Last night was the 2^nd part of the Bill O’Reilly interview with Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor.

Jennifer Rubin entered a post for the CommentaryMagazine.com blog site Contentions talking about this continuation of the interview. (You can see her post here) Looking back at yesterday’s post I see that there are several comments added.

Jennifer writes:

“Tonight was a mixed performance. Her weakest moment: explaining how vacating Iraq would not create the perception of U.S. weakness among Al Qaeda and Iran. She essentially fell back on the “Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan” argument. That said, her view that there is “no military solution” in Iraq will be an easier sell than John McCain’s “no alternative but victory.””

We have all heard this point of view from many Democrats in office, so this is no surprise. There was some spirited debate between Hillary and Bill over the water-boarding issue and, as Jennifer writes:

“…craftily reminded him that none of the remaining candidates “think torture works.” Still, she seemed ill-equipped to combat the views of high-level officials that in three instances waterboarding did in fact “work.””

I don’t know anyone that thinks we should be torturing captives, regardless of the atrocities they have carried out or had carried out on their behalf. The real question is whether or not water-boarding is torture. The important fact that gets pushed aside in this debate is that (1) water-boarding meets the Geneva Convention rules for interrogation, (2) water-boarding does not physically endanger anyone, (3) water-boarding is strictly and tightly controlled by the President and CIA, and (4) water-boarding is quite an effective means of gathering information that can be used to save lives. In the Army I was trained on the water-boarding techniques but the U.S. Military is no longer allowed to use this interrogation method.

There was a little sparring over the illegal immigration issue and Jennifer writes:

“Her best moments came on illegal immigration, when she sounded both tough on enforcement (she says she favors border controls and employer sanctions) but reasonable.”

I think the more telling part of the immigration debate is that she will do nothing to stop the “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce current law. Hillary had every excuse in the book for the reason they do that and said “…we don’t need deputized sheriffs going door-to-door, knocking on doors and making people prove they are allowed to be here and then locking people up.” This was her way of using the current Democratic talking-points to decry tough enforcement of current law. If people think about this they can see that we don’t have enough enforcement people to “go door-to-door” in the first place and that we law enforcement does follow the U.S. Constitution that contains the 4^th Amendment that states ”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Her statement is just an attempt at misleading rhetoric to scare people into believing enforcement of the immigration laws is just plain wrong.

I think Senator Clinton was smart in going into the “lions den” for this interview. She is seriously lacking in substance, but she showed a unique charisma that many in her target audience will be swayed with. I have heard people describe Hillary as mean, vindictive and spiteful that hates America. I would argue that she is driven (you can never count the Clintons out), which can come across as mean and vindictive at times, and that she is doing what she sees as “the best interest of our country”. I believe that she is just misguided in her policies and philosophy.

Watch the videos for yourself and think of what she says, not how she says it.

Part 3

<