What two words best explain Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000?
Answer: Ralph Nader
What two words will explain why we end up with a Republican President again in 2009?
Answer: Hillary Clinton
Yes, I'm on that jag again. And I will stay on it until Democrats either put that gun to their heads and pull the trigger in November 2008, or wise up.
I spent the weekend bombarded with Hillary, who blitzed the major Sunday talk shows. I listened to every word she said and, more importantly, how she framed those words. Which was, as usual, an exercise akin to decoding old speeches by Alan Greenspan.
Hmmm... let's diagram that sentence. Why did she add “at levels they are there today,?” You know. I know. Everyone knows why she slipped that in.
Because, she's already triangulating for two years down the road, should she win the Presidency. I guarantee you a year after she's sworn in there will still be over 100,000 US troops in trespassing in Iraq -- and she'll be talking about the importance of maintaining a permanent presence.
When asked why she didn't keep her promise to get us out of the Iraq war she will remind us that all she promised was that we would not have the number of troops Bush had in Iraq at the time. When she uttered those words Sunday there were 165,000 US troops in Iraq. So, she will crow, she did kept that promise, and she will shamelessly make a virtue out of having 65,000 fewer troops in Iraq then, even though up to 40,000 of those troops would have been removed as purely a military necessity before she even took the oath of office. (“Yes, but I didn't replace them, did I?” she will chide reporters cheeky enough to press the issue.)
But never mind. Don't lose a wink of sleep over such a prospect, because she won't get that far. If Hillary becomes the Democrats' standard bearer in 08, Rudolf Guliani will be your next President. And you can take that to bank.
I remember back in 2000 watching Democrats flock to another narcissistic candidate, Ralph Nader. Everyone was tired of politics as usual, and Al Gore was as usual at it got, at least back then.
So Democrats and Independents in large number gravitated to Nader – a guy who, at the end of the day was little more than Ross Perot in drag. He couldn't win and he didn't. What could do though was lose the White House for Democrats, which he did.
And so here we are again. Only this time it's not a fringe candidate like Nader that endangers all things progressive. This time it's a heavyweight, a real pro, a seasoned veteran of politics as usual, Hillary Clinton. A candidate apparently able to garner enough votes in her own party to win the nomination, but so unpopular among the population as a whole that she can't possibly win a general election.
Hillary Clinton supporters, what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you stuck on stupid? Do you miss the “As the Clintons Turn” soap opera so much you are willing to lose the the White House again just for the slimmest chance of getting it back on the air? Maybe you're like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears groupies – emotional captives of the dame of American drama queens.
Hillary supporters are among the first to denounce the polarization of American politics of the Bush years. How ironic that is, since Hillary is herself one of America's most polarizing politicians. In fact, a Hillary candidacy would be far more polarizing than GW Bush's first run for the White House. After all, Bush was less known and consequently had racked up lower negatives when he first ran. For better and worse the nation knows Hillary, and polls show that 40% of likely voters know they don't like her.
Come on guys, don't do it. Don't fall for Hillary's phony-baloney, no-truth in packaging, bull. She's the Anti-Christ of the Democratic party. She's a Venus Fly Trap for liberal suckers. She's the Eva Peron of American politics. She's a shill for some of the nation's most avaricious special interests -- who have an extra special interest in your pocketbook.
Hillary is every inch as corrupt as Tom DeLay ever was. She's just been more artful in getting away with it. Do you think it's just the strangest of coincidences that every time a Clinton is running for high office they get caught running with sleaze bags and criminals?
Talk about déjà vu. Pressed by questions about a scandal-tarred fundraiser, a candidate named Clinton decides to return hundreds of thousands of dollars. The politician's operation promises to conduct criminal background checks on big fundraisers in the future. And it leaks its decisions at night after a busy day in hopes of burying the news and minimizing the damage.
In 1997, the pol, of course, was Bill Clinton and the tainted money came from folks such as John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung and Pauline Kanchanalak. A decade later, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton's turn to write refund checks to deflect attention from a bundler named Norman Hsu. Few American political families in modern times have proved as adept at raising money -- or as practiced at the art of giving it back if it comes with too much baggage...The Hsu case illustrates the challenges for Hillary Clinton in defining her past. (Full Story)
Oh, I know what the Hillary people will say... “She didn't know.” Well, as a retired journalist let me tell you how she could have known -- had she wanted to. It's called Lexis/Nexis, a comprehensive online database of all news stories (Nexis) and civil and criminal legal cases, (Lexis.) One search.. just one search of Hsu's name on that database would have told Hillary, not only all she needed to know about Hsu to shun him, but enough to turn his ass into the authorities in California where he was a fugitive and convicted of fraud.
Now, you gotta know that the well-oiled, well-financed Clinton machine has a fully-paid subscription to Lexis/Nexis. No respectable campaign would be without one, if for no other reason, to do opposition research. So, if she didn't know, it was because she didn't want to know.
1 | 2