Obama vs. Clinton, Round ... ?

As Bill Clinton was walking out the White House door, he issued a slew of reprehensible pardons for a bunch of corrupt and sleazy characters, including a pardon for billionaire and fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich. (Marc Rich's former wife and mother of his children, Denise Rich turns out to be a big donor to Clinton's Presidential library!)

In the face of increasing requests for the release of these documents, the Federal archivists at Clinton's Presidential Library have agreed with Clinton's request to block their release.

Also, check out this Huffington Report showing how Clinton earned $700,000 in dealings with a convicted felon backed by the Chinese government:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07/bill-clinton-profits-from_n_90459.html

Guys, we've got to get all this information out. Even if we have to spread it by word of mouth. Corporate-owned media would rather run stories about Obama denying yet again that he's not a Muslim and no, he will NOT be roasting Christian babies and serving them at formal dinners in the White House.

It's up to us, because the MSM have gotten the message to lay off the Clintons and their dubious financial dealings.

Gary Hart has the following to say about America's Lady Macbeth, in his Huffington Post column today:

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

Clinton "IS" as Clinton does! In that sense, she is QUITE transparent, in spite of herself! From what I "gather", she is extremely upset about caucus results because she thought she had that sewn up by reaching in through the dinosaurs of the DLC to the state level "party bosses". In those states holding a caucus instead of a primary, the party itself "owns" and conducts the voting process, and evidently, with no oversight. The "party faithful" (..to the DLC) then also COUNT the votes. With all the Repub election sleeze of the past several "elections", Dems, I guess, were supposed to feel so "protected" or "comfortable" about having the whole process in Dem party hands that no one would ever wonder about the results, much less question the process. It has been highly "questionable" all over the map, to say the least! The election protection/integrity groups have been overwhelmed by so much and by such pervasive need this time on "both sides", everywhere, for investigation! Still, though, evidently the Obama "movement" was stronger than expected and it didn't go as Clinton desired. You've just got to wonder WHAT is cooking under the surface....??? Is there some kind of deal that with Clinton to "elect" there would not be a false flag/martial law scenario needed to keep the same shadow gov. in power? Who KNOWS anymore, WHAT may lurk under the darkened surface!

I find this ALL very puzzling. There was such BLATANT, persistent, hard driven, even right out in public sight effort put out by the "corporate interests" to censor out, to get rid of all candidates not signed up with the corpratocratic agenda! The resulting corporate selection of candidates left us with Clinton and Obama as their approved choices from which they would allow us to "choose".

When Obama was first elected to the Senate, I thought we just might really have something there, and caught that phrase, "a breath of fresh air" passing through my mind a few times, yet it always seemed to acquire a question mark at the end on its way through. What seemed naivete at first morphed into increasing facility to parse and obfuscate, but, was he skating around other politicians, or the public? (or both?) When I saw the enthusiasm for AIPAC, and for supporting Israel no matter how wrong, no matter at what expense to the Palestinians, then the enthusiastic jumping in to reinforce the "Iran as a great danger to the US" hype, repeating the false "intel" propagandas against Iran as "facts" to stand on for further digressions, heartily joining his voice to the choruses of fearmongering Iran, of demonizing Iran, even adding a solo verse of his own periodically, one couldn't help but conclude that he was on that bandwagon of wartrumpers, well fueled by oilygarchs. Somehow, even then, it was a bit shocking when he joined in the grossly false propaganda against Hugo Chavez and Venezuela... Now, Venezuela is NOT a closed society, the Truth is rather readily available to anyone who wishes to look into it...

It was just several months ago that I learned that Obama was also, though yet a relative "newbie", a member of the CFR (Whereas the Clintons' memberships are well vetted as deeply ensconsed and fully established--at least H if not also B). There seemed to be some implication that Obama was being "courted" and "mentored" in while still in school, though if there were anything to that, I would still doubt that he had any idea WHAT it was about back then. (This, though, would certainly be something worth probing for those with such skills and capacities!)

My not educated enough guess is that Obama's natural, original propensity was at least TOWARD the progressive, and with idealism, perhaps some altruistic daydreams coloring suggestions of future possibilities. I think we can assume that he "had a heart". Where and when the darksiders might have begun quietly attaching little strings here and there is too obscured in "mystery". So too with when and how they may have begun, bit by bit and hint by hint at first, to clue him in. Before any sort of really significant disclosure to him though, they would have had some "goods" on him, with which to be "convincing"; something to hang heavy over his head, and especially while presenting pictures of future possibilities for "greatness".

The greatest, most compelling exclusion for the "darksiders" is "the heart". Any exercise of the "heart energy" is dangerous, could cause any one of them to slip and fall "upward". Some good scrutiny of these people as a group should bring it to one's attention quite noticeably that anything one could describe as "heartfelt" in their natures --is missing. It is anathema. They just cannot and must not go there!

So, with the adoring crowds projecting their hearts outward TO Obama everywhere he goes, there is probably some serious questioning from "the darksiders" of his "stability" to stay on course with THEIR course..... BUT---has he been 'playing' THEM all along??? Or, has he been 'playing' US all along??? Or did he get entangled before he knew it, only to have them then convince him he was already too compromised, like he'd "already sold his soul", thereby "securing" him as "theirs"??? ---until, that is, these adoring, heart-pumping crowds arrived on the scene????

Well, whatever we have there, it is all a big UNKNOWN! There is no telling from here from whence it came nor where it may go. With Clinton, what you see is what you get and anyone who knows anything real there, KNOWS not to go there! There is a gathered and yet gathering group consenus of knowing that there must NOT be a pres. Hillary or McPain! What we are left with then is a big question mark from which there is at least some possibility for Hope to emerge. Let those adoring crowds keep pumping their heartfilled adoration, don't put them down for it any more, ENCOURAGE it!-- for unless we can gin up a swooping, soaring write-in Kucinich campaign, what hope is there? Surely, in their darkened, inside-out 2 dimensional world, the darksiders are also full of questioning! They may be afraid to think of what blowback might be unleashed from those adoring masses should anything untoward happen to the object of that adoration, and well they SHOULD be! (There must be NO Clinton VEEP getting in there either!) Surely they thought they had this one all sewn up from all sides!!!! I do believe though that this is the "desperation" that has brought out such 'risky' lines as those just lately coming from the mouth of Hillary, proclaiming she and McPain are ready to be commander in chief......

Good Grief!!! We better hope there is something(s) we've not imagined yet up the sleeve of Serendipity!
(-:G
http://www.zianet.com/XLexcel/OHBOY.html
MAKE WAR OBSOLETE

(This is a follow up of my comment on Hilliary Clinton repeatedly praising Republican candidate McCain as making a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic opponent.)

Last night, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson was a guest on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, where he asked, "Why the hell are you [Hillary Clinton] ranking John McCain ahead of any Democrat?" Why, Olbermann asked, is Clinton trying to throw the election to McCain if she loses to Obama?

Carlson, who has long covered the Clintons, pointed out that Bill recently boasted "what good friends Hilliary and McCain have become." She added: "It doesn't seem possible, but maybe they were laying the ground work [for this endorsement for some time]."

Carlson provided additional insight regarding the only answer Clinton's campaign staff was able to come up with when someone finally questioned Clinton's claim of years of experience handling international affairs. As the First Lady for eight years, Hilliary has been to 80 countries, they answered.

Carlson was able to vouch for that: "I was on some of those trips with Clinton. She really did have tea and cookies in those countries."

Olbermann also commented on Hillary's claim that, unlike Obama, she has the experience needed to be Commander in Chief. He pointed out that Laura Bush has just as much experience to be Commander in Chief as Hillary.

As usual, Olbermann nails it.