Yesterday, in a brief survey of what I believe political historians will chronicle as the chief cause of Hillary Clinton's now-failing presidential bid, I wrote: "After seven years of vastly experienced presidential lying, conniving, weaseling, obfuscating, twisting, manipulating and swindling, the last thing most voters wanted was more Washington experience."
What I first wrote, but then deferred to another day -- like today, was, "the last thing most voters wanted was more of the same Washington experience."
I deferred those three, excised little words because they were post-genesis, so to speak, to her ultimately failing bid. In other words, in this election cycle any candidate's emphasis on experience was almost certain to result in a sum loss of voter appeal. It made little difference whether Hillary's was similar or unsimilar to George W. Bush's. "Experience" itself -- stripped of all external judgment, favorable or unfavorable, about that experience -- was a long-term and almost surefire buzz-kill from the get-go, as long as some other candidate had something else to offer.
But that was then, and this is now. And now, in these waning primary days that nevertheless hold some potential, however slim, for a Hillary comeback, external judgments about the "sameness" of Hillary's experience make all the difference indeed.
For the still-undecided, Democratic primary voter is now faced with a choice that comes down to this: Do I prefer the candidate who is capable of tolerantly listening to the occasional abhorrently phrased view? Or shall I go with the candidate who offers every indication of nailing down another, at-minimum four years of manipulation, twisting and swindling?
Forget for the moment, if you can, gentle voter, the second candidate's almost laughably swindling explanation of her Iraq war vote, which is now costing you and the families of 4,000 needlessly dead Americans anywhere from one to three trillion dollars. Just put that out of your mind, set it aside as a little slip-up, a bit of mere negligent oversight. We all make mistakes, even when we mean to.
But as you set that aside, there are still those other indications of what could come. And like her war-vote explanation, those indications are at best unsettling when you consider the vast expanse that separates them from honest reality -- that removes them even one inch from the realm of the Bushlike manipulated, the twisted, the downright swindling.
Much has been written, for instance, about the chasm that lies between Hillary's overall and boastful claims to foreign policy experience and the actual, factual record. There's no need to press her on this matter, as is needed with respect to Iraq. Here, she eagerly and freely offers up case after case of extensive and personal involvement in our foreign affairs of the 1990s.
But the reality of it? As I said, so much has already been journalistically vetted and reviewed -- and panned -- there's no need to resurvey it all here. Yet one instance does merit repeating at some length, because the immense chasm is almost breathtaking in its panoramic wonder.
This, from "Fact Checker" Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post:
Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."
Numerous reporters ... covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady....
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony ... shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.... [CBS News] footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
The affair -- from original reality, to told version, to corrected version --is borderline comical in its bizarre surreality, and a definite candidate for one of those 527 ads in the general election. But it is, as well, disturbingly and quite unfunny.
After "35 years of experience" Hillary had to know that someone would check her story. Yet did that prevent her audience manipulation, her twisting of events, the tale's swindling core? Not a bit. She just blustered ahead and bellowed whatever she thought people would buy -- and they would be awed. She trusted, that is, in the electorate's unremitting gullibility and common ignorance of the truth.
Remind you of anyone currently in power? Care to go through that same experience again?
If Hillary had always fought the good fight -- whether as First Lady or U.S. Senator -- and then simply told the simple truth about it, her experience might have been a plus. But this year is an unfavorable one for the wholesale market of manipulation and swindling. Too many people were already primed to reject it.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Mendacity, thy name is Hillary!
Will president John McCain represent change?
Boy, are you wrong
Hillary really needs a vacation
I suspect that, like Bush,
Hillary's whopper film already available
OMG
I think it could gain traction
I'm tired of her lies
I am tired of her lies
I'd Like to 2nd that!!
When you look at how close her supposed "inevitability" came to putting her in the White House; and how now, in the crucible of a REAL contest, we actually get to see, not only what the Republicans have said about her for almost two decades----but a REAL look at the lack of character and principles she would have brought to the Presidency. Especially when you think of how we've ALREADY seen it almost irretrievably damaged in the last 7 years......
I have to say, without ever setting foot in the White House, or winning anything at all,(as of yet)---we all owe Obama a 'hearty thank you'---if nothing else----for blocking this despicable liar from occupying it.
Also, have you noticed the 'messiah' message coming out of her camp now? They seem to feel Richardson was a 'Judas" who has somehow 'betrayed' their 'anointed one'......you talk about ENTITLEMENT and ARROGANCE. sheesh!!
She's probab destroyed the Democratic Party, and possibly the US
Hillary's whopper
Hillary and Leo--a match made in heaven
I think you've hit it, pgbowden - it's bugged me for a while
Hillary Clinton
Handing it to the Republicans -- on a silver platter
Maybe it's not so bad
It could get worse - maybe
It'll be O.K.---cause Spring is in the air.....
And that means: 'out with the old and in with the new'. This season will be analogous to Hillarys political career. "Wait and see" is not a bad proposition. I agree with your assessment of the 29th; it helps in alerting many in the populace that, contrary to popular belief:---SHE DID NOT WIN TEXAS !!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/7/11339/50182/559/471347 and there is skepticism concerning Ohio: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html even N.H.: http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/2008/01/new_hampshire_p.php and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
I don't know how many friends I've had to expose to this. But more importantly, it hopefully will make some realize that they have been manipulated by the media with misleading information.
With essentially 4-5 weeks to burn and the Demo slug-fest the top story--the media will finally turn on her and eat their own; (its all about the drama!). You have to keep in mind---they've ALREADY known this---it was Hillary's campaign that asked them and the DNC to hold off on reporting Texas results until after Pennsylvania. Now, who else besides the Clintons could have pulled that off? See: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-delay-the-delegate-cou.html
It will be interesting to see how they dance around their own statements that she HAD to win BOTH---to remain viable. But Spring does not bode well for her----thank God!
Edwards (I believe) is considering supporting Hillary--but the fact that he has not been forth-coming leads me to believe he can't. (This MAY have been what ALL THAT WHISPERING was about during the debates)--Hillary was hedging ALL bets--even THEN! He's probably weighed the factors, i.e., IF Hillary wins--he'll probably supplant Evan Bayh for the ceremonial VP slot; then, its wait 4 to 8 years. If she loses---he knows HER core base of 'working class' whites finds him equally appealing--and is his for the taking in 4 years. BUT, if he wants to be a player NOW---he'll HAVE to support Obama. I don't think much of his core base (same as Hillarys) will defect toward Obama, now that Hillary has polluted THAT well; so to induce him to part with his 20-30 delegates, I think Obama will offer him the Attorney General slot (which is a better fit for him).
Bill Clintons recent anti-Democratic comments (again) will start wearing thin on already fatiqued super-delegates who are tired of this constant alignment of Hillary w/McInsane. (As am I). See: http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/03/17/hillarys-plan-to-elect-mccain-and-a-right-wing-supreme-court/ thus, it becomes even more obvious (even to the most faithful) that the Clintons only recourse is to bloody up Barack as much as possible: http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13400
Expect a block of more courageous super-delegates to follow Richardson's lead (and admonition) to make some dramatic declaration BEFORE Pennsylvania to blunt its full impact. There are those within the party who have longed for the demise of the Clinton reign---but were/are afraid to risk its wrath, should they win.
In addition, the super-delegates cannot afford to let Hillary make too much hay out of Pa., because they're looking at the 'coat-tail' factor, with Obama already demonstrating a proclivity to be able to do so, whereas, Hillary--with only a 47% or so--rating across the nation has not shown any indication she has the same capability. They CANNOT afford to let her gain a new, long-term, albeit, futile (and destructive), momentum coming out of Pa. This is what Richardsons admonishment was concerning. Also, in addition to her own dwindling campaign funds, I don't think Hillary OR Bill is too enthused with the idea of people poring over their tax returns next month. ESPECIALLY, given the way heavily redacted memos have generated serious credibility issues with Hill.
Further, she'll win BIG in Pennsylvania will little or no real impact on the delegate count. If Obama pulls off a win in neighboring Indiana (and he's favored to win N. Carolina), their combined 218 delegates will trump the 158 Pa. delegates. (He'll win more pronouncely than she). So whats the significance with Pa.?---It may finally bring to light that its ONLY in these old, Democratic 'machine' cities that she has any real traction! (NY, LA, Boston, Phillie, etc.) The media keeps erroneously trying to portray it as a white, 'middle-america', rural base that Hillary appeals to most---NOT SO! Obama was appealing to this crowd (Iowa)--'til Hillary went racial! Furthermore, even now, shes NOT capturing the groups thats composing the partys future (youth, well-educated, Blacks, Indies, cross-over Repubs, etc.).
Much has been made about the Richardson endorsement, but a closer scrutinization of Hillarys recent nod by Murtha---is more revealing WITHIN the party. Murtha is still miffed by Pelosi's and Rahm's (Emmanuel,D-IL) support of Steny Hoyer for the majority leader slot he felt she should have done more to help him acquire it. His support is more of a reaction to THEM than Obama. WHY would he feel THEY'RE supporting Obama?
If one tracks Pelosi's comments in the last month or so, she has stated, first, the 'dream team' ticket was NOT likely; then, all but declared it 'impossible'---due to comments coming from the CLINTON camp. Next, she sent word to the party that COMMITTED delegates would do well to stay with their commitments, thus, benefiting Obama (no small factor); finally, she all but killed the Florida and Michigan make-overs, to Hillarys detriment. Behind the scenes, its no secret whom she prefers, but will not declare, because of the likelihood of having to broker this at the convention.(less and less likelihood of this tho). Hence, Murtha's decision to support Hillary.
Next, the increasing defection toward truth that is going on in parts of the media, who (besides her own campaign), has been the single, biggest beneficiary (ratings-wise) of all the mis-leading lies being told of Demos pugnacity. With Politico now expressing what P.M., (and others here), have been saying for weeks now, i.e., SHE CANNOT WIN MATHEMATICALLY! See: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/15416/3084/808/482277
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html however, this has already been reported (and known): http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5068396
Lastly, the GORE factor---I think if all else fails, and Hillary goes nuclear and drives the Democratic bus into the pit, Gore, Carter, Hart, Kennedy and the rest, will FINALLY put this fiasco to bed. Hillary/Bill will be thwarted, at long last, at all turns----everyone sees it but her. Unfortunately for us. In light of all the above, my fearless prediction is she has less than two weeks surviving in her campaign. Soooo......soon, faithful ones, all this will be but a bitter memory (like last winter) and...like Spring,....Hope WILL SPRING.....eternal.
Excellent Post
Is she being driven to mental illness?
Please, someone, send her home.