Hillary Clinton hypocrisy watch

Josh Gerstein at the NY Sun reports that Hillary is (surprise) doing something she slammed the president for doing 3 years ago:

Senator Clinton, who is using images from ground zero in a new television ad for her presidential campaign, sharply criticized President Bush when he put pictures from the World Trade Center site in his campaign advertising.

“The President has said in the past that he would do nothing that would politicize this terrible tragedy,” Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying in the Daily News on March 6, 2004, shortly after Mr. Bush’s ads were released. “I hope that they would be more sensitive going forward.”

Mrs. Clinton’s new 30-second ad, which is running in Iowa and New Hampshire, includes a black-and-white still photograph of firefighters walking through the rubble and another of Mrs. Clinton wearing a dust mask as she met with rescue personnel.

“She stood by ground zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives, and kept standing until this administration took action,” an announcer says over the post-attack images, which are the first to appear in television advertising from a 2008 presidential candidate.

One of Mr. Bush’s ads depicted firefighters removing a flag-covered body from the rubble. Others showed an American flag waving amid the destruction.

Will we see wall to wall coverage of Hillary’s flip flop on major mainstream media outlets? Will the far left and the mediots, who were among those leading the charge against the President’s brief use of 9-11 imagery in the “controversial” ad that ran back in 2004, be as ‘offended’ over Hillary’s use of 9-11 images? Don’t bet on it. The media are still in “cover for Hillary” mode, as evidenced by their (with a couple of exceptions) lack of serious interest (scroll) in her shady campaign fundraiser alliances.

Via Flopping Aces.

DavidL says:

October 12, 2007 at 9:26 am

But the Clintons are famous for saying one thing, while doing the other. Classic example, the Clintons claim to oppose the politics of personal destruction while reveling in it.

Steve Skubinna says:

October 12, 2007 at 12:05 pm

The real issue is that Hillary is not bound by any constraints at all. She says and does whatever is tactically most useful at the time. Everything she says, everything she does, is calculated. Her only Achilles heel is her inability to conceal her contempt for the electorate.

All politicians are by nature opportunists, but the Clintons have made political opportunism a tenet of faith. There is no God but Expediency, and Hillary is His prophet.

Ryan says:

October 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Hillary will do anything it takes to gain power. She knows the MSM won’t do their jobs and will let her get away with anything.

The Anchoress » Blog Archive » Scanning a friday sphere says:

October 12, 2007 at 8:24 pm

[…] On the Clinton front: I’m sorry if it seems like I link to a lot of “Clinton” stories, but since it seems like there are two Clinton stories for any one story written about any other person, place or thing in the world, the overabundance of them means they are over-represented here, as well. In no particular order, here is a questions about Clinton investment advice, and who is giving Bill Clinton all that money to start with, which is a relevant question when one considers that a first spouse’s funders and backers could conceivably expect favors from his wife, the president. I know, I know, it’s unimaginable that such things could happen in a Clinton administration – what am I thinking – but still…it’s a pertinent question. Also, as much as I’d like to believe that Hillary Clinton means to give up powers once she ascends takes control of the WH, I must shrug and say, “who gives up power? Why should we believe this?” The press is still not asking Mrs. Clinton any questions about Norman Hsu, or his seemingly extensive and impressive catalogue of Clintonian memorabilia – although, actually, I don’t know what there is to say about it – and they are (typically incurious when it comes to Clintons) not at all offended that she is using images from 9/11, which are only offensive when Rudy or W uses them. For Hillary – A-OK!, and no we in the press don’t care if you’ve never been very clear about your actual 9/11 experience of the day. Or, you know, eavesdropping. Or, you know, the idea of a serious presidential candidate bringing Sandy Berger onto the team again, or bothering to remind anyone why that’s kind of a sleazy idea. […]