On August 30, Hillary Clinton made her first appearance for many years on CBS’s David Letterman Show. Clearly, this sets in motion an escalating flurry of Hillary media appearances as her presidential campaign moves into high gear. The interview she conducted reminded me of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s recent YouTube flick; heavy on the jokes and playing around, awfully light on substance. However, there was one candid admission Hillary Clinton offered, and I don’t think she was kidding. When asked by Letterman if husband Bill Clinton could serve as her vice-president if she were to be elected to the White House, Hillary replied, “Believe me, he looked into that.”
I’m sure he did.
Hillary also told Letterman that if the Constitution as amended didn’t forbid a president from seeking a third term, “He might be running.” Then again, just as Hillary was Bill’s co-president, I think a second Clinton presidency will just switch those roles around. As the old French saying goes, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”
The harshest verdict on the ethical lapses of Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton did not appear in any news organ of the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy” of Hillary’s imagination. Rather, it was the well-known liberal columnist from The New York Times, Bob Herbert, who wrote the most damning characterization of this political couple. On February 26, 2001 the following appeared in Herbert’s column in The New York Times:
“You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they’ve betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.”
Strong language and it has an essential context. Weeks before, the First Lady’s husband, Bill Clinton, granted last minute presidential pardons to a rogue’s gallery of questionable characters. They included such “luminaries” as Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice who had been indicted on multiple charges of tax evasion and trading with the enemy. Not the resume of one you would think warrants a complete and full presidential pardon. However, in the Clinton White House it helped that the fugitive’s ex-wife was a financial contributor to the planned Clinton presidential library, and fundraiser for the Democratic Party. Also not to be ignored was that Rich had an attorney who happened to have been a former White House Counsel during the Clinton administration.
The Marc Rich affair was only one of a host of sleazy last-minute pardons. Hillary Clinton, recently elected a senator from New York, denied knowledge regarding the planning of these pardons, however, few were prepared to believe her. Bob Herbert certainly didn’t.
In February 2001 even the liberal media saw the Clintons for who they were, Hillary as well as Bill. Yet, as the fall approaches in 2007, this has all been conveniently forgotten. Terminally unethical and vulgar Hillary and her chief political advisor and campaign strategist may be. However, that has not prevented her from becoming the front-runner in the 2008 presidential race. For that reason, it is all the more incumbent on those who comprehend what a second Clinton presidency would inflict upon America to remind the American people of why Bob Herbert characterized both Hillary Clinton and her husband as being “terminally unethical and vulgar.”
HILLARY CLINTON’S NAKED AMBITION NOW EXPOSED ON YouTube!
One of the greatest hoaxes being perpetrated on the American people is the claim that Hillary Clinton is qualified to be the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. Wife of draft dodger commander-in-chief Bill Clinton, she, however, knows how to fake the qualifications from her previous White House “tour of duty.”
When first elected to the Senate from New York, Hillary knew this was all about creating a platform for launching an eventual presidential campaign. She also realized that the conservatives would portray her as weak on national security. So, Hillary Clinton saw to it that she was appointed to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sitting on that committee supposedly makes her “qualified” to be commander-in-chief. However, when we get beyond slapping another committee name on Hillary’s stationary, what does it really mean? Judge Hillary by her actual work and voting record as a senator.
The most important vote Hillary made, one that should have shown off her vaunted strategic and military expertise, involved her decision to support the granting of authorization for George W. Bush to launch his disastrous war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton would prefer for you to forget that vote. Instead, she will pose as the Prussian Field Marshal of the 2008 campaign, tough enough to launch wars all over the place (e.g. Iran). Don’t be fooled by listening to her rhetoric; look at her record, than judge accordingly.
The Naked Truth About Hillary Clinton Now On YouTube!
All over Hillaryland, even on the official Hillary Clinton “exploratory” website, American voters are urged to vote for her because that way we will all “make history.”
So now history, the impartial arbitrator of past events, has been asked to take sides, and endorse Hillary’s presidential quest. But if you don’t feel good about Hillary Clinton’s positions on the Iraq war, national security, health care and the economy, you can still vote for her so we can “make history.”
What does that phrase, “making history,” actually mean? Is it some profound insight into the most pivotal issues confronting the American people? I rather doubt it. Just look upon it as another of those inane phrases concocted by Hillaryland, to go with their menu of campaign song contests and Sopranos-like videos.
Making History? Seems to me another Clinton presidency is all about repeating history-meaning that if you thought Monicagate and shrinking the U.S. military in the face of the Al-Qaeda threat was great for America, then Hillary Clinton really is your girl.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who originally voted to authorize President Bush’s neocon-designed war in Iraq, has now repositioned herself as the anti-war candidate. “If President Bush doesn’t end the war, I will!” boasts Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign appearances.
Should we believe her? First, consider the following. Prior to her vote in support of attacking Iraq, Hillary Clinton was provided with the National Intelligence Estimate, which raised doubts about Bush’s reasons for going to war. One slight problem; Hillary the hard-working Senator simply had no time to read the NIE, so naturally she would not have had those same doubts.
Would you trust such a politician to end the Iraq war? If so, there is one New York Senator eagerly awaiting your vote.
Hillary Clinton is now trying to assert some “leadership” on Iraq by pronouncing policy in advance of the report to Congress in September on the so-called “surge.” What is her bright idea? Dump the Maliki government, says Senator Clinton.
So let’s analyse this. The U.S. invades Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, supported by Hillary Rodham Clinton, only to discover that WMD never existed, as already reported by the UN weapons inspectors. So we change the rationale for the war, and now claim it was for “Iraqi Democracy.” A puppet government is “elected,” but proves to be not the best of puppets, being more pro-Iranian than pro-American. So get rid of it, says Hillary.
Now, comparisons with the Vietnam war of late have been in fashion, so let me add one of my own. Prior to the massive deployment of U.S. troops, the war was not going so well. In the early 1960’s, the CIA reported to the president that the South Vietnamese would fight the war more effectively if the leader of that nation, Diem, was overthrown. The CIA got its way, and orchestrated a coup that murdered Diem. It was after his assassination that things got much worse with the war in Vietnam.
Hillary Clinton’s call for getting rid of the American-installed leader of Iraq sounds like her own version of the Diem coup of 1963. Though Hillary claims to be the candidate for change, she seems more like that famous phrase of Yogi Berra’s, “It’s deja vu all over again.”
Republicans for Hillary ?? “Surely you jest,” say some of you. Well, think again, and look up some political history.
In 1972, Richard Nixon massacred George McGovern in the presidential election, even claiming many Democratic votes. Nixon’s campaign set up an organization, “Democrats For Nixon,” which ran some spicy anti-McGovern attack ads. In the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton will probably steal a page out of that now infamous campaign, and set up her own version of “Republicans For Hillary.”
A “Republicans for Hillary” strategy actually makes a lot of sense to the gurus of Hillaryland. George W. Bush is so massively unpopular, even the leading Republican contenders for the G.O.P. presidential nomination are running away from him like a bat out of hell. In recent debates involving these Republican contenders, they go out of their way to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan, first elected to the presidency nearly three decades ago. For the first time in memory, the Republicans are lagging behind the Democrats in fundraising, with Hillary Clinton and neophyte Barack Obama leaving them in the dust. This reflects how dispirited the Republican base is regarding their prospects in 2008.
Then there are those big moguls who normally fund Republican presidential campaigns. Several are already supporting Hillary Clinton and raising money for her, including past funders of George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns. Rupert Murdoch, scion of the supposedly conservative Fox network, raised money for Hillary Clinton’s senate reelection campaign. In a sign of things to come, the hit Fox TV program “24″ will be featuring their first female president in their next season, coinciding with the launch of the primary elections. Coincidence?
With the dissaray in Republican circles growing, a split is emerging between the pragmatists and the true believers. In the first camp are those who know that they will lose in November of 2008, but hope that with a middle of the road candidate, they can at least protect their congressional and senate seats and avoid a complete debacle. Those are the Republicans who are gravitating towards Rudy Giuliani and, to a lesser extent, Mitt Romney.
There remains a powerful conservative base in the G.O.P. that rejects Rudy Giuliani as too socially liberal, and will fight mightily for the G.O.P. to nominate a true conservative. These are the Republicans that are awaiting Fred Thompson’s ascent into the campaign arena.
If the conservative core in the Republican Party gets its way, Hillary Clinton will almost certainly launch an entity such as “Republicans for Hillary.” The Clinton political machine will aggressively recruit centrist Republicans, especially women. If the Republican platform in 2008 stresses that anti-abortion policies are what is most important on the national agenda, Hillary will joyfully go after Republican women who are either pro-choice or not militantly anti-abortion, telling them that she’s “their girl.”
For those of us who know how destructive to America a second Clinton presidency will be, it is distressing to observe how even the Republicans are cooperating in the unfolding Hillaryland scheme. It may very well be the American constitutional republic that faces abortion in 2008.
Do the Republicans have other options besides a Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson? They do. Read the last chapter in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” entitled “America’s Clintonian Nightmare,” to find out my recommendation for the one best qualified to serve as the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief. Here’s a hint; everybody knows him, and he is not presently running.
So far, Hillary Clinton has managed her campaign for returning the Clinton dynasty to the White House with ruthless discipline and efficiency. Thus far, everything goes according to plan. Even her opponents, both Democratic and Republican, are cooperating, unwittingly, with her presidential campaign. Between Obama’s audacity of boastful inexperience and Karl Rove’s virtual endorsement, it seems nothing can go wrong with the Clinton political machine’s machinations. Yet, there remains one weak link in the chain, an Achilles heel, that could derail the whole enterprise. It’s called William Jefferson Clinton.
If Bill Clinton were to have another Monica-like moment of indescretion, it would revive memories of the scandal and sleaze prone first Clinton presidency. No one understands that danger more than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
While Bill Clinton’s organic capacity for allowing his lust for instant gratification to overwhelm his instinct for political survival is legendary, so is Hillary Clinton’s ability to plan for the worst, and overcome it. No doubt, Hillary and her merry band are carefully watching Bill, to keep him out of trouble, and ensuring he is doing his bit in helping Hillary’s campaign. However, should Bill elude the Hillary police and meet up with some young intern where chemistry erupts, be certain that Hillary has a plan “B.”
It may just be that the vast right-wing conspiracy file will soon be dusted off and revived, as Hillaryland prepares for all possible contingencies.
Much of Hillary Clinton’s success in enhancing her front-runner status in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination has occured beneath the radar screen. In effect, she is building an infrastructure not only designed to obtain her Party’s nomination, but also to beat the Republicans in the general election in November 2008.
During this quiet phase of the campaign, Hillary has actually been very busy building her political support infrastructure. An important aspect of this is recruiting able staff for her political machine, and collecting key Democratic and Labor endorsements. Now that we are soon approaching a time when Hillary Clinton’s “exploratory” presidential campaign becomes official, there will be an emphasis on recruiting rank and file volunteers across the nation.
A large proportion of these volunteers will be women. This reflects a strategic decision made within the Clinton camp, reflecting their analysis of what they see as the most critical demographic underlying the 2008 presidential election: the female voter. A majority of American voters, in both the primary elections and general election, will be women, to a degree unprecedented in American political history. Among all the actors in the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican and Democratic, none is as well positioned to pick up the lion’s share of the female vote than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Women volunteers, mobilized to stage campaign events targeting female voters, and to approach other women peer-to-peer, will be the mass infantry of the Clintons on the emerging political battlefield.
A Clintonian war machine is being drafted, indoctrinated and deployed in furtherance of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s agenda. The primaries will be their first engagement, offering an opportunity to hone Hillary’s women campaign volunteers to lock in deadly embrace with the G.O.P. next fall.
