Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Primary Deceptions

By Farrell Winter  Posted by Farrell Winter (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

How did Barack Obama come in first in the Iowa vote, and Hillary Clinton suffer a third-place win?  I believe it was because Iowans are less racist than they are misogynist.  There are black people in Iowa, to be sure, and not all of them running from lynch mobs.  There are also women in Iowa, as there are everywhere else in the world.  Iowans, however, prefer their women dainty and feminine, not poor (make that rich) imitations of George W. Bush. Perhaps Clinton’s loss is a mild form of Vincent Foster’s revenge.  The Clintons may say, as they undoubtedly did years ago, that the death of President Clinton’s former aide was a tragic and unfortunate accident.  Yet how explain the fact that, for example, the purported suicide gun was not Foster’s, and that it was in his right hand (Foster was left-handed)?  How explain the bullet hole in his neck, if he fired the gun into his mouth?  Or the fact that the FBI harassed and threatened witnesses on the scene?  Or the autopsy photos disappearing?   The doctor performing the autopsy, since recently (and conveniently, though at a ripe old age) deceased, was a retired military surgeon involved in previous questionable autopsies.  I believe that Foster’s death was as much a suicide as Abby Hoffman’s or Petra Kelly’s was.  Not that I claim the Clintons were involved in either of those “suicides,” any more than I claim Cheney personally planted explosives in the World Trade Center.  In fact, I’m unaware of any evidence tying the Clintons to the deaths of Kelly and Hoffman.   As to Hillary’s reported moist-eyed campaigning in New Hampshire prior to the vote there, in the spirit of her comments on Gandhi in St. Louis:  “Hey Clinton, you still shedding crocodile tears up there in New Hampshire?”  Obviously not, since she came in first in that state.   An interesting if minor side note:  someone claiming to be part of Mike Gravel’s campaign phoned CNN following the Iowa prayer circle – I mean vote – to say falsely that the former Senator had dropped out of the race.  Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who did drop out, each received more votes than Gravel, who got no votes at all.  Why didn’t this same mysterious person claim that Kucinich, who likewise got no votes, also dropped out?   Is it because Kucinich will endorse the eventual Democratic nominee, while Gravel has hinted that he may not?  Is it because Kucinich has a future political career to consider, while Gravel at age 78 wants to leave a legacy behind?  In this case, the legacy of a national referendum process, empowering American citizens to make laws along with the Congress.  Is it because Kucinich did not challenge Hillary’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, authorizing the U.S. to go to war with Iran, while Gravel did so challenge her (and publicly at that)?  At this juncture, let us not forget the winner in Iowa.  Obama did not vote for this amendment.  In fact, he couldn’t be bothered to show up and vote at all.  However, he has previously expressed his support for using nuclear weapons against Iran – as has Edwards.   As excellent as Kucinich is, he doesn’t describe the Iraq fiasco as Bush’s oil war, as Gravel does.  He does not speak of U.S. imperialism, as Gravel does.  Kucinich is the best of the worst, a tolerable fly in the ointment of Democratic Party business-as-usual.  Gravel represents a definite threat to this status quo.  It’s fairly obvious that some powerful entity in the Democratic Party establishment wants Gravel eliminated.   

Has the Clinton juggernaut been stopped?  I don’t think so.  One of the few admirable qualities both Clintons seem to have is resilience, the ability to bounce back in the face of adversity.  Balancing this is a host of Hillary’s not-so-admirable qualities:  continued voting to fund the Iraq war while claiming to oppose it; support for nuclear power; support for subsidizing insurance companies rather than for single payer, universal health care; support for NAFTA; opposition to gay marriage. 

One would hope that as the lies become outlandish enough, they are no longer believed.  Instead, perhaps Goebbels was right:  Tell a big enough lie, for long enough, and the people will believe you.  Thus the result of Clinton’s New Hampshire “comeback.” 

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Babble on, Hillary

A recent personal run-in with America's 19th century health care system.

The Political Lowe-Down

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Mike Gravel is the privately declared enemy of bot... by Kris Malmquist on Sunday, Jan 13, 2008 at 5:41:32 AM
Peace, brother.Farrell Winter... by Farrell Winter on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:59:55 PM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum