Saturday, May 24, 2008


Hillary Clinton has become an embarrassment to her party and to this nation. Not to herself; she is well beyond anything that relates to shame.

Yesterday’s comment in South Dakota to justify remaining in a race she cannot win probed a new low, even for her. Her lack of an apology has shown she is less interested in the welfare of her party, or this nation, than she is in getting she wants. Her only possible reason to remain in the race is because she’s Hillary Clinton, and she’s entitled.

She’ll make every effort to become the victim again. The misogyny cries have been loud the past few weeks, even though no responsible voice has uttered any such comments. The usual suspects—crackpot, rednecks, Fox News anchors—made the usual sophomoric arguments; no one who might have voted for her listened to them, anyway. Playing the victim is an unorthodox way of petitioning for a position of leadership; some might consider such a tactic unworthy.

It wasn’t working, so she raised the stakes to martyrdom: she’s staying in case something happens to Obama. What might happen to him? Lots of things; since she brought up assassination, she may consider one of the possibilities to be some hard-working, white American busting a cap in his uppity black ass. Has it never occurred to her that some of her less enlightened supporters—in, let’s say, West Virginia or Kentucky, where she currently bases her claim to be “America’s Candidate”—may consider such comments akin to King Henry II’s comment to his nobles regarding Thomas à Becket: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

As if this wasn’t bad enough, her “apology” shows more about her than the original gaffe. When Mike Huckabee made a tasteless Obama assassination joke last week, his apology was immediate, and contained the sentence, “I apologize that my comments were offensive.” Not “might have been construed as offensive,” or, “some may have taken offense.” Were offensive. Period.

Compare that to Hillary’s apology: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma…was in any way offensive…”

If? If? What meets her definition of “offensive,” if that does not? While not as callous as George W. Bush’s numerous statements on the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina, it certainly meets any sapient human standard of giving offense. The lack of even that scintilla of self-awareness alone disqualifies her as a worthy candidate. I can’t wait to see how her supporters try to justify her as vice presidential material now. “She’s the best qualified person to take over when—oops, I mean if—someone clips him?”

Enough is enough. No more of the Clinton camp demanding forgiveness because she’s allegedly being held to a higher standard than Obama. The Obama campaign bent over backward to be gracious when questioned afterward. What would her campaign’s response have been if the roles were reversed? Can you picture Terry “The Prince of Darkness” McAuliffe shrugging it off?

In the words of an old Willie Nelson song, “I’ve forgiven everything that forgiveness will allow.” The sniper fire in Tuzla. Signing a pledge to say Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count, until you needed them to, and your later statements that declared these people had been unfairly disenfranchised, comparing it to women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement, while still claiming caucus states do not count for as much. Placing images of Osama bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad. The 3:00 AM phone call ad. Kissing up to Fox News and Richard Mellon Scaife. Exploiting William Ayres on the ABC debate. Whining about always getting the first question.

Go away. You are little better than a Rovian Republican in liberal garb. The break this country needs from the politics of Bush-Clinton-Bush demands better than you.

1 comment:

Runs With Scissors said...

Reading your missive of aposty at the altar of Clintonism, I would, if given over completely to cynicism, ask you why it had taken so long to figure her out? Afterall, she has been painted in the colors you describe by Republican brushes for years now.

However, my heart is not yet completely ash, and I’m sure this realization has come with some sense of bewildering disillusionment. I know I went through it with John McCain.

Try as I might, I just can’t bring myself to like or trust the Senator from Arizona. All the attaching points are in place for me to be a staunch supporter, a loyal fan. We are alumni of the same august trade school for wayward boys on the Severn River. We followed the same avocation and viewed the world from the same or least similar perspectives that any day, any moment, could be our last and we should wring from life every ounce of devilish amusement possible. His actions as a guest of the Vietnamese government placed him firmly in the pantheon of heroes as proscribed by the values of the profession.

Then comes along McCain-Feingold. How could a person who had given so much, had lived the embodiment of the oath to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” be the author of an instrument so vile and antithetical to that very oath? Were we to believe that though this bill patently favored political incumbents at the expense of the First Amendment rights of the citizenry, the bitterness of that particular pill would become an acquired and necessary taste to flush from the body politic corruption or the appearance of corruption? Are the infringements on our rights to be endured under the premise that “there is just too much money in politics” by turning a blind eye to the fact that there is money in politics because there is so much money in government? What sort of people are standing for election that can not refuse the temptations of office without legislative threat and the associated loss of liberty, unless the fruits of those temptations are the true prize they seek? Has the bill worked? Are we done with corruption or the appearance of corruption that justifies insult to the First Amendment? How many of the current candidates have opted for federal campaign funding to follow the spirit and letter of the law?

Perhaps there is a glint of silver lining to this oppressively black cloud. Since the rise of the chimeras called “Compassionate Conservatism” by Bush, et al, and the “New Democrats” of the Comeback Kid, I have eschewed party dogma, read as much as I have been able to, and am in the process of recasting myself as a “Reaso-Con” or Reasoning Conservative by cobbling together elements of Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Edmund Burke, and our first Republican President, Thomas Jefferson.

Here is one thing I have come to understand. Our current government has gone well past the bounds originally defined by the Constitution. In so doing, it has changed from an institution to an organism. And as any organism is propelled by its nature, it seeks to protect itself first to survive and prosper. It increases its power and wealth by taking ours; sometimes with a scowl, often with a smile and a promise. Care free existence and eternal adolescence can be ours if we will only allow them to take care of us; we elect to become Eloi.

Politicians are the remora on this great beast. They tend to the skin of the animal, and ingest bits of refuse as it tears bites off the body of our liberties. They, and it, are the very threats the Founding Fathers envisioned when they attempted to limit and enumerate the power of government within the framework of the Constitution. The irony of it is that those who invoke the Constitution most, are the ones that seem to understand and respect it least.

The Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, are two of the worst. They will say anything, do anything for power. They know how to manage your life better than you do, given your limited intellect and capacity to comprehend complex issues. What am I talking about? They don’t care about your life, they only care about their power. Those Republicans who call the Clintons “liberal” just don’t get it. They aren’t Liberal. They aren’t Conservative. They are Clintonites. And because they are Clintonites, party be damned, she won’t get out of the race until she is assured that she will maintain a position of power after the election, brokering any advantage that can be gained through the mass of her supporters. That or she has one more dirty trick up her sleeve.

Wow. That was quite a rant. LOL