Blue Crab Boulevard

Tin Ear, Dead Silence

Ed Morrisey points out a sudden lack of interest by essentially all of the major media in reporting on Hillary! Clinton's latest exercise in tin-ear political speech. That would be her excursion into socialist-speak yesterday.

This kind of rhetoric isn't new for Hillary. She has promoted collectivist economics for two decades now. Her effort to nationalize health care reflected the same kind of thinking, and this statement shows that she hasn't learned much from that debacle. Almost three years ago, she promised that she would "take things away from [Americans] for the common good," back when the economy had just started its latest expansion. That's collectivism, and it's not limited to Hillary among Democratic candidates.

However, what I find most interesting about this statement is the complete lack of coverage it received in today's newspapers. She made the statement in the early afternoon, and it was meant to be part of a major series of speeches on economic policy. Yet, none of the major newspapers covered it in their political or national sections today.

Ed rather suspects it is the newspapers having a better ear for what Hillary! said and how it would play with the American Public. Are they protecting her? Probably. Will it work? Nope:

It’s called “Shared Prosperity.”

Says it all, doesn’t it?

Flashback: “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.” — Senator Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004

Politicians are really going to have to get a lot more internet savvy. These things are forever now and can't just be swept under the rug.

UPDATE: Sisu has t-shirts!

Left Wing, Politics | Gaius May 30, 2007

By Diva, May 30, 2007 @ 7:34 am

Shared prosperity? Isn’t that already in place with our current welfare system? Some of us work so that other’s who are able-bodied and of sound mind (emphasis on able-bodied and sound mind) don’t - they just collect the benefits of our labor?

And we do have “socialized” medicine it’s called Medicare - those who can’t afford to pay or carry insurance (those on welfare) have access to a version of hillarycare. Also, the military has “socialized” medicine in place and up until recently it has been a nightmare. Thankfully, the military is allowing it’s members (at least reservist like my husband) to pick one of three health insurance options - so I can visit the doctor of my choice (and yes I do pay a higher premium). But I also have access to the best health care - I get appointments immediately, I don’t need endless referrals and if I don’t like or trust my doctor I can choose to see another. Socialized medicine takes away the freedom to control your own health care.

Having said that, even socialized medicine as it currrently exists in the USA is leaps and bounds above the garbage medical systems that exist in Europe for those who can’t afford to pay and depend on the government. It’s a failed system and if Hillary was smart she would forget about her dream of a national health care system and concentrate on reducing the cost to practice medicine (the big reason health care is so expensive) and to insure that we the people aren’t taxed to death so that we can invest our money as we see fit and that includes paying for the best health care money can provide.

Oh, and yes the media covers up and cleans up Hillary’s many faux pax - no surprise.
By John, May 30, 2007 @ 8:33 am

“We’re all in it together.”

The Soviets were all in it together. The Cubans are all in it together. The North Koreans are all in it together.

These are not models our country should pattern itself after.

When people are “all in it together,” the “it” is invariably the toilet.
By Gaius, May 30, 2007 @ 11:55 am

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Excellent point, John.

Which leads to excellent opportunities:
By daveinboca, May 30, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

The race to the bottom [left] by the three Dem candidates is difficult even for a sympathetic MSM to fathom—the basic democratic vibe in the Midwest and South is conservative, and the Three Stooges are opening the door to alternatives like Richardson [before he self-immolated on Russert] or, in the general, to moderates like Giuliani or Thompson [Fred, that is].

The creation of vast bureaucracies on top of the feckless INS and ICE and TSA and FEMA etc ad infinitum will employ a million Dem hangers-on, but their long term goal is equality of outcome==serfdom for all but a Paris-style political elite.
By John, May 31, 2007 @ 9:00 am

How do we get Sisu to make T-shirts with the toilet graphic on them?

I’m sure her opponents’ campaigns would help with the costs!