Sunday, February 24, 2008

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton: UPDATE 1


Robert Novak is calling this one.

Here's what he says, more or less.

"The former sense of inevitability regarding Clinton becoming the first female president was based on her dominance over weak fields in both parties. McCain was the one Republican who worried Democratic strategists, and he appeared dead three months ago. Mitt Romney, the then-likely Republican nominee, was viewed in Democratic circles as unelectable.

Obama's improbable candidacy always worried Clinton insiders, which explains the whispering campaign that the Illinois neophyte would prove vulnerable to a Republican onslaught as the presidential nominee. That private assault continues to this day, with Obama described as a latter-day George McGovern whose career record of radical positions will prove easy prey for GOP attack dogs.

But Clinton could not go before Democratic primary voters and assail Obama for being too far to the left. Instead, she insinuated moral turpitude by asserting that Obama had not been "vetted." When that backfired, she claimed plagiarism by Obama in lifting a paragraph from a speech by his friend and supporter Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts governor -- an approach that yielded mainly derisive laughter among politicians.

I listened in on last Wednesday's news media conference calls by Clinton campaign managers Mark Penn and Harold Ickes in the wake of her Wisconsin drubbing. Incredibly, they were hawking the same plagiarism charge that had just proved ineffective. Clinton herself raised the bogus issue again at Thursday night's debate in Austin and was rewarded with boos from the Democratic audience.

Clinton's burden is not only Obama's charisma but also McCain's resurrection. Some of the same Democrats who short months ago were heralding her as the "perfect" candidate now call her a sure loser against McCain, saying she would do the party a favor by just leaving.

Clinton's tipping point may have come when it was announced that her $5 million loan to her campaign came from a fund she shares with Bill Clinton. That puts into play for the general election business deals by the former president that transformed him from an indigent to a multimillionaire and might excite interest in their income tax returns, which the Clintons refuse to release. The prospect impels many Democratic insiders to pray for the clear Obama victories on March 4 that they hope will make it unnecessary for anybody to beg Hillary Clinton to end her failed campaign."

The Washington Post informs us this day that the kinder gentler facade of the Billary v. 2.0 has dropped off. The gloves are off, and there'll be no more using Bill as the designated attack dog for the knee in the groin politics that the Clintons are famous for. This time, the attacks will be direct and uncompromising.

The challenge has been made: "Put up yer dukes, Barack! Yeah, that's right, your mother wears army boots!"

It seems, in a stage managed event of contrived outrage, She Herself went ballistic on national TV, more or less accusing Barack Obama of being in league with Bush and Karl Rove. It wasn't a pretty sight. Did you ever notice how the water swirls harder when it's headed for the drain?

B-b-but Sparky! you ask, what in heaven was this all about?

Seems that some mailers went out in Ohio, soon to be the scene of an important primary event, which stated that there were differences in the proposals for universal health care that the candidates have proposed.

And there's the matter of that pesky NAFTA treaty which was pushed through under the aegis of the other half of the Billary and managed to set labor in this country back to the days of the Pullman Strike and the Molly maguires.

Now she says she was against it all along.

Oh really? Here's what David Sirota is saying on Huffington Post.

"This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.
Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

What a total insult to America's intelligence."

Just like she was against the freakin' war in Iraq, right?

We've had enough of this shameless virago and her odious consort.

It's well to remember the words of Cromwell to the Rump Parliament: In the name of God, go. You have sat here too long for the good that you have done. Go, I say, and let us have done with you.


At 8:39 PM, Blogger James said...

If Hillary goes out attacking it may only serve to turn some voters away from Barack. A gracious exit by her would better serve the Democratic party.

At 9:48 PM, Blogger James said...

When I said the above, I had no idea Hillary would unleash the pit-bull in the form of Geraldine A. Ferraro. Unbelievable. Is this the true color of the Clintons? Keep shining the light Robert.

At 6:18 AM, Blogger Robert Luedeman, attorney at law said...

Thanks for your kind words, James.

Isn't it interesting that the Clinton campaign keeps trotting out these provocateurs who say outrageous and offensive things, create a buzz, the candidate says "Nope. Not me. It's regrettable that _____ said such a thing. G'bye." There seems to be a pattern here. YThe only Obama person who did this was removed so fast it made heads spin.

You gotta wonder why Clinton's handlers thought that this was the moment to unleash Geraldine Ferraro, when there's no primary for six more weeks. Perhaps in advance of a possible Florida-Michigan do-over?


Post a Comment

<< Home