First Lady- just doesn't have the experience we need. Hillary's more truthful story would have sounded like this:

Since I can't actually tell you about a time, not one, in which I was awakened and managed some child-threatening world crisis, I've stayed up late doing this little dramatization to show you what it might look like. That's your kids there in bed, cute and asleep, yet so vulnerable; you see that, don't you? And that's me on the phone making a critical decision that allows your child to remain snug and safe from an un-named horrible event that won't happen if I'm president, but probably will happen if it's anybody else.

During her time in the White House, was Hillary ever actually involved in managing some international crisis in which she boldly took the phone, presumably from the President's hands, and gave orders that saved us all from anything? Of course not. Of course not.

I've worked for a President and I've got decades of experience managing high-stakes emergency situations that might escalate to violence. Presidents don't actually make moment-to-moment decisions while briefcase-bombs dangle over children's bedrooms. Hillary's campaign could just as accurately have inserted images of her face throughout an episode of 24, since she's promoting the same kind of fear nonsense, promoting the illusion of critical risk that presidents routinely handle while the rest of us sleep. And could someone remind me of an actual transnational terrorist event in which sleeping American kids were harmed in their beds? (Just so you're ready for the Hillary/Rove/Cheney reply to my rhetorical question, it goes like this: "We can't just stand by and wait for it happen!")

There's a funny twist in Hillary's little movie: Just before she answers the fake phone in the fake White House to fake-manage the fake international event, a mother pads into the kids' room to check on them. Weird thing: Mom is fully dressed, white T-shirt under her fully buttoned blouse, even her cuffs are buttoned. If it's 3AM, why is Mom awake and dressed? In case she has to rush the kids away from a terrorist mushroom cloud, obviously. She knows to stay up all night dressed and ready, because as Hillary reminds us, it's a "dangerous world."

If Hillary scares people as a candidate, why should we assume she'll add to our peace of mind as president? And putting aside her silly 3AM horror film, can a president actually influence the safety of our kids? Yes, by reducing the reasons and incentives for adversaries to hate us, by reducing the reasons and incentives for fringe groups to do harmful things. By increasing communication and enhancing relationships around the world. By being an American leader who does not resemble the posturing, blustering Bush.

Which brings us to Hillary's recent description of what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Given that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and is not at all likely to attack Israel, she could have rejected the question. But instead, in true Cheney style, she pledged "massive retaliation," noting that "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

So when the 3AM phone call about Iran's nuclear attack comes in, she'd like frightened people to be reassured by imagining her giving the Joint Chiefs a two-word order before rolling over and going back to sleep: "Obliterate Iran."

In her defense (not that so powerful and awesome and decisive a leader needs any defense from me), Hillary did acknowledge that obliteration of Iran was "a terrible thing to say." But she said it anyway, and in so doing promises to keep the Us and Them fear-fest going.

Fear, not mere distance, separates the people of the world from each other. We are divided by our belief that people pose danger to us just because they live in cultures other than ours. We don't know the Iraqis, we imagine they are so different from us, and it is thus easier to drop 70,000 bombs on their country in twelve days. My observation here is not political, but logical: Leaders of nations retain power by dividing people. Some may see an attack as liberation, others may see it as domination - whatever one's political view, it is clear that violence thrives on our separation, on our fear. Gandhi said, "The machineries of governments stand between and hide the hearts of one people from those of another."

The last way to improve the safety of Americans is through continuing the illusion of always-imminent danger, the inaccurate vision of the world as teeming with home-made nuclear devices about to be placed under our kids' mattresses - unless we kill whomever first. Hillary is not showing readiness to enhance our image in the world, to heal the wounds of recent years, or to reduce fear in our lives. She is intentionally co-opting the same message we've heard for eight years: That They are out to get us and our safety teeters precariously on our ability and willingness to threaten and kill them first.

No, she is not a monster - she's Hillary Clinton, and she approved that message.

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

A monster she ain't. But a lot of the things she says and does are so dumb that she simply does not make the cut for president based on nothing else than failing intellectual achievement in her campaign. Enough said.

[BlueAsh]

If she is not a monster, why does she scare people so much that they have to change TV channels when her face is on TV?

Well said otherwise.

[RoseBlue]

Mr. DeBecker, your book The Gift of Fear was amazing and I have the greatest respect for your insight. However, what truly frightens me is not the tactics that politicians use to illicit fear, but the fact that they really are dangerous, scary people. Not only about the politicians, but the people who vote them in. It amazes me when McCain says that he supports another 100 years in Iraq and people still think he might be good for this country (and enough already, even if he DID mean as an occupying force, when you"re talking about the middle east, that does not mean playing checkers and accepting daisy chains from the locals). It astounds me when Clinton casts vote after vote to continue this horrid Iraq fiasco, votes against banning cluster bombs, and threatens to obliterate Iran, and people still paint her as something other than a warmonger. I see the possible future with these two, I see the support they are now receiving, and I can"t help but think that the old gift of fear might not be such a stupid thing.

[RoseBlue]

Mr. DeBecker, your book The Gift of Fear was amazing and I have the greatest respect for your insight. However, what truly frightens me is not the tactics that politicians use to illicit fear, but the fact that they really are dangerous, scary people. I"m speaking not only about the politicians, but the people who vote them in. It amazes me when McCain says that he supports another 100 years in Iraq and people still think he might be good for this country (and enough already, even if he DID mean as an occupying force, when you"re talking about the middle east, that does not mean playing checkers and accepting daisy chains from the locals). It astounds me when Clinton casts vote after vote to continue this horrid Iraq fiasco, votes against banning cluster bombs, and threatens to obliterate Iran, and people still paint her as something other than a warmonger. I see the possible future with these two, I see the support they are now receiving, and I can"t help but think that the old gift of fear might not be such a stupid thing.

[mellene]

Hillary may not be a monster but she's very divisive and it shows just what she or McCain will do when one of them gets elected in November. The public should be fed up with this kind of behavior, but the media keeps it going for the sake of big business interests who won't allow anyone who'd take their power away to get into office. Too bad for the real America.

[lvdragonlady]

Real America? When are we going to get tired of this and take our Country back from the fearmongers and big business? Is selling your soul worth this?

[JoeLib]

After reading your post, I would say "well considered and deftly written" but then I saw your name. Gavin de Becker? Well, my innner Republican thinks you must be French, which means you hate Freedom, America, and are currently looking for ways to hate Apple Pie as well. (snark) At the very least, with a name like that you are probably an elitist... but not a Muslim... as far as I know. ;-) You simply will not win the rural white working class voters.

[k6007]

Why is it always 'the rural white working class voter that scroos us'?
Do they love America, but hate Americans?

[anney]

Your definition of "monster" limits it to the fairy-tale creature that attacks individuals, or maybe serial murderers or rapists. But there's a special category of "monstrous" people who never laid hands on a single individual they had terrorized, tortured or killed -- they just ordered others to do it for them. Besides the historical characters we all know about (Hitler et al) I think GW Bush and Dick Cheney fall into that category.

I think Hillary Clinton stands on the edge of the cliff and the only reason she isn't in the company of these monsters is because she hasn't had the political power yet to carry out what she believes. But we've had warning. She voted for the AUMF, the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, she voted against a ban on cluster bombs, has threatened to "obliterate" Iran. She certainly has made her monstrous intentions clear.

=====

....there"s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.

Given Senator Clinton"s militaristic foreign policy, why are so many of her supporters apparently in denial of this unfortunate reality?

...what"s the advantage of a female president if her foreign policies are still centered on patriarchal notions of militarism and conquest? What would it mean to the women of Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and other countries who would suffer as a result of her policies?

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

[eurydice]

I beg to differ.

[protagonia]

Hillary's not a monster, she just plays one on TV.

[mspiglet]

... a monster??? ... Maybe this week she is... but what's next?

She's a morph.... re-fabricating herself with the ease of a wraith....
Hillary is without core, substance, or continuity.
It's very much represented by the schizophrenic malady.

When she compulsively fabricates every aspect of herself, then there is no "there" there to vote for.
I'd be casting a vote for an apparition.... a ghost shapeshifting in the wind.

Harry Truman she's not. She's a Neo-Con in sheeps clothing... and would be hard-on the entire country... including Repubs and Indeps and Greens and unaffills and those like me... the sole member of the "Inevitabilitist Party".

I will go to my grave without ever casting a Republican vote... but with this current Democratic battle, I will be on the correct side of history... and will "not" be counted among the many who will settle for a Neo-Con-Hillary (settling whether they are aware of it or not). I can stay home.

When the time comes to say, "I told you so", I will be able to say it with the clear conscience of having boycotted the Coronation. We don't need a Dynasty. I feel confident enough in an eventual failed Clinton presidency that I will maintain my non-hypocritical solid ground upon which to criticize. If I vote for her... I won't be able to complain.

[ABorealis]

People like me, outside spectators of the Democratic primaries, recognize the decency and goodness, the high moral ground where America used to stand in Barack Obama ... definitely not in Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, she represents all that make us cringe about America, all that make us afraid that the America that we had great affection for has not just lost its way these past 8 years ... that, in fact, the great country of America, the just and moral leader of the word is lost forever. You say she's not a monster? Who are you trying to convince? She's definitely very scary.

[captainjudy]

I've noticed that when someone writes an article defending Hillary Clinton, it sure takes a lot of words. The truth usually is quicker to state. By the way, Hillary Clinton is a monster.

[Tebbiki]

Cap'n, I think you've misread this article. Gavin De Becker was most definitely NOT defending Hillary Clinton.

[Totto]

Hillary is merely duplicitous, power hungry, racist, graceless.

[mspiglet]

..... graceless....
very appropriate word choice. Well done.

reminds me of Mark Twain... "The difference between the right word and the almost right word... is the difference between lightening and a lightening bug."

I think you nailed it.

[Pepper14]

Hillary is not only a monster but a lying one. Who could every believe anything she says?

[k6007]

Hillary is no racist.

[daddigrace]

Anyone who is willing to exploit the racism of others for their own personal gain is indeed a racist.

[SCG2]

She's not above using it, Bob Johnson, Geraldine Ferraro, "as far as I know" comment and those pesky Muslim rumors she she claims no knowledge of, yet Drudge Report claimed the turban photo came from her campaign.

[Beowoof]

There is some guy on the radio that, until recently I hadn't heard of. His name is John Bachelor who happened to be discussing(he used the words) Obama ducking the debate with Hillary. Sidney Blumenthal and a guy named Unger(I think) were there to discuss it. All three of them bagged on Obama saying that Hillary has more votes overall, the last debate shed light on the real Obama regarding Ayers and Wright, and his eroding support overall. This is the Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife effect and it's the second time that I've heard a 3 against none (futuristic fair fight). YOU LIE IN BED WITH DOGS AND YOU WAKE UP WITH CLEAR CHANNEL.

[utd]

Thank you Gavin, I don't think most of the people here understand that you literally are the guy who wrote the definitive book on fear. It's good to hear you chime in online about this. I used to work in a human intelligence related position in the service and we found your book to be of great interest professionally. A lot of why I was drawn to this election cycle as an active participant was because of the way HRC has been posturing subtle comments months in advance to make her more overt arguements, mostly being fear, or disinformation related. I know politicians lie, everyone does, but her campaign has taken things a step further on the chain. In the end though, I have to hope that the truth will always out the lie, and the American people will not keep falling for the most insidious of political games at their expense. Eight years of the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Rove / Bush was enough, but 4 more years under someone who is more artfully skilled at sowing fear and playing it off as being a strong woman would be too much. We deserve better.

[Beowoof]

Well put utd. I don't know about the book, but thanks for saving me the trouble.

[ohmercy]

No, she isn't. But you may be.

So much out of context and spun to spread hate, division, draw blood,destroy. Monsterous. You (collectively) with your lack of fairness and objectivity have driven peopleaway from Obama. You have behaved appallingly with your hate mongering. Spinning, character assassination, spreading old neocon lies, using neocon tactics, projecting your own ugliness, divisiveness, fear-mongering and malice onto someone who has worked hard her entire life, turning her into a crystalline image of your own dark, mean spirited, shriveled, terrified psyches.

What lack of character so many of you have shown in your distortions and demonization of Senator Clinton coupled with your nonobjective, willingly blind-eyed support of Obama. Your idolization of him has done him a great disservice. You have taken the humanity away from them both.
How dishonerable and shabby. It has become embarrassing to be a Progressive when this kind of behavior is seen as emblematic.

You have made this once exciting race into a disheartening ordeal. You have created more disillusion and division than Hillary Clinton ever could. You have been so self indulgent in your hatred that many who loved both candidates, would have been happy to vote for either are now not willing to vote for one or the other. Of course that was your intention but now unfortunately the greater percentage do not want to vote for Obama.
You must be so proud.
Polarizing? Go and look in the mirror.

You've become the MSM.

[utd]

Hillary should give out rabies vaccinations when you guys donate. Oh, nevermind forgot all her supporters are maxed out. Maybe she can give you the shots out the kindness of her own heart, as soon as it stops pumping the ice through her veins.

Do you even realize he never once talked about Obama? He was just giving his professional opinion about Hillary's behavior. And maybe you missed the memo, but the "progressives" of the party have had some serious issues with Clinton. We never forgave that whole going to war with no definitive proof thing, and now the I'll nuke Iran into the stone age thing. The next time you want to criticize people about being polarizing it might help your arguement to not be completely polarized yourself.

[ohmercy]

Did you not notice I said "YOU" collectively.
That means all together, not one person, many people.

It means the ObamaCons who drove out so many people who really liked Obama.

Yes, I noticed he didn't talk about Obama.
If you read through threads here just about no one does... They are too busy hating Hillary Clinton to actually discuss Obama and his policies, his ideas. There has never been a way to actually engane in discussion with this crowd. Attempting conversation is met with ugly if one mentions Clinton with anything but total venom. There is no talk of Obama, every thread, no matter howfar removed from the election, no matter what subject seems to be an opportunity for the ObamaCon faction to spread more Hillary Hate.

Issues with Clinton? have all the issues you want, I have issues with Clinton myself, I have issues with Obama too but I don't spend my time dripping venom toward him. Life is too precious to indulge in such ugliness.
Grown ups know that no one is perfect and they don't have to agree with someone 100% in order to vote for them. They don't even have to like them. They just have to weight things objectively by investigating, researching, looking at context and making a decision on what is best for the country not on who do I like more.

[ohmercy]

oops. some other comments to answer.

Polarizing?
Y'all have polarized anyone who does not completely agree with you and bow down in adoration to Obama. People do not polarize themselves, they are polarized by others who prefer to not see them as complete human beings and prefer simplistic black and white depictions.

Missed the memo?
How clever.
never forgave... that is the operative phrase, right there. But what do you not forgive? What are you so rigid about?
You know damn well that Clinton did not vote to go to war.
If you believe that why not demonize everyone else who voted FOR THE WAR. (not)
Many of them were running! I didn't see any venom directed at them.

Iran. Again, you all take things out of context and manipulate them to prove a point that is unprovable.

Rabies shots?
Thanks, now there is a point that is provable.
You people are the most rabid group of people I have ever come acrross in my entire political life and I have been around politics since Kennedy and Johnson and active since Nixon, marching, protesting and working my ass off.

So did Clinton. In fact she was the one who found the legal info that forced Nixon's resignation.

You have proven my points quite clearly.

[ohmercy]

Oh my, something else I missed.

his professional opinion? Yes, based on his non objective spin of the facts.

BTW, I gave as much as I could to Obama's campaign and don't have anything extra to give to Clinton unfortunately.
Being one of those "typical" old white ladies though not undereducated or blue collar I am quite poor. I am so sorry I wasted what little I had on Obama.

[shinybear]

That was interesting.

Time to go back to planet Earth now.

[ethancorso]

You'll notice that the article is teeming with verifiable facts, while your post is just a series of opinions that you provide no evidence to support.

[ohmercy]

verifiable facts presented in a way to perpetuate the bias of the author, . Just because something is a verifiable fact doesn't mean it is being seen or presented in the manner in which it was intended.

a series of opinions with no evidence.

I am not writing anything factual so I don't really need evidence, I am writing about emotions, feelings, observations, all subjective I admit. That is the point. The author has written very subjectively using facts to bolster what is just his opinion, his take on those facts, his perception isn't the only one. He is being just as subjective as I am but I know it and don't pretend to be anything other than subjective in this case.

Still, if you want evidence my evidence is in every thread on Huffington Post for the last year and even longer.
I think that is evidence enough.

[martinchill]

*chuckle*

[UsofA]

Ever notice how the indefensible turn into frothing apoplectics when confronted with the truth?

[BubbaC33]

YOu are so correct. These Obama supporters do tend to go a bit overboard when anyone says something unkind about Obama.