Well, shoot, doll, why didn’t you just say? That clears everything up.
Here’s ABC’s post, with an excerpt of Hillary Clinton’s comments in an interview with Diane Sawyer that airs tonight (video excerpt below):
Ahead of the release of her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” which comes out on Tuesday and includes a chapter on Benghazi, Sawyer asked Clinton if there was anything she “personally” could have done to make the U.S. mission there safer.
“What I did was give very direct instructions” to “the people who have the expertise and experience in security,” Clinton told Sawyer, referring to her actions prior to the attack that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. “That is personal.”
“I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints, to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be,” she added. “That’s why we hire people who have that expertise.”
But the obvious question in response to this non-responsive talking point, delivered by Hillary in place of an answer, is: “Why didn’t your very direct instructions do any good?”
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
You don’t have to be equipped to look at blueprints to have some idea why things went so terribly wrong in a situation you were in charge of. Forming a responsible leader’s opinion on that is “why we hire a secretary of state.”
Michele Hickford, at Allen B. West, links this deceptively affirmative-sounding non-answer from Hillary to the enthusiasm for Clinton shown by a physician’s assistant at her doctor’s office this morning. Hickford is depressed.
This woman already had heroine worship. In her mind, she had already cast her vote for a Clinton presidency. Nothing was going to change her excited anticipation to vote for the first woman president. …
There will be an avalanche of media coverage of Hillary Clinton in every single woman’s magazine and every soft news program about her hair, her outfits, her role as grandmother and long-suffering wife, her historical importance, her fashion evolution, her ability to succeed in a man’s world…and on and on.
But as tough as nails as she’s supposed to be, hard questions won’t be asked, because that would be sexist. It’s personal.
It’s a terrible, dangerous double-standard.
It is indeed. Of course, a similar double standard was applied to Obama in 2008 and 2012, and in fact is still applied today on a daily basis.
But I think our imaginations fall short of the capacity we need to understand how different things will probably look to us by this time in 2016. The careless luxury of having double standards for our political leaders will be a sick joke in the minds of a lot more people by then. We’ve embarked on a time when the center cannot hold, and it’s precisely the arrangements that make a Hillary Clinton possible that will collapse.
She isn’t tough, that’s the thing. If she were tough, she would have done the right things to satisfy the people on Benghazi, rather than just trying to find the words that will shut up her critics. By November of 2016, the people will be looking instinctively and viscerally for a leader who has shown actual strength, because reality will have overtaken the illusion so carefully tended by the MSM.
As regards Hillary, it won’t be gratifying; it will be painful and sad to watch. I predict that by mid-2016, if she’s in the race, Hillary will look outdated, pathetic, past her shelf life, and like she’s floundering, because she isn’t competent to deal with really big problems. And the world is going to be rolling really big problems at us like we’re the last two tottering pins in a bowling alley.
