Thread: Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin on WikiLeaks

Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:34 PM

Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin on WikiLeaks

Occasionally I am pleasantly surprised by what politicians have to say. In this case, I am not only pleasantly surprised but shocked by some Statements from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Regarding WikiLeaks. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT4LS20101130

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed Central Asian governments on Tuesday to expand democratic freedoms, saying countries which quash human rights only make themselves less competitive on the global stage.

Launching a tour amid uproar over the leak of a huge cache of classified U.S. diplomatic cables by a whistleblower website, Clinton also said she was committed to Internet freedom.

She said it was important that "governments don't overreact" to information that they do not like being aired in public.

Clinton also said she was a "big believer" in Internet freedom. "It is always better to err on the side of more expression, more information, and then try to counter it with other information," she said.

"We also have to be very careful that governments don't overreact," she said, saying both sides had to be careful when navigating the minefield of Internet freedom.

Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin on WikiLeaks

Please contrast those thoughtful unemotional statements from Hillary Clinton with the emotional paranoia from Sarah Palin as noted in Former Canadian Prime Minister Adviser Calls for Assassination of WikiLeaks Founder Assange; Assinity from Sarah Palin http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... viser.html

Sarah Palin Compares Assange to Bin Laden

Tom Flanagan joins media darling Sarah Palin who thinks Assange is like an Al Qaeda terrorist http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orist.html

Sarah Palin has demanded that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is hunted down like Osama bin Laden. In an extraordinary outburst on Facebook, the former Alaska governor attacked the White House for 'incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.'

Assange is not a "journalist," any more than the "editor" of al Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a "journalist."

'He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.

'His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. 'Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?'

Excuse me for asking but since when does exposing corruption and hypocrisy make one an al Qaeda' terrorist? Is the whole world supposed to stand up and salute our illegal wars, our torture of civilians, our holding of prisoners in Cuba with no charges being filed. Are we supposed to salute or simply look away from fraud by our banks and coverups in our Treasury department?

Sarah Palin is currently leading the Republican candidates, but of the major candidates she performs worst against President Obama. She may be the one person Obama could beat.

According to the latest ABC Poll 67% say she is not qualified to be president.

Said George Will "After the 2008 campaign she had two things she had to do. She had to go home to Alaska and study. She had to govern Alaska well. Instead she quit halfway through her first term and shows up in the audience of Dancing With The Stars and other distinctly non-presidential venues.

Such stunts will have media fools fawning all over her, but in crunch-time it won't win elections. 2008 is proof enough.

I am no Hillary Clinton fan. I believe she lost the nomination to Obama because she would not admit her mistakes in supporting the war in Iraq. Until I read the above article, I have not agreed with her on anything substantial that I can recall.

I did not vote for Obama in 2008 nor did I vote for McCain. I would not have voted for Hillary Clinton either. And I still would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

I vote for policies, not parties, and Hillary has far too much baggage.

However, I will tell you this: Her calm statements on this very emotional issue show that Hillary is far more qualified to be president of the United States than media-grubbing Palin, dancing with the stars, hoping to get attention.

Regardless of what you think about WikiLeaks, anyone who compares Assange to Bin Laden has mush for brains. Moreover, it's not this one incident I am talking about, it's a series of media gaffs a mile long that made Palin the laughingstock of the Republican party that I am talking about.

If Republicans know what is good for them, they will abandon Sarah Palin before she ruins their chances in 2010.

Independents overwhelmingly went for Obama in 2008. They overwhelmingly went for Republicans in 2010. If Republicans are dumb enough to nominate Palin in 2012, we may easily see President Obama back in the Whitehouse for another term, and that is something this country clearly cannot afford.

Chris Christie, would you please run for president? Independents would flock to you.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... in-on.html

I for one would not vote for Sarah Palin