"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington."I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.
I woke up this morning feeling that Clinton has somehow gotten over the hump, that she's going to win Pennsylvania and maybe even a surprise caucus here or there, and maybe Obama wouldn't fight back hard enough, and maybe she'd somehow end up, to the glum chagrin of all, the nominee after all. Math vs. Story: wouldn't story win?
But something changed.
Back in the bad old days when the Cheney-Bush-Rove-Rumsfeld Administration was pushing America into the most ill-advised war in our nation's history (yes, worse than Vietnam because we should have known better by now, and worse than the Civil War because at least that one had a purpose, to unite the States once and for all), and Hillary Clinton was enabling them, along for the ride, the one character trait that I identified as having the potential to bring them down was actually the most obvious: They lie.
The truth is always defensible, no matter how unpleasant that truth may be.
Lies, eventually, will out. Just this week they caught a guy in California who broke out of prison in Michigan 35 years ago. Just last August they caught a woman in East Texas who skipped out of jail in Georgia 33 years ago.
When Mister Bush lied in his State of the Union address about weapons of mass destruction, it was the hangnail that has now torn open the hand -- we all know he lies, Cheney lies, Rove lied, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying and sentenced before liar Bush semi-pardoned him, and that's why Bushie has a 19% approval rating. It just took too long for the rest of America, the "low-information voters" that Karl Rove and now Hillary Clinton choose to manipulate for power to catch on, and he got re-elected.
Has Sen. Clinton overreached again? Holding a "Cabinet-style" press conference with old military guys in uniform on either side of her, like Mussolini? Like George Bush atop a U.S. naval carrier?
Like someone with horrifically bad judgment?
If she loses the nomination to Sen. Obama, will a majority of the Democratic Party is so turned off by her disloyalty, by that which proves everything any Republican has ever said to me about the Clintonian lust for power, and how they'll toss anyone overboard for themselves, will the party decide that she doesn't even deserve the Vice Presidential slot she seems to have legitimately won a claim to this past week?
This, on top of her campaign's lie about Obama, the Canadians and NAFTA?
Is she just too dangerous?
Should she ask to become Sen. McCain's VP?
The fact is that she doesn't have some sort of "threshold" foreign policy and military experience as she somehow defines it (and actually compares poorly to McCain, who served long and though enemy incarceration):
His aides repeatedly argued that Hillary's criticism of Obama is virtually identical to McCain's arguments, and Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice made what sounded to our ears like the most elaborate case against her claim to experience yet.
As first lady, Rice argued, "you are not the person asked by the U.S. government to deliver tough messages or apply pressure. You're not the person who's responsible for the loss of life. You're not the person who has to make the sometimes recalcitrant bureaucracy deliver in the national interest."
The fact is that she and her husband are unwilling to release their tax returns or fully disclose the donors to his Presidential library with any timeliness or willingness, and with their Whitewater reputation, deserved or otherwise, plus Travelgate, stock gains and home purchase deals, there's a whole other cudgel lying in wait for the Republicans to wield -- of her own making. Per former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ):
"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.
These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain."
As Matt Yglesias writes:
We do know that "Denise Rich. Ms. Rich gave the foundation $450,000 while her fugitive ex-husband, Marc Rich, was seeking a pardon on tax-evasion and racketeering charges" and that other donors as of 2004 include various Wal-Mart-linked individuals and foundations, Haim Saban, Qatar, Kuwait, the Saudi Royal family, etc.
Time-bomb, anyone?
Is she on the verge of developing a reputation, compared to Sen. Obama's consistently cool temperament, as insane?
Here's some more facts.
Fact: The Obama Campaign broke every record known to humankind and raised $55,000,000 in February. And I'll bet her actions today just earned him another healthy round.
Fact: A corrected count in Los Angeles (so called "double-bubble" votes caused by a Florida-esque ballot flaw) just netted Barack Obama eight (8) more pledged California delegates.
Fact: For all the media-generated hoopla about a Hillary Clinton comeback this past Tuesday, she seems to have picked up a net total of only four (4) additional pledged delegates.
Olbermann has more, all over the McClinton and NAFTAgate boomerang stories.
And her she is with her BFF:
No comments:
Post a Comment