Once a Commie, Always a Commie



Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

-- Hillary Rodham Clinton

Share this

I'm no fan of Hillary or of

I'm no fan of Hillary or of high taxes, but "commie" is a pretty strong epithet for someone who thinks a government that's spending money like there's no tomorrow (and the Democrats aren't the main culprits there) should make sure it HAS that money first.

You are citing an elided

You are citing an elided quote. Could you please print the entire statement with the elision restored?

I can't imagine any preceding, following or interceding statements that would change the connotation or the denotation of what HRC said. Nevetheless, I would like to know what the preceding, following and elided phrases were.

GC

She was addressing a group

She was addressing a group of rich donors to her campaign, people who probably approved of what she was saying. So in context I don't think it's as bad as it sounds otherwise.

"Many of you are well enough

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable

It appears that it was just a natural pause in her[Hillary]speaking -- not an 'elided' quote.

Here's the article, for

Here's the article, for context.

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters ? some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend ? to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

She was speaking to wealthy supporters. Ala Michi, I can't imagine anything in the "..." that would make the rest of her quote any less egregious.

I?m no fan of Hillary or of

I?m no fan of Hillary or of high taxes, but ?commie? is a pretty strong epithet for someone who thinks a government that?s spending money like there?s no tomorrow (and the Democrats aren?t the main culprits there) should make sure it HAS that money first.

It was the sneering and condescending tone that she used that bothered me, as if she thinks politicians should be the masters of the 'little people' - "We?re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Jonathan, Considering that

Jonathan,

Considering that she was addressing wealthy campaign donors, it's probably safe to assume that she *and* her audience saw themselves as managing the little guy for their own good. The wing of the plutocracy that has supported corporate liberalism for the last hundred years, whether or not their motives included any "idealism" or "public spirit," sure made money on the deal.

So it might be more accurate to say, "Once a member of the executive committee of the ruling class, always" etc.

Guys: You really should be

Guys:

You really should be more precise with your terminology. She is not a 'commie'; she is a marxist if you take her statement at face value. There is a difference.

"From each according to his ability, to each acording to his needs." - Karl Marx

Communism is the final stage

Communism is the final stage of Marxism -- so, how then is the terminology incorrect?

~Michi

"I?m no fan of Hillary or of

"I?m no fan of Hillary or of high taxes, but ?commie? is a pretty strong epithet for someone who thinks a government that?s spending money like there?s no tomorrow (and the Democrats aren?t the main culprits there) should make sure it HAS that money first."

But that's not what she thinks. She wants more money so more can be spent. She doesn't give half a shit about balancing the budget.