Archive for May, 2007
May 14th, 2007
It all goes back to the 2000 election, when then carpet-bagger Hillary Clinton first won election as New York’s senator. It was no accident that she chose the State of New York as the linchpin for initiating her long-planned presidential bid. As with husband and White House intern-lover Bill Clinton, Hillary’s alleged love affair with New York was a marriage of political convenience.
New York was central to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions not only because it would be relatively easy for her to be elected senator. The state, and especially New York City, are the vortex for the nation’s and world’s media conglomerates. Hillary Clinton being the leading national politician from New York asssured her of the media’s obsessive interest. It is also a powerful base of political and financial muscle, which Hillary is now orchestrating in support of her presidential campaign. Today, the leading Democratic politicians in New York, including the state’s governor, pledged their support and endorsement of Hillary’s coronation. This is another example of the meticulous and manipulative planning of the Clintonian political machine. Her dominance of New York’s Democratic politics will buy her many delegates to the nominating convention. As for the general election, her New York base will grant her overwhelming media visibility and brand recognition, likely swamping her Republican challenger. New York is indeed a potent factor in Hillary’s unfolding campaign strategy. None of her rivals in the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama and John Edwards, have any arrows in their quiver that can compensate for the New York advantage now being fully exploited by the Clintons.
May 12th, 2007
During the recent Democratic presidential candidates debate in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with rival Barack Obama’s scalp with their respective answers to a question as to how they would respond to another terrorist attack on American soil, which might occur on their watch. While Obama squirmed with a very unsure and tentative response, Hillary answered with a decisive affirmation that certain retaliation awaited the perpetrators.
Sounds presidential, but putting aside the theatrical preparation, how can we best judge how a President Hillary Clinton would respond to a future 9/11? With Hillary, I believe past is prologue. Her mentor and co-president, Bill Clinton, has already schooled his wife in how to respond to Al-Qaeda. After the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa, commander-in-chief Bill fired some Monica missiles in an ineffectual response that seemed more about diverting the American people from a domestic scandal involing a certain White House intern. Then, there was the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 American sailors and nearly sank a one billion dollar warship. Tough, smart Bill Clinton had a decisive response to that attack, for sure. He did…nothing. Not a peep, other than to call the suicide bombers “cowards.” Big, brave Bill showed how a Clinton responds to Al-Qaeda attacks on Americans. Obviously, Osama bin Laden was intimidated by this particular Clinton, as he demonstrated on September 11, 2001.
If Hillary Clinton really does become the second Clintonian commander-in-chief, I guess we can all feel secure that Osama bin Laden will be sweating with paranoia, knowing she will be every bit as decisive in punishing his future acts of terror on American soil as was William Jefferson Clinton. Maybe she and Barack Obama have more in common than one would think.
May 8th, 2007
Radio talk show commentator Michael Savage is often insighful and always interesting. However, I have to disagree with him in his claim last night that the defeat of the female candidate for President of France in the recent election, Ségolène Royal, means that Hillary Clinton is also fated for decline. In my estimation, the defeat of Royal has the opposite message; Hillary Clinton is actually more formidable.
Recent history offers many examples demonstrating that strong female candidates who project strength are electable. One has only to look at Margaret Thatcher and, much more recently, Angela Merkel, Germany’s first female chancellor. Unlike these strong women, Ms. Royal came across as a weak and naive candidate, facing a srong law-and-order opponent, Nicholas Sarkozy. In reality, Hillary Clinton has nothing in common with Ms. Royal, other than gender, but much in common with Sarkozy.
Like Sarkozy, Hillary Clinton has spent years preparing for her presidential run, amassing paper credentials that allow her to claim relevant “tough guy” experience. For example, Mr. Sarkozy saw to it that he had served as France’s Interior Minister, which gave him authority over the police. Hillary Clinton, once elected to the Senate, saw to it that she was appointed to the powerful Armed Services Committee. There are other examples in which both of these politicians constructed strategic resumes designed for a presidential campaign.
One other observation of note. When Ms.Royal visited the United States, she sought a meeting with America’s most powerful woman politician. No dice.There was not a snowball’s chance in hell that Hillary Clinton would meet with the presidential candidate of France’s socialist party. That level of political calculation and expediency is perhaps what most distinguishes Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from Ségolène Royal . After all, for someone like Hillary, tout le monde c’est politique.
May 7th, 2007
Nicholas Kristof, a columnist with The New York Times, had a piece today warning of the threat to American democracy and egalitarianism if Hillary Clinton were elected president. He uttered the warning despite his caveat that if it weren’t for the family connection with Bill Clinton, he othwise thinks Hillary would be the cat’s pajamas as president. He repeats the warning that is a central argument in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude.”
My case on the issue of hereditary rule is that Hillary Clinton being elected and serving 2 terms would mean for 7 consecutive presidential terms, or 28 uninterupted years, two families will have dominated the White House. That, in a nation of 300 million! This is not democracy, but aristocracy, the very antithesis of the principles that led the nation’s founding fathers to launch the American Revolution. Mr. Kristof, in his column, repeats my argument.
Where I differ with Nicholas Kristof is that I, unlike him, believe Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a horrible president, even without the familiy connection to a previous president. However, it is encouraging that some in the mainstream media are at least troubled with the notion that America should be ruled by a permanent, hereditary aristocracy.
May 6th, 2007
When a Clinton seeks the presidency, it becomes a family affair. Accordingly, now that daughter Chelsea is a grown, professional woman in her own right, we can expect her to play a visible role in her mother’s presidential campaign. Perhaps, like mom and dad, Chelsea may be sowing the seeds of her own, eventual White House coronation.
How will Hillary Clinton make use of Chelsea in the campaign? I believe there are two possible avenues that would be productive, from the standpoint of Senator Clinton. In the first place, she can be a surrogate for Hillary, in venues where stressing that her mom is a mom would reap advantage. Middle roaders, unsure of Hillary, but angry at the Republicans, may take a leap of faith from the assurances of Chelsea that mother Hillary manifests great family values.
The other avenue involves an important demographic for challenger Barack Obama; young, female Democrats, especially college students. A visible campus swing by Chelsea Clinton in key primary states may divert some of these young women, currently leaning towards Obama, while maintaining Hillary Clinton’s dominance among middle age and older women.
In the weeks and months ahead, we can expect the Clinton war machine to sharpen its pencils, make its plans, and then put Chelsea to work in the family business of politics.
May 4th, 2007
Never has a politician been so devious and expedient on the vital issue of war and peace as has Senator Hillary Clinton with her toturous meanderings on the Iraq War. This supposedly brilliant human being, of whom her followers worship as destined by divine right for the role of president and commander-in-chief, originally voted in favor of authorizing George W. Bush to wage an unprovoked war on Iraq for strictly political and selfish reasons. Only when public sentiment turned against the war did Hillary Clinton distance herself from the Bush war policy, without, however, conceding that her original vote was an egregious error. Obviously, her parting company with Bush on the war was also motivated by her perception of political self-interest. For the same reason, she will not concede that she made a mistake with her original vote, claiming it was President Bush that made the mistake, not her. A typical Clintonian rationale!
Now Hillary Clinton has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, withdrawing the original grant of war authorization for Bush to wage war on Iraq. The logical problem with this tactic is how does Hillary maintain her credibility with such a Senate resolution, when she still refuses to concede that her original vote was the grand mother of all mistakes? But that is messing things up with logic, a factor that is antithetical to the calculations of the Clintons.
In my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” I chronicle Senator Clinton’s somersaults on the Iraq war in a chapter entitled “Between Iraq and a Hard Place.” While Hillary Clinton will now position herself as the presidential candidate that will end the war, to believe that, you must also believe that Satan will stamp out hell in favor of heaven. Regretably, there are many Hillary loyalists that will perform precisely that sort of convulated gymnastics to justify replacing the disastrous Bush presidency with one that may be even worse.
May 2nd, 2007
It is reported that two new books on her royal highness, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are due for publication in June. One is by reporters from The New York Times, the other is the product of Carl Bernstein, of Watergate expose fame. No doubt there will be a lot of hype about these two books. So, I will add some hype on my own book, which is entitled “Hillary Clinton Nude:Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise.” It presents a non-partisan case against a second Clinton presidency in America, but it pulls no punches. Uncritical devotees of Hillary Clinton will not like what I have written.
A number of reviews for “Hillary Clinton Nude” are posted on Amazon.com, or you can simple go to my website, www.hillary-clinton-nude.com for more information. If you are seeking the “bare naked” truth about Hillary, I think you will find much interesting reading in “Hillary Clinton Nude.”
May 1st, 2007
The former CIA Director, George Tenet, who served under both Bill Clinton and George W.Bush, has been getting a lot of media hype over his book. For payment of a royalty advance of reportedly $4 million, Tenet has been good enough to tell us all that he knew the pre-war “intelligence” about Iraq’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction” was a sham, used by the Bush administration to justify a war they desired for their own sweet rationale. Golly, with dedicated public servants like George Tenet, holding their tongues still while the nation they claim to serve falls down the path of disaster, only to speak up after they have left their public position and stand to gain a multi-million dollar pay-off, no wonder so many Americans have lost faith and trust in their leaders.
Now, we have Hillary Clinton telling us if she only knew the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs was contrived, she would never have voted to allow Bush to get the nation into this calamitous war. But wait a moment, Hillary has also been telling us that she is superior to every other candidate running for president due to her relevant experience, especially working at the side of husband and 42nd president Bill Clinton. As a co-president with Bill Clinton, no doubt Hillary knew as much about Iraqi WMDs as George Tenet. If that is the case, then why did she still vote for the war? If she did not acquire that information about Iraq while allegedly a key insider in the Clinton administration, then how good is her “executive” experience? It will be a cold day in hell before the Clinton camp answers that one.
Next Posts
