Hillary Clinton's Smug Mug & Her Bush-like Disdain For Dissenters

Click here for youtube link

After nearly seven long years of Americans being derided by a smug dictatorial President, there is a near compulsion amongst the electorate to choose a leader in 2008 who understands participatory democracy. A leader who sees the President as the representative and servant of the people. A leader who accepts dissent and dissenters - not simply as Constitutionally ordained - but as sincere patriotic investors in their nation.

Under the regime of George W. Bush, those who oppose him have been ridiculed and persecuted. Patriots are arrested and jailed when disputing his policies. The FBI has compiled a list of citizens charged with misdemeanors for non-violently opposing the war on Iraq, rendition, torture, and other unconstitutional and impeachable crimes of his administration.

For his part, Mr. Bush doesn't personally arrest or convict those who oppose him, although he does sanction their arrests and convictions. Instead, Mr. Bush disparages detractors by humiliating them verbally in public and smirking and mugging in a self-righteous juvenile way. Needless to say, after almost two full terms of Presidential mocking, Americans have reached the point of no return. They are tired of a President who disrespects them. They want a President who shows sensitivity to their concerns.

Unfortunately, much of George W. Bush's disdain for dissension can also be seen in Hillary Clinton. It's becoming increasingly ominous to witness Clinton's Bush-like intolerance toward citizens who voice their displeasure - which might explain the recent revelations of how her handlers manipulate her audience.

In particular, Clinton's "smug mugging" toward questioner Tighe Barry at Saturday's Los Angeles Presidential Forum on Global Warming, helps to forewarn potential voters of her Bush-style contempt for dissent.

Deviating from previous sound-byte debates, the Global Warming Forum offered Presidential hopefuls the chance to deliver uninterrupted dissertations on the issues. Mrs. Clinton, and participants Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, gave lengthy overviews on their environmental policies, which included transitioning to renewable energy, transportation options, America's leadership role in fostering global cooperation to deter climate change, sustaining and promoting green-related employment, and more.

Unlike Kucinich and Edwards who want an end to the war on Iraq, Clinton has voted consistently for military funding for the war, and recently voted to support a controversial resolution that could lead to a military strike on Iran. Considering war's harmful effects on the environment, and its diversion of funds from environmentally friendly projects into military coffers, Clinton has significantly less bona fides on the environment than either of her forum counterparts.

Thus, Mrs. Clinton made a legitimate target for concerned environmentalists - particularly following this inviting exchange with panelist Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board, when Ms. Nichols asked:

Let's talk about how the campaign can help to make this [reduce emissions] happen. I think we all remember what happened to health care and we want to make sure that President Hillary Clinton is able to carry out the mandate that you hope to get. So what can you do through the campaign and through your speeches and other actions in places where climate isn't yet on the agenda to give yourself what you need to combat what we know will be the multimillion dollar ad campaigns that will be coming at you and the rest of us from the coal industry and other like opponents?

Mrs. Clinton responded:

Well I'm trying to do that in the campaign now in that I rolled out this energy climate change agenda over a week ago in Iowa and New Hampshire. I speak about it everywhere that I go to try and get it into the bloodstream of the Presidential campaign. That's the first issue. We've gotta make it something that people actually turn into a voting issue. And here's where all of you come in because you have to help this become a voting issue - not just in California but in other states as well.

That's why this forum is so significant because we need lots and lots of people who come to presidential events - and not just the Democrats, but the Republicans as well - asking questions and standing up and saying this is an important issue to me personally. This will influence my vote...

Hearing this invitation from Clinton to participate in the dialogue, CODEPINK peace and environmental activist, Tighe Barry STOOD UP exactly as Mrs. Clinton asked and posed the following question:

How can you say you're for the environment when you are always voting for war?

For environmentalists, this is a legitimate question. After all, it is an oxymoron to support the environment while supporting the wars that destroy it.

Totally forgetting she'd invited the audience to STAND UP and chime in on the conversation, Mrs. Clinton became indignant when Mr. Barry took her on. Rather than engaging him in a repartee that could have answered his question, Mrs. Clinton smugly replied:

Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?

Then, in an act that wreaked of ultimate Bush smuggery, candidate Clinton grew even smugger and smirkier. At the pinnacle of smuggus maximus, Clinton stared at patriot Barry, lifted a white mug to her lips, took a smug swig, then smirked with her smug mug in a manner that would put George Bush's real mug to shame.

Oh please, voters!!! Please!!! Not another four years of this!!!

Sadly, as the video (darkly) shows, citizen Barry was hauled off by the Los Angeles Police. He was released with a 50 dollar fine for standing up for his country!

As for the Presidential Forum on Global Warming, only three of the candidates for President showed up. Since the event was non-partisan, candidates from both parties were invited. Of the three candidates who did appear - Clinton, Kucinich and Edwards - Edwards got the standing ovation, and appeared to win the crowd. He was also the only candidate who took questions from the press at the end. Kucinich was earnest and heartfelt. Hillary was a bit baffling since she mentioned on several occasions that she'd just "rolled out" her environmental plan a week ago. One would think she would have "rolled it out" long before considering the gravity of the issue.

According to respected environmentalist, Sarah Nichols, John Edwards was the more impressive of the three.

To view Edwards' highly-praised presentation at the Global Warming Forum, visit here.

Comments

[Ecomom2008]

I was at the Global Warming Forum. I was thrilled to be there, and there were many in Kucinich shirts in the crowd. I have to say, that if I thought Dennis had a real chance to win, I would support him more. He is very articulate and he inspires the audience with
the way he walks around and just talks about life with out a prepared speech.
Hillary Clinton barely blinked when she was pinked. The protestor was about 4 seats in front of me, and Hillary barely broke her stride other than to state that he was not asked to speak there.
I find Hillary to be an organized machine. She has obviously been able to find some of the best speech researchers and writers, and at the side of her husband, she learned how to deliver a speech. But what's that - Hillary was once a Republican - isn't she still? She still votes with George in funding the Iraq war and posturing towards Iran. I don't see her as strong; I see her as stubborn like George Bush -too stubborn to admit when they are wrong.
I have seen John Edwards twice now. He gives a speech from his heart. He shares his family's life with you, and he asks you to believe that he remembers his past, his parent's work ethics, and he wants to make the world a better place for his family and those who pick cotton or work the coal mines as many in the east do.
I beleive that John is right; we need to stick by him and make sure that his campaign makes it all of the way with matching funds, not funds from big business. There is nothing that I have heard from Hillary at any debate which would make me believe that she is the true front runner. This is a creation of the media. So be careful of who the media sets up as the lead lemming, because the Americans will all follow who the media casts as the winner.

[truebluegal]

It amazes me that DBC (is that you, Bill Clinton?)would avoid refuting any of the article written by Ms Milazzo. It's one thing to respond to specific comments such as Hillary's last minute plan on global warming, or to her rebuff of a legitimate question from the audience by Mr. Barry. But to comment by scoffing at Ms Milazzo's article and demeaning her personally, is just plain immature. We Progressives genuinely want a President who listens to the base. We want a President who offers real plans that respond to the needs of the people. We want a President who is not self-righteous. After all, Ms. Clinton had just said she was open to questions. Then she "disses" someone who asks a legitimate question. All she can do was to shut him up. What's wrong with asking how a person can care about the environment while voting for war and weapons consistently?

[Dap]

Dear Ms. Milazzo,

Great report/post. I just wanted to stop in to wish you and yours the Happiest of Thanksgivings. Agape.

[DBC]

MS LINDA MILAZZO . WHAT WOULD AMERICA AND THE WORLD DO WITHOUT HER ? SHE IS CLEVER , CONSCIENTIOUS, AND CONVIVAL. HER OPINIONS ARE ALWAYS IMPORTANT ,INSPIRING ,INTELLECTUAL AND INTUITIVE. SHE IS REALLY RELIABLE, REVERENTIAL AND RELEVANT.

SHE IS GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND .THE HEAVENLY HARP FOR ALL " HOLIER THAN THOS ".

YES. I'M VOTING FOR SENATOR CLINTON FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

[DBC]

WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT THE LIKES OF MS LINDA MILAZZO ? SHE IS SO RIGHT . HER OPINIONS ARE SO VERY REFRESHING , REFINED AND RELEVANT . REJOYCE O WORLD , FOR THIS GIFT OF GOD ; TO MANKIND. IMPORTANT , INFLORESCENCE AND INSPIRING IS WHAT SHE IS , AND MORE .

HOW CLEVER, HOW CANDID ,HOW CAPABLE. AMERICA'S PARAGON OF VIRTUE . THE HEAVENLY HARP OF ALL HOLIER THAN THOUS.

MY VOTE FOR ? SENATOR CLINTON.

[ramster1]

Do you think Rudy Giuliani is an example of open democracy? He tried to stay in office after his term expired because he had so convinced himself that he was indispenable after 9/11, ignoring all the disasterous mistakes he had made before. Top that for smug.

[loubrex]

I have lost a great deal of respect for the media I'll tell you why. The media is not interested in who is ahead in this race the why's or where for's what they want is a horse race. Clinton is way ahead of the field that is not exciting so they put her down, don't show her in articles as much etc. in essence jump on the negative ads that Edwards, Obama, Romney and Giuliani are putting out. So the media jumps on board and helps draw down the support even to the extent that they put out misleading polls.

I enjoy the Huffington Post I believe it is better than most but even her this article appears.

Lou Buffardi

[jimbofund]

Why can't the left wing of the Democratic Party understand that our candidate MUST appeal to the broad middle in the primary TO GET ELECTED IN THE GENERAL. FDR ran a very moderate, slightly right campaign because he understood that being painted by the bankers and imperialists in power at that time as a leftist would lose the presidency. I think his presidency turned out okay. And I agree that guy came to disrupt the meeting, not to get substantive answers.

[Janco54]

No "man" - are you freakin' kidding me?
I really don't think his question was a "mindless slogan". He asked a perfectly valid question and was hauled away and fined for asking said valid question.
WTF is wrong with this picture. Is this or is this not still the United States of America?
We've had enough of hand-picked audiences asking only the "right" questions. We've had enough smirking and avoiding giving a direct answer.
Our next POTUS needs to understand that they work for the American people. We elect them, we pay them - they at the very least owe us a little respect for our views - dissenting or otherwise.

[mlkonhuffington]

The tenner of the posts here is pretty illustrative of the aggressive, hostile and entitled smugness of H. Clinton's campaign. I very much appreciate the article.

There are serious and substantive differences between these candidates on the environment, foreign policy and economic policy. But every time Edwards tries to draw these distinctions, he's accused of slinging personal mud. He's addressing the issues.

When I look at the positions H. Clinton has taken, it no longer surprised me that Rupert Murdoch has not only contributed heavily to her campaign but has actually held a fund raiser. It also should be no surprise that she is heavily supported and pushed by Republican pundits and the Main Stream Media.

[walley]

To me Hillary is nothing more than George Bush in drag.

[IowaGirl]

I'm not surprised, but I feel your pain. Four more years--or God, eight! It's enough to jumpstart my search for dual citizenship elsewhere. (Can I still say that? Or will it be considered treasonous by some goon going through my emails as we advance toward a state of Happy Fascism?)

I will never vote for her. F the Supreme Court. I don't trust her to lead on anything that matters, or in a way that will ultimately matter.

Edwards at least believes in something besides himself.