|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Hillary’s BaggagePosted on Feb 4, 2008WASHINGTON—When you Google the phrase “unconstitutional third term,” you get references to a rogue’s gallery of strongman leaders—Vladimir Putin, Alberto Fujimori, Olusegun Obasanjo, Islam Karimov, Hugo Chavez—who in recent years at least have flirted with the idea of holding on to power beyond statutory limits. Now the name Bill Clinton pops up, too. It may be unfair to Hillary Clinton, but the prospect of her husband’s return to the White House—albeit not as president, but as prince consort, which would not actually violate the Constitution—has inevitably become a campaign issue, and it’s beginning to work against her. A new Pew Research Center poll found voters evenly divided, with 41 percent saying they “like” the idea of Bill Clinton coming back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and 41 percent saying they “dislike” the notion. When Pew asked the same question last October, 43 percent said they liked the idea and only 34 percent disliked it. Democrats are generally amenable to Bill Clinton’s return, as they were four months ago. Republicans, unsurprisingly, are increasingly opposed. But the most significant change of opinion since October has come among independents, whose view has flipped from positive to negative—a finding that all but screams to the eventual Republican nominee: “Push this button. Hard.” Not that Bill hasn’t been doing a thorough job of pushing it himself. His high-profile role in his wife’s campaign—deemed necessary to confront the Barack Obama rebellion—has invited voters to recall the accomplishments of the Clinton years, but also the debacles. And the way he sought not just to deliver but to control the campaign’s message raises the question of what his role would be in a crisis if Hillary Clinton were to become president. Advertisement But Hillary Clinton opens the door to all the questions and suspicions about Bill’s role. Has she made a single campaign appearance without claiming that “for 35 years” she’s been fighting for this, that or the other? When she tries to portray herself as a battle-scarred political veteran and Obama as an ingénue, she counts the years she spent as first lady in Little Rock and Washington. When she adds the policy successes of the 1990s (but not the failures) to her resume, she implies that she was part of a co-presidency. It’s legitimate to ask whether she intends to be part of another. Bill, meanwhile, has done little to dispel the impression that he’s itching to make a comeback. Until recently, his campaign appearances were almost self-parody; he talked almost exclusively about himself, mentioning Hillary as an apparent afterthought. At the moment, he’s sticking much closer to his script. But as we saw in South Carolina, with his heedless romp through the minefield of race, Bill Clinton is a hard man to keep on message. Questions about Hillary’s role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill’s business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary. Why won’t the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what—other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit—did they hope to get out of the exercise? Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary’s foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation’s priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check? It’s natural to ask whether Bill Clinton is grasping at the chance for an Act II of his presidency to redeem the Clinton name from the impeachment scandal. It’s also natural to ask whether he’s capable of playing second fiddle to anyone, even his wife. Hillary Clinton had to know she was bringing this baggage along when she boarded the train. She’ll be stuck with it the rest of the way. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
A Cooler Century? Wait and See
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Louise, February 7, 2008 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment
Sarcastic yes.
Smug no.
And you are correct I am not a feminist, have never claimed to be. And even if I were I wouldn’t expect doors to open.
I’m just a woman who, like most working women, has always had to prove my value by working harder and better. Which I agree Hillary has!
Finding herself in a position where doors were opened, possibilities presented and opportunities used, she did some notable and good things. As do most First Lady’s who find those doors opened and those opportunity’s available, and are willing to work hard.
But all the same, a built-in machine behind you does lighten the load somewhat.
I have to be honest and admit, there have been times when I’ve wondered if Hillary’s activist nature was actually influencing Bill in some of his better decisions. Much like Eleanor did F.D.R.
She went on to become a Junior senator and continued doing good things. And some not so good things. I have defended Hillary in the face of criticism on numerous occassions through the years.
So what happened?
I had a real problem with her boast, “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first president Bush. It will take a Clinton again, to clean up after this president Bush!” I sincerely hope cleaning up after Bush will be a community effort, and not just conditional on the greatness of the “I am.”
And I’m not even sure that’s exactly why that comment rubbed a nerve, but rub it did. The best comparison I can come up with was the time she laughed in Gravels face.
That offended.
It offended him, it offended her, and it offended me. And like it or not, it reminded me of the way Bush behaves when he is challenged. As though anything that didn’t originate with him is not worthy of comment. What do we call that, conceit?
I want to see a little more awareness. A little more humility. A little more comprehension of the other guy. Not the grand abstract of doing big things, but the simple one on one of recognition of the individual and the individual problem. Grasping the you and me in the here and now. Not the dismissive embrace of political expediency.
I think that may be the gap in her character that led her to ignore the impending death of Iraqi innocents. Which of course she had to do when she voted to authorize Bush’s illegal war!
So in the final analysis. I guess that’s the real reason I will not vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Report thisIt really is the economy because of the WAR!
Sorry, she doesn’t get a pass on that.
By Maani, February 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
Louise:
The weakness of your argument is transparent. As well, some of your snide comments only show that YOU are no feminist either.
“Of course there are things in her history that could be interpreted as qualifying her more than ANY other candidate to be president of the United States. Like, she certainly knows her way around Washington D.C. Like she knows where the private bathrooms are in the White House. Like she probably knows some Secret Service agents by their first names. Like she may have the experience of working with the best and the brightest available to plan a State Dinner, or a Reception for a foreign potentate.”
Interesting that you note only a few things re her time as First Lady. And only the most absurd and dismissive. Since that is the time period you chose, let me address it.
As First Lady, Hillary went to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and delivered one of the most powerful feminist speeches ever given on this planet - even refusing the Chinese’ request to tone down her rhetoric.
As First Lady, Hillary traveled all over the world, engaging with world leaders on numerous issues, as do all First Ladies. Yes, some of this consists of niceties and “breaking the ice” (which can be an imporant first step.) But some of it is substantive, and involves U.S. policy.
As First Lady, Hillary gave the clarion call about Gulf War Syndrome, initiating the investigations into it and helping to draft and successfully push through legislation to provide additional medical benefits to vets suffering from GWS. Note that this was a SERIOUSLY unpopular political stand to take, since everyone from the Pentagon to the Republicans in Congress were trying to shut her up and shut her down.
As First Lady, Hillary helped brainstorm and push through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), arguably the single most important piece of health care legislation re children ever passed.
As First Lady, Hillary used her “pulpit” to promote immunization against childhood illness and mammograms to detect breast cancer, and helped push increasing funding for the NIH for prostate cancer and childhood asthma.
As First Lady, Hillary and AG Janet Reno created the Office on Violence Against Women at the DoJ, and initiated and pushed through the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
You REALLY need to do some research before you start throwing around smug and sarcastic comments.
Peace.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, February 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
You know I am getting sick and tired of republican talking points becoming part of history.Let me say this once.The only thing proven about Bill Clinton is that he accepted oral sex from an intern and lied about it.All the rest was smoke and mirrors and now when I see Eugene Robinson alluding to the baggage Bill brings I wonder if he lived through the same era I did.Two for the price of one is better than the current 1 for the price of 2 we have now.Most people did not realize we were voting Dick Cheney president.It is ridiculous in a free democratic society to imply that Bill Clinton is vying for a third term.You are voting for Hillary with an added bonus of Bill’s experience.If someone makes the case that Hillary is the stooge of her husband I wonder what world they live in.Eugene repeating republican talking points as if they have some basis in reality is beneath you.I am sure if Jeb Bush was running the song would be completely different.Eugene please put this column in the archives and when Jeb Bush runs for President dust it off and change the names and run it again.It will give you another day when you do not have to do any real reporting.
Report thisBy Louise, February 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
Sometimes all that makes sense is sitting back, folding the arms, shaking the head and mumbling, Of course, that’s it!
Everything Hillary did prior to becoming the wife of a Governor, because her husband became a governor, was to propel her career. Nothing wrong with a woman wanting to get ahead in political and corporate America. Lots of woman do, but puleeze ... lets not confuse that with qualifying to be president of the United States.
Of course there are things in her history that could be interpreted as qualifying her more than ANY other candidate to be president of the United States.
Like, she certainly knows her way around Washington D.C.
Like she knows where the private bathrooms are in the White House.
Like she probably knows some Secret Service agents by their first names.
Like she may have the experience of working with the best and the brightest available to plan a State Dinner, or a Reception for a foreign potentate.
But sadly in this campaign, the qualification Hillary demonstrates the most as a woman, is falling back on that MOST UN-FEMINIST, but all too often “womanly” behavior. Using the name recognition and success of the man in her life to leverage herself into a power position!
I am absolutely amazed there is one solitary woman out there who supports that!
After all, the whole thrust of the feminist movement was to prove there was nothing a woman couldn’t do, given the opportunity. And the most anti-feminist behavior was sucking off the strengths and successes of their male companion, or the male family name to accomplish that!
I think it’s called coat-tailing.
A gentile reminder my friends. Brought to mind by Hillary herself when she said, “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first president Bush. It will take a Clinton again, to clean up after this president Bush!”
Folks, Hillary is not a Clinton. She’s just married to one!
So, if you really think Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified woman in America to run for the office of President of the United States, how come Bill, Bills successes, Bills prior political history and Bills name are so important to the cause of propelling Hillary into the White House?
She should have followed her first instincts:
“After the marriage of Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, she kept her name as Hillary Rodham, later writing that she had done so to keep their professional lives separate and avoid seeming conflicts of interest.”
Too bad she changed her mind. She probably doesn’t realize it. Her campaign managers probably don’t realize it. But that decision has undermined her presidential bid every step of the way.
Add to that, until recently, her support of Bush in the on-going horror of Iraq, and silence on all the horrible republican legislation that has placed our economy on the brink of collapse. And the clear choice becomes obvious.
In spite of the fact that I am an older woman, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
Maybe the pundits and political movers and shakers have it wrong. I really don’t believe Hillary’s base is the older women. We know what getting ahead WITHOUT the hubby’s name and accomplishments really means!
Report thisBy lilmamzer, February 7, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
The Bilderbergers….”
It figures an alchemist would bring that up.
Report thisBy patricia cross, February 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no question in my mind that you sufffer from being black and accute chauvinism. To suggest that bill would enter the whitehouse shwn hillary is president constitutes a third term…..you are sorely misleading your readers.
Get over the fact that the Clintons are a team…HILLARY WILL BE THE BOSS IN THE PRESIDENCY…and this couple knows how to truly respect one another and give each other the space they need to be themselves. This is an unusually fair and enduring marriage and few would be able to match it.
Bill can add so much knowledge, know how and connections to a situation where his wife is president. Be glad for that robinson, do not disdain it. Don’t fall back on your blackness to favor a blackman who I believe is a wonderful guy on his own. It is just that Hillary is better in competence, experience and ability to get a job done.
Report thisGet over it Robinson.
By Zann Gill, February 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary’s Baggage starts from the sexist premise that a woman cannot govern this country. There have been sexist slurs throughout this campaign: nip and tuck, Carl Bernstein’s disgust at Hillarys thick ankles, Comedy Centrals Southpark featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRCs vagina; we’d be righteously outraged at a tap-dancing blackface doll and they would not sell in airports. Why is this country so afraid of a smart, effective woman with fourteen years more experience than Obama? Obama could make a great President in eight years.
Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Sen. Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.
Report thisBy RdV, February 6, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
The baggage is only there if the journalists ask and then report.
Billary is increasingly irrelevant and associated with a triangulating, deregulating trend that did not ultimately serve this country well and only served to weaken the Democratic party’s future prospects and relevance.
Report thisBy israel getty, February 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary and Bill are Republicans ind Democratic clothing. As someone stated on this blog, Bill Clinton took similar policy stances to that of Bush. Hillary has receive more money from corporate lobbyists than any candidate in both Parties. This inludes the military industrial complex. As for her experience, she and her husband refuse to release the White House documents that can confirm this purported experience. Obviously, they have something to hide. Further, one year as a staff lawyer with the Children Defense Fund is not much to brag about. She spent most of her life as a corporate attorney representing the interests of big business, which includes being on the Walmart Board. She strategically relocated to NY for sole purpose of running for Senate and with long term plans of running for President.
We should not only turn the page on Billary but close the damn book.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, February 6, 2008 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The absolute absurdity of the posters on this board is a poor sign for the future of the USA.
Marjorie L. Swanson, February 6 at 9:19 am #
Asks
“Why so called liberals/progressives/Democrats continue to trash talk a popular former Democratic President.”
I can’t talk for others but the answer for me is I am NOT a liberal, and Fat Bill was not popular with me or my friends.
He pardoned the FALN terrorists who placed 86 bombs in and around New York City including one in the Mobil Oil Building in Manhattan which killed a security guard, and one in historic Fraunces Tavern, where Gen. George Washington delivered his farewell address to his officers. The bomb “almost brought down the building,” former New York Police Detective Richard Pastorella told HUMAN EVENTS. Four people died and 57 were injured. The FALN took credit for the bomb.
He signed the NAFTA treaty which began the great exodus of jobs from little towns and big cities. He targeted small blue collar workers first so the hue and cry would be small. We have since lost 65% of our manufacturing base. West Bend doesn’t make toasters or can openers here any more, Harley Davidson motorcycle boots are made in China, and our treaty with Mexico has allowed a chinese car company to locate just south of the California line and will probably put the final nail in the coffin of the Us car makers.
Sorry I’m “bad mouthing” the President who rang down the curtin on the “American dream”
kevin99999, February 6 at 6:55 am says:
“Clintons negatives are largely drive by the media and likes of author who, rather than focusing on the issues important to the Americans, go after in personal terms.”
Funny, I’m out here reading too, and I haven’t heard that anymore than with a Romney, Huckabee, or Obama.
I have heard a list of wrongs committed by Clintons over the years. It is Hill-the-business-shill who chose to run on the Clintonian record, so it is fair to observe that that record is not as sterling as she attempts to make it sound.
The Clintons have and intend to continue dirty financing of campaigns al la Norman Hsu, and Marc Rich. This is not strange as their ties include Tyson Chicken (where illegals are employed and mistreated) Hill-the-shill is on record as supporting unlimited H1-b visas so we can bring even more cheap labor into the USA and deny even more citizens of a decent living wage.
and finally Maani the business shill’s personal troll checks in with this:
However, she did not do NOTHING there (at Walmart). The battle she picked was the environmental one. She began working to improve the companys overall environmental sustainability, and was able to turn the board around on this, incerasing Wal-Marts eco-friendliness and environmental sustainability by more than 50% during her tenure.
Maani has made this claim before, I posted a response on another thread and asked “What environmental improvements?” noting that Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York (among other States) had to sue Walmart over environmental issues a number of times in the 1990’s after Hill the corporate whore was no longer on the board. I asked if Hill failed to change the behemoth’s practices on labor, the environment and corporate decency (like hiring Chinese children to paint toys with lead-based paint.) how would she manage the larger job of reigning in Halliburton, KBR, and other corporate leaches. Of course I got no reply.
Hill-the-business-shill is what she is. a self serving hardened narcissistic want-to-be. Vote for her if you like, it is a free country (maybe) but don’t give me that “oh gee, you’re picking on the woman shit.” She throws mud pretty well for a girl… sorry if some of it blows back in her face!
Report thisBy heavyrunner, February 6, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
I agree about Roosevelt. I just thought it would complicate matters too much to explain in that depth. He did save capitalism and his measures were half measures. But he was enough of a friend of the worker to make it frightening to Big Capital when they had to come up with a candidate against him and his New Deal.
A socialist could offer a better deal, so he was vulnerable from the left.
Report thisBy Maani, February 6, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
kevin99999:
Though I disagree with your support for Nader, I may well retire from these boards because you have condensed in a single paragraph much of what I have been saying for quite some time re the so-called “liberal” blogs, Hillary-bashing, etc.
Bravo.
Peace.
Report thisBy Maani, February 6, 2008 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
CY:
I only want to respond to the Wal-Mart comment (though I disagree with much of the rest of your post as well).
It is true that Hillary did not do anything re the underpaid and underinsured employees of Wal-Mart. But that is because she had to “pick her battles” there, both as the newest member of the board, and the only woman.
She knew very quickly that the union issue was a non-starter, since the rest of the board was ultra-loyal to SW, and were all committed anti-unionists.
However, she did not do NOTHING there. The battle she picked was the environmental one. She began working to improve the company’s overall environmental sustainability, and was able to turn the board around on this, incerasing Wal-Mart’s eco-friendliness and environmental sustainability by more than 50% during her tenure.
So let’s look at the totality of something rather than focusing on only a single aspect.
Peace.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, February 6, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
Why so called liberals/progressives/Democrats continue to trash talk a popular former Democratic President.
Eugene Robinson does it of course because he supports Barak Obama. Still don’t make it right.
Eugene, you been playing with Chris Matthews too much lately. Makes it hard, if not impossible, to keep your integrity. Oops, too late to worry about that isn’t it?
Report thisBy Maani, February 6, 2008 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
Heavyrunner:
While this is a good assessment, and I agree with it in theory, just keep in mind that a “bad” leader (at least in countries other than America) can remain in power DESPITE elections, either through Constitutional chicanery (which Chavez actually attempted), rigging and/or stealing elections, or elminating them altogether.
And considering that it was the Supreme Court here that “coronated” Bush despite his losing the popular vote by over half a million and the fact that a COMPLETE recount would have given Gore Florida - and given Diebold et al and the danger of stolen elections - it seems that we have been traveling a dangerous road in this regard as well.
Peace.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, February 6, 2008 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
While I agree that Putin or Chavez should be able to win office as many times in a row as their people choose to vote for them? I believe the same about Ron Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, and GW Bush.
I disagree that Roosevelt was a champion of the worker. I know this is a hard sell, but Roosevelt saved capitalism. The country had its best chance to win systematic change for the worker, but Roosevelt came through by making capitalism work again. Unfortunately capitalism is a race to the bottom, and under this system no one who gets a decent living wage is safe form the forces of business who have endless resources to hunt for the world’s cheapest workers.
Roosevelt saved business from itself, and some of the smarter business folks realized that fact. The Rockefeller’s, Carnegie’s and even Ron Reagan were on the Roosevelt team. His programs and his war gave US business their best growth decade on record to that point. (1947-57)
Report thisBy heavyrunner, February 6, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
Term limits were not handed down on stone tablets. They did not exist for the first 150 years of American democracy. They were introduced by reactionary forces after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The history of this apocryphal component of democracy seems to have vanished down the memory hole.
Right wing forces including Big Capital realized that the Presidency of FDR had been a close call. A champion of the worker had shown that they could be unchallengeable from the right. It’s simple math. There are more workers than bosses, so if you ever manage to get a champion of the workers in office they will be elected over and over again.
The solution to this problem? Term limits.
Ending a bad leader’s term in office is what elections are for. Term limits are to make sure that if a popular leader gets in office and starts doing things to help the overwhelming majority of people improve their lives, thereby making pro capital, right wing parties like the Republicans unelectable, reactionaries can count on term limits to get such a “dangerous” leader out of office.
Why shouldn’t Putin or Chavez be able to win office as many times in a row as their people choose to vote for them?
Report thisBy kevin99999, February 6, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Clinton’s negatives are largely drive by the media and likes of author who, rather than focusing on the issues important to the Americans, go after in personal terms. And then media shamelessly points its finger at her high negatives. Robinson, focus your attention on the issues, get over whatever animosity you have towards Clintons. It does not make you look any smarter. What I am finding out that liberal bloggers are no different swift-boaters in their tactics. Blogs like HuffPost have been vicious in their anti-Hillary drum beats. They have used empty headlines to demean and attack her. They censor those who disagree or who dares expose their tactics. Now at HuffPost, she is being attacked by several bloggers for accepting FOX debate. After being exposed to HuffPost and its juvenile bloggers, other sites like it, FOX doesn’t sound too bad after all. Ariana and her crowd are not much different from Murdoch in their tactics. Incidentally, I am a Nader supporter.
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 6, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
Same reason no one like Bill Clinton became fervently opposed to GWB during the 2004 election. The establishment wanted Bush. Now it wants Hillary. Vote Obama.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, February 6, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Pardon me whilst I puke:
She spent at least some of that 35 years (eight to be precise) on Wal marts board of directors where she raised not a peep for that companies under-paid and uninsured workers.
As wife of the Arkansas governor she claims to have fought for “children” but Arkansas foster care system was worse when the Clinton s left than when they arrived, the population in care had doubled, the reimbursement money decreased, and standards for foster parents, foster homes, and monitoring were all but non-existant… to be fair, the foster care system nationwide isn’t great.
Additionally you have stated she is far better for the economy, and you claim Barak has no experience.
I do not agree that Barak has no experience, but I tend to agree that Hill-the-business-shill will be better for the economy, just because she is a bigger corporate whore than the other guy (who is also a corporate whore, but to a lesser degree.)
I’ve got to close now, but in parting I must mention that the slate of candidates we were offered this cycle is the worst bunch of charlatans, Traitors, and scalawags I have seen in my almost 50 year connection to presidential elections.
I find any of the losing candidates from either party starting with Bob Dole and back to Barry Goldwater’s 1960 run to be far superior to any of the current “front runners”
This country NEEDS, and can do better!
Report thisBy hettie, February 6, 2008 at 5:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wonder about that, too. Well, I think it is because the media was so enamored of Bush. Didn’t they all say they wanted to have a beer with him? Obama is their rock star, and their bosses would like nothing better than to have another popular, empty suit in the White House. Besides, none of them want to have a beer with Hillary because she would bore them with her plans to change the direction of our country. A lot of rich people do not want change and they know in the coded messages of Obama that he won’t change much.
Report thisBy Zann Gill, February 5, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
THE CLINCHER for CLINTON: Read “Why Republicans Like Obama” by Peter Wehner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html
a very clever, deceptive article, the real motives of which are revealed by the credentials of its author: former deputy assistant to President Bush and “Director of Strategic Initiatives,” now a senior fellow at the “Ethics and Public Policy Center;” he was formerly Executive Director for Policy for Empower America, a conservative public policy organization.
Why would this Bush insider pitch for Obama? This Washington Post article looks to me like yet another “strategic initiative” to empower the Bushed America by disabling the one team that could survive (has survived) their bulldozer. The power forces can bulldoze Obama; they can’t destroy two Clintons standing together.
I was on the line but now I’m 100% sure; please consider these reasons:
Hillary Clinton’s appearance in San Jose last night was truly amazing.
I’m now fully convinced to vote for Hillary Clinton because:
1. She’s committed to universal health care, whereas Obama has already said he’ll compromise with the Republicans.
2. Both Hillary and Barack are equally visionary speakers, but she has a plan and the experience to back it up.
3. She’s shown a 35 year record of working for the poor, for education, labor, health.
4. I’m worried the Republicans will “do a Jimmy Carter” on Obama and he won’t survive. They’ve already done everything they can (including spending $60 Million to make Clinton lose the NY Senate race) and she’s survived. The two Clintons are savvy and can handle this.
5. She’s far better in the international arena; he has no experience. She’s far better for the economy. ditto
6. She has a strong plan for alternative energy and “green collar workers.”
7. We need to break the highest glass ceiling.
As for Iraq (which was my sticking point), what convinced me was a lawyer’s explanation that any smart lawyer would have voted to give the President the strongest possible backing to negotiate effectively, thinking he would use that power to negotiate, not abuse it by running into war.
I know she can run this country. Obama is a future leader, but he’s not ready yet. He’d be a great VP and we could then have him as our next President 16 turnaround years.
See this wonderful article by Gloria Steinem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Gloria Steinem&oref=slogin
And http://hillaryclinton.com, which helped convince me. Her national Town Hall is Monday 6 PM PST.
I think this is important because, though everyone is so disgusted that Obama might win the election, I don’t think he can turn this country around, given the powerful forces that will be aligned against him.
Seeing her in San Jose, and the diversity of her supporters, was a totally moving experience. A Clinton win in this primary is important.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 5, 2008 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
The Bilderbergers have given the tiara to Hillary Clinton. The die is cast. “We are the Queen’s abjects, and must obey.”
Report thisBy Maani, February 5, 2008 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment
cwhipps:
Although financial arrangement of ALL types are certainly an issue, and should be transparent, you are confusing two things: the Clinton Presidential Library, and the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative, which are not the same. Giustra’s donations were to the Cf/CGI, not the Library. And the CF/CGI is not connected to the Library, nor to Hillary, who has no position or responsibilities (fiduciary or otherwise) to the CF and CGI (though I do not know what, if any, responsibilities she has re the Library).
Peace.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
There are differing levels of security clearances. I know that for the DoS, they go back 10 years instead of 7 for the military’s “top secret”. I’m sure that some kind of security clearance check is run on first ladies, but i’m equally sure that it isn’t the type that allows for seeing briefings about bombing decisions and the like.
As for the papers…i assume that there are many things in them that the Clintons would rather keep to themselves. (and they may include security clearance breaches) But they cannot be completely faulted for the non-release of those papers, because Bush 43 signed the whatever it is that the decider guy signs after he decides what’s best for us saying that any former president can block release of their records. And he added to that a clause that the sitting president must also approve the release. Then again, the Bushes and the Clintons seem fairly chummy lately so who knows. (And who would have ever thought we’d be saying that?!)
I’ve got some stories about the military abroad…hard not to after two years in Seoul. We lowly citizens are not allowed on those bases either. I can understand not being allowed into the PX, but the only place to get a decent apple pie (and apts don’t have ovens) in S. Korea is the Yongsan Garrison. I managed to sneak in only once using the old trick for getting into an R rated movie: two go in, one comes out, two go in. Man, i bought four apple pies and three of them out to other foreigners like Dick Cheney gives out secrets.
Finally, i agree wholeheartedly about what was bad/distasteful in the Clinton Administration. It has nothing to do with the personal scandals for me; they were just stupid. But they get the attention and they’re still handy for deflecting more valid criticisms…i.e. you just hate us for the personal scandals.
There may be no difference any way that we cut it. Until we remove the dollars from the political system, they will rule.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, February 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment
Clintons had it and now it is time for something new.
Report thisBy Teddi Curtis, February 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wonder why no one mentioned all these pieces of baggage when the conversation was about George W. Bush’s run for office on his father’s reputation?
Report thisBy MaryinNC, February 5, 2008 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Clintons time has come and gone. They had their 8 yrs of governing. The times were good and bad. Their policies were centrist, and most of the time hurt the progressives in this country. I remember Alan Greendspan saying that Bill Clinton was the best president a Repub could wish for - why? Because he continued to govern as Bush41 did. He finished deregulating the banks, trade and killed welfare. He did a lot to continue eliminating the people’s safety net derived under FDR New Deal.
Report thisMrs. Clinton will win by only 51% just like Bush43. The country will divide further under the red/blue banner. Do we need this? It’s time for a woman is true, but the vision going forward for this country will not be delivered by the Clintons. Besides, You Can Never Home Again.
By cyrena, February 5, 2008 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
Jackpine Savage,
You bring up an interesting point here on the security clearance, since I have no idea whether she had one or not.
Thing is, even I an EQUALLY lowly citizen for SURE- had a security clearance for over 30 years, maybe just BECAUSE I was a lowly citizen..who knows? It was just required for lowly citizens that did any security related work. So the assumption would be, (and I think its standard) that ANY person working for a government agency, regardless of their position, would need a security clearance of some level. (lots of levels to those things, which doesnt make a lot of sense to me).
But, that said, it doesnt necessarily mean that SHE had one. She wasnt technically employed by the government, or any of its agencies. So, good point.
Its like so many other rules and regulations. As a lowly citizen, you couldnt come and/or go into the country (or many others) without a passport. But, if you belong to the U.S. armed forces, you can come and go anywhere on the face of the earth, with nothing but your uniform and your guns as the documented authority. If I (as a lowly civilian) go to some far off country, or even one nearby, and decide to bring a friend back with me, or marry somebody in China, and bring them and their kids back with me, they arent gonna let em in. If a military person does the same thing, no questions are asked. (and, it happens daily by the way).
So much for the security clearance.
But, Eugenes article brings up, (for me at least) the bigger question of Hillary wanting to have it all ways. Hes right that she NEVER does any sort of a campaign appearance, without mentioning her alleged 35 years experience in government and politics. Does that mean that Laura Bush has at least 10? (First Lady of Texas, and First Lady of the current dictatorship?)
Seriously, she wants to take credit for her years in the White House, and the Clinton administration, (which Im actually willing to give her a bit of credit on) and yet she wantsto completely divorce herself (and our memories)from the more unsavory and disastrous policies or events of that administration. And, Im not even talking about the Monica thing, which I could give less than a damn about, or the impeachment that resulted because of it, which was a sham. She WAS right about that being a right-wing conspiracy and its nothing new for that gang.
But, what about the disastrous policies of NAFTA, which she continues to uphold? And what about all of the paperwork that is still unavailable? On matters of transparency, the Clintons dont have a whole lot better record than the current gang of thugs. Matter of fact, thats really the biggest part of the baggage for me. Try as I might, I simply cannot find any major differences between the Clinton policies or antics as the ruling Oligarchy, and the same from the Bush Dynasty. There is NO difference.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 5, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
I know i wouldn’t want to be her third wheel running mate. Rumor has it that Al Gore hates her because he spent 8 years as the third wheel.
Now, i - a lowly citizen - am unable to know the truth about a lot of things, but i am under the impression that Sen Clinton never received a security clearance as first lady. If that is true, all of he claims to foreign policy experience in the Clinton administration are a lie. Moreover, if she did not have clearance and was involved, her husband broke a slew of laws.
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 5, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
It’s imperative for Hillary to become emotional to appeal to her base of overzealous whiners who impugn everyone’s integrity and judgment whenever Hillary’s record is questioned. Cry, cry, cry. Distract, whine, accuse.
If you don’t agree with someone, understand their opinion isn’t an attack on you or your candidate. Facts don’t agree with Clinton supporters. Grow up, please.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, February 5, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment
Saw your comment on Hardball last night. (No I didn’t watch it, I found it online. I have to much integrity to watch such drivel but unfortunately you do not have enough integrity to stay away.) You snide comment that “Hillary Clinton manages to tear up every time there’s a Primary coming up” was contemptible. Maybe you’re spending too much time with the Tweety and some of his “ickiness” is rubbing off on you.
Sadly, I used to think you and honest man of integrity.
Report thisBy blueshift, February 5, 2008 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
I voted for the demeaned (and demeaning) Bill KKKlinton twice. And I’ve had enough. It’s always about him. Not the country. Not his wife’s candidacy. Just him. No thanks.
If it’s Hillary vs McCain, I will eagerly mark my ballot against the Clintons. I have been voting since 1968, and this would be my first vote ever for a republikan presidential candidate. (I’ve voted R for other offices.)
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, February 5, 2008 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
George & Lurleen Burns Wallace. Governors of Alabama.
Report thisBy cwhipps, February 5, 2008 at 5:04 am Link to this comment
Excellent post, Eugene. I’m still wondering why the story about the $131 million donation to the Clinton Library from a Canadian businessman hasn’t gotten much MSM attention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359435600&en=33a4d96a239655bf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
‘... Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leaders bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clintons public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstans poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clintons wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
‘... Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clintons charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustras more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clintons inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.”
Report thisBy whyzowl, February 5, 2008 at 1:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There’s no doubt that Bill is Hillary’s cross to bear, or that she may well find herself crucified upon it as soon as today: Super Duper Tuesday. That would be a shame because I think she’s very bright and would make a fine president. I’m quite sure we won’t have to suffer four years of empty triangulation under a Hillary presidency, either. Powerful, earth-shaking events will drive the next president—whoever she, or he, may be—to fall back on what we hope will be their best instincts. I’d much prefer that person, if it has to be a Clinton, to be Hillary rather than Bill. I don’t think she’d let her chance to shine in her own way pass her by. It’ll be Bill in the shadows this time, perhaps baking a few chocolate chip cookies?
Report thisBy P. T., February 5, 2008 at 12:50 am Link to this comment
Unlike George W. Bush, Hugo Chavez does not steal elections. Venezuela is not the United States of America.
Report this