Thursday, February 07, 2008

Hillary Clinton Prepares To Be Unfair, Like Bill

For the good of the United States of America, I'm glad Time magazine columnist Joe Klein was not alive to cover Lincoln's 1860 campaign. He would have said that Lincoln was all inspiration and Stephen Douglas, the great defender of slavery, all substance, and that Lincoln really didn't mean it when he said he was against slavery.

Klein tries to peddle the same kind of nonsense when, in a column out today, he claims Sen. Barack Obama is all inspiration and Sen. Hillary Clinton "knows more," and is all substance. He ignores Hillary's polarizing qualities, and says it's inconsequential that Obama says the U.S. must try to go on with less divisiveness and partisanship in government.

Why is Time allowing such a crass man, in league with the Clinton power grab, to write a column? Has it forgotten that the press is a public trust?

As we move along in the struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination, it is becoming ever clearer that the Clintons will do anything they feel is necessary to try to restore themselves to power, probably so that they can give more Marc Rich-style pardons and cater, for a price, to the dictator of Kazazhstan and a Canadian mining magnate, as the New York Times outlined Bill Clinton did, for $31 million for his charitable foundation, in a front-page story last week.

Now, Clinton, realizing that she may come into the convention with fewer delegates than Obama, is preparing to play unfair.

One instance of this is her argument that Florida and Michigan, which broke the rules set by the
Democratic National Committee and moved their primaries up, only to be stripped of their delegates to the convention, should now get those delegates anyway.

Since Clinton was the only one to break the agreement made by all the candidates at the time, and campaign in the extra-legal Michigan and Florida primaries, thereby accumulating the only substantive vote, naturally she would inherit these delegates and gain an advantage at the convention, even if she continues to lose more of the primaries and caucuses, as she did Tuesday night in 13 separate states.

This is yet another Clinton power grab. I'm not opposed to holding out an option to Michigan and Florida for the restoration of their delegates , but only on condition they hold new primaries in which both Obama and Clinton are able to compete.

The Clintons and their supporters also are now arguing that Obama's victories in states, like Alaska and North Dakota, which have seldom voted Democratic, are not as legitimate, that the delegates are not as valid, as those from states where Clinton has won that vote Democratic all the time.

But this misses the whole point of the Obama campaign -- that, more important than having red states and blue states, it is vital that we recognize this is the United States, and that our elected leaders must appeal to and serve all the people in all the states. Obama went to Boise, Idaho, to campaign the other day, and, as a result scored a major victory in Idaho on Super Tuesday. Clinton didn't bother to go.

To Hillary and Bill Clinton, the thugs he pardoned at the end of his presidency are more important than the states of Alaska, North Dakota and Idaho. Maybe, they'd sell them out to the dictator in Kazakhstan, if he only made a contribution to Bill Clinton's "charitable foundation."

Hillary Clinton may have been on firmer ground when she lent herself $5 million to remain in the presidential race. It's a recognition that Obama has raised millions of dollars on the Internet to finance his campaign, from 650,000 small givers, while Clinton has gone the legal limit with most of her own big donors, and has comparatively less appeal to small donors. (However, later today, the Clinton campaign claimed it has raised $6.5 million in the last 24 hours from "tens of thousands" of donors, and said the staff had gone back on a paid status).

This is all fine, that like former Gov. Mitt Romney, the Clintons use part of their own fortune to try to take the country for a ride. But it would be good to know just what the origins of the $5 million (the New York Times suggests they may soon have to make a second loan) have been. Clinton-hater Dick Morris, a former Clinton aide in the White House, says he has heard the money comes from the Emir of Dubai. But there is no proof of such a wild allegation, and even Bill O'Reilly, no Clinton lover, on the Fox News Network last night chastised Morris for spreading rumors.

Obama, the brilliant former head of the Harvard Law Review, who Joe Klein characterizes as all inspiration and little substance, seems to have built a self-sustaining campaign, financed by all his small donors, bringing in $32 million just last month and another $5.8 million just in the 24 hours since Super Tuesday, while the Clinton rely just on what? We need to know, since when the Clintons came to the White House they, so far as we knew at the time, were not wealthy, and they have since become very wealthy. Maybe, it was all due to high-priced public speaking. But maybe not.

We ought to open the books on the Clintons, even before they try to steal the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Certain of the comments below, claiming the Clintons are not corrupt, are reminiscent of the defenders of Richard Nixon: They couldn't hit water, if they fell out of a boat.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Sphynx said...

Very well written and appreciated. Really makes you wonder.....

2/07/2008 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, there are plenty of anti-Clinton, pro-Obama articles out there, from Maureen Dowd at Washington Post to the Huffington Post. There was a study that Obama is mentioned positively 67% of the time while Clinton is only mentioned positively 30% of the time. So the one time someone writes a positive article, it becomes a power grab? That's preposterous.

Also, she never campaigned in Florida or in Michigan. She spoke to the voters that voted for her and she had closed-door fundraisers, which are perfectly acceptable according to the DNC. In Michigan, she left her name on the ballot, so I can see how that's unfair to want the delegates seated, but in Florida, she won fair and square because both Obama and Edwards had their names on the ballot. So how would she NATURALLY win there?

Why do you say Clinton didn't bother to go to Idaho? Maybe she didn't have enough time, or enough resources. You yourself wrote extensively on how she had to donate money to herself, bragging on how Obama managed to raise $32 million. Well, by that logic, it's natural that maybe she didn't have the money to campaign there.

Have you also considered that the demographic that Clinton tends to attract are the lower class, blue-collar worker? Maybe that's why she hasn't raised as many small donors. While $50 may not be a lot to the elite that Obama attracts, it is a lot to your lower class or middle class family.

This just speaks of ignorance. Largely, this article is based on speculation and rumors. Give some facts next time.

2/07/2008 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another unfair and fact-free attack on the Clintons by a sexist blogger who cannot write his way out of a pay toilet. But you can be sure of this: when you're sicker than you are already, Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan will help you and fellow seniors more than the one advanced by Obama.

2/07/2008 4:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home