“Okay, Madam Secretary, it’s time for a little tutorial. Have a take. Don’t suck. If you don’t know whether you have a take or not, you don’t. If you don’t know whether you suck or not, you do.”
Posted on 08/18/2009 8:31:59 AM PDT by jazusamo
Our nation's top diplomat needs to learn that her job is to enhance the U.S. image abroad -- not muddy up America's reputation.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton resurrected the 2000 presidential election controversy. On Wednesday, during an official visit, she mentioned the race in the context of Nigeria's turbulent electoral history. "You know, we had some problems in some of our presidential elections," she said. "As you may remember, in 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state. So we have our problems too."
Nigerian politicians must have been stunned and delighted when Mrs. Clinton granted moral equivalence between their corrupt political system and American democracy. The 2000 vote in the United States was like a model from a civics textbook compared to Nigeria's last election.
~snip~
Saying "the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state" will be understood by Nigerians to mean that some form of American tribalism or dynastic politics decided the race. Coming from a secretary of state, this comment was culturally illiterate at best and at worst implicated then-Gov. Jeb Bush in vote fraud.
Those who profit most from this ill-advised comment are the politicians responsible for Nigeria's scandalous election system. Rather than holding up the United States as a country to be emulated, Mrs. Clinton gave corrupt Nigerian politicians an easy out, an excuse to shrug off complaints and say, "The United States has its problems, too." This is generally the problem with the recent mania to apologize for, downgrade and otherwise officially humble the United States in international settings. It won't make anyone like us better; it simply will remove any basis for criticism...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Of course, she flushed her integrity years ago.
My Dad worked in Nigeria once, he used to get pulled over and asked for bribe money (because he was an American). He always took a big book, went to the Police station and read until they realized they weren’t getting their bribe then they let him go on his way. If the US is this corrupt, it’s news to me, but obviously not to Hillary.
She is just whining and pissed at the realization that she allowed herself to be short leashed by Barry......
Hope she’s enjoying the “Heart of Darkness” tour!
Yeah, Hillary - and in the most recent one, your palanquin got dropped on the curb on the way to the White House.
Better put some ice on that.
But does she feel fat?
I can’t believe she said that.
Actually she told the truth but not the whole truth: the whole truth is that the clear majority of the corruption happens when liberals are in power.
Nor can I, I’m certainly no fan of hers but I didn’t think she shares the same views of our country as Zer0.
The only thing Hillary knows about foreign affairs are the ones that Bill has. In fact, there is strong evidence that the only management experience she has was gained at the governors office in Little Rock helping Betsy Wright cover up domestic affairs.
She doesn’t seem to handle the stress of travel well. Of course when a person is tired their real feeling often slip out, and they will try and correct the mistake by claiming that it wasn’t what they meant to say.
NEWS MEDIA RECOUNT SHOWS BUSH WON FLORDIA IN 2000
. . .The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes, with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes.
The media companies involved were:
* Associated Press
* The New York Times
* The Wall Street Journal
* CNN
* St. Petersburg Times
* The Palm Beach Post
* The Washington Post
* Tribune Company
o Los Angeles Times
o Chicago Tribune
o Orlando Sentinel
o The Baltimore Sun
METHODOLOGY
Although the NORC study was not primarily intended as a determination of which candidate “really won”, analysis of the results, given the hand counting of machine-uncountable ballots due to various types of voter error, indicated that they would lead to differing results, reported in the newspapers which funded the recount, such as The Miami Herald (The Miami Herald Report: Democracy Held Hostage) or the Washington Post.[2]
RESULTS
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
The Florida Supreme Court had ordered “counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation.” The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount via an unsigned “per curiam” opinion in Bush v. Gore, with three Justices (Rehnquist joined by Scalia and Thomas) concurring in a separate opinion. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) each wrote their own opinion with various combinations of the other three joining.[3]
The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including “overvotes” — ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), “If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won.”[4]. . .
She has a slave do that for her.
Didn’t Hilary have problems with her President husband?
You're right - she would have called martial law first, then shoved through the slavery legislation. She's shaking her head over Obama getting it backwards.
Good post, there’s no question George Bush won the election and she knows it.
It is withing liberal/progressive/democrat world.
“Okay, Madam Secretary, it’s time for a little tutorial. Have a take. Don’t suck. If you don’t know whether you have a take or not, you don’t. If you don’t know whether you suck or not, you do.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.