What exactly did she nail? Anyone can give a good speech. My 9 year old niece can give a good speech. But was there any truth contained in that speech. Obviously NOT. We are dealing with Hillary Clinton. See Video Below.
Hardball host Chris Matthews received the first take on MSNBC after Hillary Clinton’s Thursday afternoon foreign policy speech and the faithful subject oozed that “it was a masterpiece” that was “very well constructed” and “exquisitely written.”
Minutes later, Matthews received an assist from former McCain/Palin adviser and political analyst Nicolle Wallace as she stated that Clinton “just nailed the performance aspect of this speech” and (falsely) attacked Donald Trump’s vanquished Republican primary opponents for not doing what was necessary “to beat him which was she mocked him.”
Breaking news anchor Brian Williams turned first to Matthews and the cartoonish host went straight to the chase in stating his infatuation with the speech:
Well, it was a masterpiece. It was a great speech. Very well constructed. Patriotic as hell. Those flags were not there by accident. This was a speech which was nationalistic, just like Trump is with some more sophistication of course. I did think it was a speech that could have been given before the Vietnam War. It was much more in the pre-Vietnam tradition of the Democratic Party. A speech Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson might have given — very strong on defense, no apologies for overreaching and U.S. foreign policy.
Matthews went onto suggest that Clinton was not courting Sanders supporters but instead “neoconservative”writers that should concern Trump “because, as I said, it was patriotic, nationalistic, talked about our country and its values.”
Before tossing back to Williams, Matthews concluded that he foresees “tremendous virgin territory there for a Democratic candidate to reach over, pull over some of that more hawkish people in the center of the country politically, like I mentioned the neocon writers” in what he viewed as a “very powerful speech, exquisitely written.”
As for Wallace, the establishment GOP strategist (even though the term “establishment” seems to now not mean anything) did her part to applaud Clinton’s speech and smear Trump’s primary opponents for supposedly not standing up to him:
I think she just nailed the performance aspect of this speech. I think it’s interesting, and if I were a Democrat and a Sanders voter, I might find it perplexing that she was so much more at ease taking on Trump than she is making anywhere close as coherent of a case against Sanders….I mean, she did what the 16 Republicans who lost to Trump needed to do to beat him which was she mocked him and if Jeb Bush wanted to be the nominee or Marco Rubio want to be the nominee and Marco tried it but he didn’t do it with a case behind him. I mean, she actually laid out a case against Trump.
Wallace completely ignored the fact that both Bush and Rubio were joined by other opponents like Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry in firmly denouncing Trump, but were either chastised by the media for attacking Trump personally or ignored completely (in favor of Trump).
Online Source: NewsBusters