After viewing a tape of Hillary Clinton’s speech to a black church in Selma, Alabama, there is no doubt that the Illinois native and New York Senator tried to fake a “Southern” accent in a ploy to connect to her audience.
Like her husband, Hillary Clinton is about as phony as they come. She will do almost anything to get elected President of the United States, so faking an accent is no big deal. How does this register with voters, especially black voters who understand the tactics being used by not only Hillary, but also Obama, who likewise employed a fake Southern accent in Selma? Hopefully, it will not go over well with the majority of the voters being courted. Voters should want candidates that do not tailor their accents, their messages or their images based on their surroundings.
There is nothing genuine about Hillary. Let’s look at her “moderate” image that her team is trying to craft. Going back to her college days, Hillary has a long history of advocating very liberal policies, staring with her thesis paper in college that lauded the controversial work of a socialist. For this campaign, Hillary is trying to remake herself as a moderate, but it does not correspond to the record.
On a personal level, despite the numerous extra-marital activities of her husband, Hillary is still married to the former President. Is this an example of real love or convenient politics? Ask Americans and most will tell you that Hillary has stayed married only to help her political career.
So, Hillary has a fake marriage, a fake accent and a fake platform. Does America really want such a phony, all consumed politician like Hillary Clinton in the White House? To me, she comes off as a Democratic version of Richard Nixon, smart but unstable, vindictive and obsessed. These are not qualities that we need in the nuclear age, while the country is engaged in a global war on terrorism.
Of course this will be up to the voters, but so far, most Democrats seem willing to overlook Hillary’s shortcomings because of their strong desire to recapture the White House.However, if they nominate Hillary, the Democrats will turn their quest for the White House into the impossible dream.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 8:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and Noon till 2 p.m. weekdays on several Louisiana radio stations. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
so true except please dont compare Nixon to Hiltery. Nixon, besides his flaws have "real" accomplishments and intelligence compared to this lousy 2 faced, phony bitch.
Written by vkoseck
on 4/22/2007
Hillary is also nasty and mean-spirited.
Written by Jeff T
on 3/12/2007
Hey Jeff,
I was'nt sure what to think about you when I read your somewhat
scathing article about Newt's (ahem)"indescretions" but you are right to tell it like it is and not come off as a "mouthpiece for the right wing Bushies" as the left so often (actually too often must be sad to be so wrong and know it!)likes to call Us conservative types. BUT, Hillary! You are so right about her being a faux prezcan! anyway she does'nt scare me Jeff. You know what does? THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE! I have yet to meet anyone who wants to vote for her (I live in Wa. state) on either side but I'm sure there are some people in this country who will vote for her, not based on issues but rather Celebrity, and because Oprah or some idiot from the view told them to. It's a scary thought but I think it to be true. Keep up the good work Jeff. Devon Haverly Tacoma wa. devnlou@aol.com
Written by Devon Haverly
on 3/9/2007
Here are two responses I have to Jeff Crouère's utterly vacuous article:
1. I beg to differ with your reaction to Hillary and Obama. Why Obama is allowed to feign authenticity with slight reproach while Hillary is excoriated for following a literary convention begs real questions about your knowledge of the politics of difference and representational politics. And no, Hillary was not feigning a "Southern" accent throughout her speech; she was speaking with the accent one would use when reading the written dialect of Uncle Tom's Cabin or a literary work in which a rural Southener or someone with a rural Southern accent would speak. I recall being forced by my English teacher when I was in grammar school to read passages from key works of the American canon with such an accent. In fact, I was graded on it. And I imagine Hillary was taught the same, as my education was a very traditional education probably not taught in schools today. To even think she was feigning a stereotyped accent is just ridiculous. And besides, she limited it to the moment of recitation; it did not inflect her entire speech. This is why I find both the conservative and the liberal reaction to her speech so offensive. Have both ends of the political spectrum become more myopic on the politics of difference? Are both ends of the political spectrum relying on the reified logic of racial essentialism when they formulate their positions on the politics and production of difference? I am disappointed and disgusted.
And by the way, the oral tradition of African-American literature and of slave narratives requires one to assume the accent in order to convey the text in all its thickness and texture. No, this is not a form of pandering; it is an expression of respect for the tradition of African-American literature before the age of its written transcription. Whether or not one chooses to acknowledge the use of written language to invalidate or validate certain signifying traditions and practices is something worth considering. And why is it inappropriate for someone to allow their body and their voice to channel the words of an exalted figure who may reside in the flesh of us all? Think about it, Jeff, unless, of course, you feel too seperate from the movement to know that you are in fact a product of its unfinished project.
2. I also feel there are other assumptions inflecting this discussion that seriously need to be interrogated: Is there an essence to race? Are identities essentialized? And do we want to reverse the antifoundationalist identity politics of 1990s academics in the name of a retardataire identitarianism that was jettisoned precisely because the latter attempts to locate an axis of oppression into a realm of nature that is viewed as outside of the bounds of culture? Are we abandoning the academic work performed in the 1990s to lift identity from the constraining supports that allow societies to treat identities as essentially different? And moreover, are some identifications foreclosed as a result of certain criteria that are produced by societies in order to regulate and control its subjects? If you are white, is it impossible to empathize and relate to those who refer to themselves as black? And is blackness universal, or is it a radically contingent phenomenon, something we in the academy call arbitrary, cultural and discursive? I just feel a lot of the rhetoric here is a bit conservative when it comes to identity politics, and I find it very disappointing. I hope I explained my position. And I wish Jeff Crouère would read a few texts before writing sophomoric articles on topics about which he clearly knows nothing. In fact, he needs to get an education. I love my degree from University of California Berkeley.
Written by pointecoupeedemocrat
on 3/7/2007
To describe Hillary Clinton as a "Democratic version of Richard Nixon" overlooks Nixon's accomplishments which far exceeded that of any of his successors including Bill Clinton. Nixon created by executive order the Environmental Protection Agency and signed into law The Clean Air Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Consumer Protection Act, Title IX which guaranteed equal rights for women in high school and college sports programs, annual cost-of-living increases (COLAs) for Social Security recipients, initiated the opening to Communist China, negotiated the Arms Control Treaty with the Soviet Union and successfully promulgated Revenue Sharing for Cities, States, Counties (Removed by Reagan and never replaced by any president since including Hillary Clinton's husband.) Nixon welfare proposal included assistance not only to the unemployed but also the working poor. His welfare plan passed the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 1972 and probably would've become law if not for Watergate. It was far more humane than the Welfare Reform bill signed by Clinton in 1996, which forced poor women to leave their children, something Nixon opposed, and work at low-paying jobs below the poverty level.
Written by George N. Spitz
on 3/7/2007
You crack me up! As usual, if you crazy rightwingers perform a simple fact-check you'll see how wrong you are. The audio clip you speak of is completely removed from its context, which would have shown that Hillary wasn't adopting this accent or grammar or language as her own at all.
Rather, she was actually quoting the hymn lyrics of someone else -- while clearly and very openly imitating (not very well, it turns out) the cadences she thought the lyrics would traditionally have been delivered in.
You really have nothing left, do you?
I mean come on..you are going to attack Hillary for supposedly speaking southern ...is that it???....
Look, Hillary may be corny and/or tone deaf, but fake this wasn't.
I have no problem with unabashed partisanism, just don't ever try to pawn yourself as someone who treats both sides fairly.
Written by MA
on 3/6/2007
I applaud Ms. Clinton's attempt to connect with the voters, her ability to remain connected to her husband, and her ability to get your attention. It is a start!
Written by benb
on 3/6/2007
MS. Hillary is just trying too hard since she can't really be herself. I wonder why, it would be really ugly and I hate to see all those babies crying as she will be trying that next. Just give it up. No we owe it to her since her husband cheated on her this is her revenge. Go home and try to find yourself. What I see is just horrible. Stephen King will be happy to cast you in his next film. Perhaps titled WITCH From Hell.
Written by Lynda
on 3/6/2007
How apropos for you to condemn Hillary Clinton for 'standing by her man' instead of the usual 'cut and run' practiced so easily these days. If that had been her decision, you would have had just as much venom to spew about that because that's not the real issue, is it? No, the real issue is that you will say anything to make sure another jerk like Bush gets elected!!! Well, we showed you last November what the real deal is and we'll show you again in November, 2008. Any thinking citizen of this great nation knows the truth of the ilk now in the White House and we've had more than enough!
Written by Karen
on 3/6/2007
you suck
Written by Brock
on 3/6/2007
Yes, Jeff,
Like a good Radical Right Wing Republican that you are...you belong to the Anne Coulter group! You know what...nothing fake about you.....you are true blue to your "blind affiliation to the sinking Republican party". Just when you think they can't go any lower, they do.....
You know what's wrong with Senator Hillary Clinton??? She is the smartest, shrewdest female in the United States. Moreover, she can play the game better than any Republican because she learned first hand all about Republicans' dirty dealing. She's on a roll....................
And there's nothing that your whining can do.......As a matter of fact, the dirtier you get, the more votes she will accrue....So bring 'em on.
Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove have met their match.
She's a filthy rich Democrat, with her husband the Democrats' beloved Bill Clinton as her greatest asset,,,,and the both of them unlike the "greedy Republicans" do care for their down trodden fellow man.
So eat your heart out, Jeff, you will have bleeding ulcers by the time the election for President finishes......
It just makes me so happy to see you "so bent out of shape"!
Written by Audrey George
on 3/6/2007
Great job, Jeff.
Written by Sharon
on 3/6/2007
I totally agree! If they want to keep church and state seperated (no praying in school, not saying "under God", etc.) then they do not need to speak in churches to get votes. Don't try to patronize us from the South by "tryin'" to talk like us. You come across as fake and pathetic. I am forwarding your web page to others, and hope that many read this and think twice about the whole Democratic party.
Thank you,
Jennifer
Written by Jennifer Miller
on 3/6/2007
SEEMS YOU ARE A LITTLE INTIMIDATED AND OBSESSED WITH THIS FUTURE PRESIDENT. NOT TO FRET. SHE CAN CERTAINLY HANDLY MORE THAN YOU CAN DELIVER. ZZZzz
Written by jeepo
on 3/6/2007
Fair. Now, thats calling the kettle. The Clintons play dirty. It is nice that she is well educated in your terms- Intelligent. But the smartest person can still be a social idiot. Wake up America ! The liberals are giving away our country through all their pandering just to get various votes from what aliens and the uneducated. Let alone their disrepect to our Military.This is a country whom many people dream of living in. We need in many ways to help our own. That means people who have come here through the legal process and people who have worked hard. I mean hard not just textbook. Getting down and dirty. Pushing papers Oh my ,a paper cut kind of job. So, Hillary thanks but no thanks go back to the rock you came from since leading a pack of hypocritical Labodomized Liberals seems to make you the Leader of the Free World. I think not. Maybe a forth rock from the sun would suit you better.
Written by Lynda
on 3/6/2007
Seems the majority see your are totally wrong. Maybe a little jealousy over Hillarys intellect?
After viewing a tape of Hillary Clinton’s speech to a black church in 
To
Buzz Right Back on this article