“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.”
-Maureen Dowd, columnist
The New York Times
Bill Clinton, one of the sleaziest politicians to ever inhabit the White House, has successfully re-invented himself as the “better than Bush” former president and future first male First Lady. This is all part of the Clinton political machine’s campaign of inevitability-it is inevitable, they tell us, that Hillary Clinton will be elected America’s 44th president, and Bill Clinton will be returning to the White House as her special “ambassador.” In his refurbished role, Bill Clinton is now aggressively speaking to the national media, playing his part in greasing Hillary’s road to the presidency with celebrity power.
In Bill Clinton’s national television appearances, the media only meekly raises the issue of dynasty. For those Americans who forget their history, the American Revolution was all about throwing off dynastic hereditary rule, and replacing it with a system of political succession based on meritocracy.
When the “D” word is raised, Bill Clinton, well briefed by his handlers, turns reality on its head. He claims that Hillary’s front-runner status is based purely on merit, and that the accident of her being the wife of a former president should not be a barrier to selecting the “most qualified” candidate for the presidency. This surreal juxtapositioning of logic is vintage Clintonian semantics. However, one journalist did get it right. In her Sunday column, New York Times writer Maureen Dowd wrote that, “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” I couldn’t agree with her more.
After George W. Bush, is the best answer to America’s ills the continuity of nepotism as the principle factor in selecting the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief? For those who are uncertain, I suggest they look at another country that has also applied nepotism in determining who its ruler is. That nation is North Korea.
The Associated Press has published a timely story, headlined “Bush, Clinton, Bush … Clinton?” The story echoes the concerns raised in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” that the election of a second Clinton presidency in the USA raises serious doubts about the viability of American democracy. The AP article quotes Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer, who said, “We now have a younger generation and middle-age generation who are going to think about national politics through the Bush-Clinton prism.”
The AP writer, Nancy Benac, offered the following observations in her article:
“Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there wasn’t a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice president. Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified to run the show?”
The answer is clearly an emphatic “No!” Furthermore, as I argue in my book, the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are far from being the most qualified in the nation to serve as president. The real question then is how come this sad state of affairs has evolved to our current surreal reality? Ms. Benac points towards the answer by her reference to “branding” of these two political families. I go much further in “Hillary Clinton Nude.” In my view, celebrity politics has destroyed meritocracy as the means of political succession in the republic. Hillary Clinton’s status as front-runner in the 2008 presidential campaign is based on her skill at exploiting her celebrity status, and not from “accomplishments,” such as Hillary’s vote in favor of the disastrous invasion of Iraq.
What both my book and the AP story reveal is that America’s Two Party political system has degenerated into a Two Family system. Surely, this is not what America’s founding fathers had in mind when they conceived of the world’s first constitutional republic.
A repressive military dictatorship in Burma, one of the most odious on the planet, has been oppressing that subjugated nation for decades. Incredibly, the people of Burma are rising up against the junta, peacefully, through mass demonstrations led by Buddhist monks. This example of popular courage has won the admiration of much of the world. Many statesmen and advocates on human rights have been speaking publicly about the history that is unfolding in Burma. But what about the person who claims to be the “most qualified” to become America’s next president, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Our former co-president, Senator Hillary Clinton, has thus far been silent on recent events in Burma. Why?
No one can accuse me of being overly abundant in praising President George W. Bush, yet it must be acknowledged that he has publicly, in a speech before the United Nations, spoken on behalf of the Burmese people. In doing so, whatever his other flaws, he is taking a moral position that contrasts sharply with the deafening silence emerging from Hillaryland.
Hillary Clinton does have a reason for her silence. There is no voting constituency interested in Burma that she recognizes as important for her chances of winning the presidential race in 2008. What then is Hillaryland talking about instead of Burma? It turns out that the Clinton political machine has just unveiled another of their inane contests. The lead item on her official campaign website offers a chance for several lucky Americans to watch the next candidate’s debate with Bill Clinton, in front of a big television, bowel of chips stacked high.
If things explode in Burma and other political figures comment on the situation, perhaps Hillary’s PR experts and spin-doctors will draft some sort of press release. However, right now, while history is being made and the outcome is uncertain, instead of showing that she truly is a statesman of stature, Hillary Clinton and her campaign prefer to offer the American people more bread and circuses, along with potato chips, while Burma is on fire.
This past Sunday had Hillary Clinton making appearances on 5 major television talk shows. Absent from the Sunday political talk shows since her original presidential candidacy was launched more than six months ago, Hillaryland at last determined that the moment was right to permit the Sunday talk shows the “honor” of interviewing its candidate. When the permission was granted, the networks fell over each other in their eagerness to serve up nationally publicity for Hillary Clinton.
Unprecedented in American politics, the Clinton political machine can actually field to celebrity superstars that the media would go wild over in a heartbeat, Hillary and Bill. This American fascination with the cult of the celebrity image is without doubt the most potent political dynamic emerging in 2008 presidential race. Hillary Clinton and her political machine are cleverly exploiting this emergence of celebrity politics in America. The dark side of this phenomenon is, unfortunately largely invisible to American voters.
Besides trumping substance with the superficial and trivial, the Hillaryland celebrity express has used its power to muzzle any hint of criticism in the media. The publicists of the Clinton political machine have spread the word to the media: if they want access to their celebrity superstars, they must restrain any critical coverage of Hillary Clinton. The news website Politico recently reported that a major magazine trashed a planned story Hillary Clinton was not happy about, when it was “communicated” that this same publication could forget about Bill Clinton appearing in its cover for a planned issue, unless it canned the unflattering piece. The magazine obediently followed the dictates from Hillaryland.
The contrived character of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign could come right out of central casting. The celebrity worship of the Clintons sadly dulls the ability of the American people to reflect objectively at what is at stake in 2008.
From the dawn of the Clinton political machine’s creation in Arkansas so long ago, both Hillary and Bill have been enveloped with accusations of sleazy fundraising and financial activity. It appears that this Clinton tradition is alive and well, as demonstrated by the current scandal over Hillary presidential campaign fundraiser Norman Hsu.
Who is Norman Hsu? Until relatively recently he was a “HillRaiser,” the cute name Hillaryland bestows on leading money raisers for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. On August 27, 2007, The Wall Street Journal printed an article that suggested that the businessman Hsu might have not properly conducted his “bundling” of money for Senator Clinton’s campaign. Hillaryland responded by issuing the following statement: “Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu’s many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question.” The very next day, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu was a fugitive from justice, having failed to appear for sentencing after being convicted for fraud in 1992.
The Clinton campaign went into damage control, first indicating it would give to charity only the funds contributed directly by Hsu. Eventually, Hillaryland decided that the entire $850,000 in bundled money raised by this convicted felon was too hot to handle, and announced that these moneys would be refunded. Quite a turnaround from the original Clinton campaign response in defense of Hsu.
As relayed in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” the totality of Hillary Clinton’s political life, as with her husband, has been tied to big money and big bucks campaign contributors. The Hsu affair should serve as a wakeup call to all Americans that if they are looking for a new president who is a person of integrity, not beholden to slippery financial contributors, Hillary Clinton is not their girl
Hillary Clinton, supposedly the “most qualified” in America to assume the presidency, has been deafeningly silent on Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s first video message in about three years. Not that Hillary has held her tongue otherwise. She has been very busy with her “free lunch” contest, plugged on her official campaign website. This ties in with other inanities that she has poured out, demonstrating the superficial contempt she feels towards the American electorate. However, when one of America’s most dangerous enemies sends a message to America, the aspiring commander-in-chief is just too busy to offer us her own analysis.
On the other hand, maybe it is best that Hillary Rodham Clinton is silent. If she spoke out on bin Laden, she might sound as disconnected as the pundits who have advertised their “skillful analysis” of Osama bin Laden’s 26-minute message to the American people. Several of the overly paid late night talk show entertainers have poked fun at Osama bin Laden’s dyed beard. President Bush’s chief anti-terrorism advisor, Fran Townsend, added her own two cents of analysis of Al-Qaeda’s latest message: “Osama bin Laden is impotent.” If Hillary were to offer her opinion, I doubt that the one who mastered the YouTube Sopranos spin-off would deviate much from the standard line being offered by the American political and media establishment: “Osama bin Laden is just a joke!”
Maybe I’m not as smart as these brilliant experts are, however, I have a different take on what Osama bin Laden’s video message of September 7, 2007 means. In the wake of 9/11, there were some Islamist scholars who criticized Osama bin Laden for not offering the American people a warning and an opportunity to convert to Islam before attacking the symbols of American power. Since then, Al-Qaeda spokesmen have issued a series of warnings, and have urged President Bush to convert to Islam. Simultaneously, there are serious observers of Al-Qaeda who believe that the movement has used the intervening six years since 9/11 to acquire weapons of mass destruction, possibly including nuclear munitions. It is within that context that Osama bin Laden’s message to America must be understood.
In the video, Osama bin Laden makes clear that his message is very serious, and of the utmost importance for the American people. He essentially presents a case that holds the American people, collectively, guilty of all the “crimes” and warlike acts he alleges have been committed against the Islamic caliphate. He states that there are two ways of addressing these offenses: killing of Americans, or the American people accepting Osama bin Laden’s “invitation” to embrace Islam, and discard their democratic system.
However we may view or deride Osama bin Laden, we must accept that he is a very serious adversary, and utterly committed to his aims. The video speech, far from being the “joke” as presented by the pundits and politicians, is no idle gesture. The whole record of Osama bin Laden makes very clear that he does not indulge in idle gestures. He is, in his mind, fulfilling Islamic legal requirements that he is intending to attack, has given fair warning, and an opportunity to repent and convert to Islam. The Al-Qaeda leader knows very well that his warning will be dismissed and ignored. He doesn’t care. Rather, having fulfilled what he sees as his religious obligation, Al-Qaeda is now free to strike once again at the American homeland. Previous Al-Qaeda warnings have stated that the next attack on America will make everyone forget about 9/11.
If Hillary Clinton were truly the most gifted and exceptional leader in America, would she not be crying out like Paul Revere over the looming danger? Senator Clinton’s silence on the threat being hinted at by Osama bin Laden, contrasted with her indulgent “lunch contest” and other campaign games, is a harsh and unflattering juxtaposition. On the one hand, we have an utterly diabolical, committed and focused enemy. And in opposition, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Does anyone seriously believe that Osama bin Laden feels an ounce of fear at the possibility of Hillary Rodham Clinton assuming the presidency? When comparing Hillary’s campaign videos with Osama bin Laden’s battle warning, the disconnect this megalomaniac politician has with the greatest danger facing America is surreal to the point of absurdity.
Last September, to mark the fifth anniversary of the events of September 11, 2001 the ABC television network presented a five hour miniseries, “The Path To 9/11,” a docudrama presenting in dramatized form the series of events that culminated in 9/11. A key feature of this series was an unflattering portrayal of how two presidential administrations responded to the growing threat from Al-Qaeda. The two presidential regimes involved the current president, George W. Bush, and his predecessor, William Jefferson Clinton.
In my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” I describe the efforts made by former President Bill Clinton to pressure ABC into canceling broadcast of “The Path To 9/11,” even though he had not even seen the series. Clearly, Bill Clinton was concerned that any televised interpretation of how he dealt with Al-Qaeda as president would harm Hillary Clinton’s pending presidential campaign. Interestingly, at the time of this miniseries being broadcast, Hillaryland was beginning to circulate false rumors, suggesting Hillary Clinton loved being in the Senate so much, she was not really interested in running for president.
With the sixth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, the Los Angeles Times have published a most disturbing story. One year after “The Path To 9/11″ was broadcast, it has yet to be released on DVD. ABC has not even hinted at a DVD release date, despite the original broadcast drawing an impressive audience of 25 million viewers. The LA Times refers to the miniseries writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, who believes that, “Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.” Nowrasteh told the Times that he had heard from ABC management, “If Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
Censoring information, and preventing the American people from forming their own independent judgement on its validity, is odious in any context. When such suppression is engineered in the name of attaining political power, it amounts to nothing more than the “Path To American Dictatorship.”
