They will raise money from whatever source, regardless of the reputation and intent of the giver.
They will play whatever dirty trick on their opponent that they think they can get away with.
They will call their opponent whatever name they can think of no matter whether they divide their party in the process by doing so or not.
They will employ whatever strong arm tactic available to harass, threaten, and annoy their opponents.
They will use whatever means at their disposal to win the nomination and the election in order to get back into power.
Man, what a crew. The crap that Hillary and Bill pulled in Nevada should make all of her supporters right proud of the witch – if you’re a member of a Mafia family. A review of what has transpired over the last fortnight should be instructive to the American people as to what we can expect next fall – and beyond – if Hillary gets the nomination.
1. On January 10, Hillary surrogate Andrew Cuomo pulled the race card out of his sleeve, dropping it into the contest like a rat turd being dropped into a formal dinner and said of Clinton’s New Hampshire victory:
â€It’s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it,†Cuomo said. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,†he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.â€
The Clinton camp raised its hands saying innocently, “Who me? My friend Andy was talking about politicians in general.” I believe her. Cuomo was talking about generally black politicians.
2. A January 11 column by Ben Smith of Politico detailed statements by both Clintons about Obama and race that were so incendiary that one would have to come to the conclusion that the Clintons were either political morons or knew exactly what they were doing.
3. On 1/12, the New York Times reported that Hillary was moving to tamp down criticism from blacks for the racially charged comments made by herself, her husband, and most especially surrogates. In the week leading up to New Hampshire, surrogates were especially active (” “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”). The strategy was obvious. Deploy the race card and then move quickly to plead ignorance or misconstruing by the press. Of course, the media let them get away with it.
4. On 1/13, another surrogate, Bob Johnson of BET Television, alluded to Obama’s drug use and implied he was a drug dealer. While not likely that the Clinton camp knew that loose cannon Johnson was going to make those specific remarks, to say they didn’t expect some kind of fireworks from the colorful Mr. Johnson is equally unlikely. To say they were displeased would also be incorrect.
5. On 1/14, a memo from the Obama campaign surfaced that detailed chapter and verse the Clinton’s use of the race card as well as Bill Clinton’s propensity for misrepresent Obama’s position on the Iraq War. In fact, Clinton would return again and again to this theme, trying to convince people that Obama’s opposition to the Iraq invasion was “a fairy tale.”
6. On 1/15, the Clinton’s brought Obama’s church into the mix by criticizing him for belong to a congregation where the minister published a magazine that handed out an award named after the notorious racist Louis Farrakhan. Obama had nothing to do with the magazine nor should he have to answer for the activities of his minister. Tell that to the Clintons who were attempting to raise a strawman in order to distract attention from their underhanded politics.
7. After solemnly promising to “count every vote” for years, the Clintons had a memory lapse and tried to suppress the vote of possible Obama supporters by suing to keep shift workers on the Las Vegas strip from participating in the Nevada Caucuses, arguing that the so-called “at large” Caucus sites violated the rules. The sheer cynicism of this move was born out on Caucus day – Clinton carried the sites handily.
8. On Caucus day, the Obama campaign catalogued more than 200 election violations:
“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.”
And what of Bill Clinton? With Hillary’s fortunes at their lowest ebb he stepped out from the shadows and began to assert himself – some would say, throw his weight around. He demanded and got as much attention from the press as he desired. His schedule in New Hampshire was almost as heavy as the candidate herself and sometimes he eclipsed her in media coverage.
All this points to a couple absolutely driven to once again get their hands on the levers of power. And the closer to the election we get (if Hillary is the nominee), the questions about what role Bill Clinton will specifically have in the White House will multiply.
They will try to dismiss such questions as irrelevant but that surely is not the case. Never before in American history has such a coupling of the personal and political been given the reins of power. One can see some unique advantages to such an arrangement as having a former president around with Clinton’s gifts. But the potential for abuse is also tremendous. And given the demonstrated amorality of both the candidate and her husband, it should strike fear into the hearts of all those who don’t trust those two any farther than they can throw them.
All presidents aspire for power – mostly so that they can enact policies they believe in. The Clinton’s have demonstrated an appetite for power simply for the sake of exercising it with policies a secondary consideration or worse, simply a means to an end. And that end is the acquisition of control.
This has been their modus operandi since coming to Washington 16 years ago. Why should we expect them to change now?
8:12 am
I’m only slightly younger than the Clintons. I grew up in the South watching the same slick, huckster, race-baiting politicians that Bill did. I really see no difference between him and George Wallace – both put a finger in the air and positioned themselves where the wind blew them. Remember that Wallace supposedly changed later in life. It wasn’t a change in his racial attitude at all, but rather a recognition of a change in the electorate. It’s anything to stay in power.
Add to that Hillary’s study of Saul Alinsky – his ideas of whatever it takes to obtain power – and you have the couple you are describing.
9:00 am
Rick,
Do you really expect the MSM to highlight any of this to the public?
The MSM is only going to hype those candidates THEY want to see in power.
9:59 am
This could make for some very interesting dynamics in the next couple of years. I think that the Clinton tactics may accomplish one of two things (1) Go overboard to the point that she loses the nomination battle, or (2) she wins the battle but in the general election the black voters stay home
In either case she will go too far. Turn to the GOP race and a McCain or Rudy nomination draws some disaffected dems who would have grudgingly voted along party lines against a Thompson or Romney candidate.
If she loses the nomination battle the only person who could effectively compete with Obama is Mcain. If she wins it the disaffected dems may see McCain as a viable option much as the “reagan dems” in 1980.
This is not a comparison to Reagan the person, simply the election atmosphere of 1980.
10:23 am
Let me know when they get to the point of equating a legless, one-armed war-vet with Osama Bin Laden. Or when they start accusing someone of having an out wedlock black baby. Or when they accuse a heroic prisoner of war of having sold out his country during five years of torture. That’s when we’ll know they’ve sunk to the level of Republicans.
12:40 pm
I imagine Bill’s role in the Lady Macbeth administration will be to deflect attention from her Machiavellian antics.
2:52 pm
And none of the Republican candidates, nor their campaigns can use this to their advantage. And the MSM will not make an issue of this. Breathtaking …
2:56 pm
Clinton comes up big in Nevada caucuses…
Sen. Hillary Clinton will win Nevada’s Democratic caucuses Saturday, CNN projects.
...
3:31 pm
It would be fascinating to see Hillary as a contestant on CBS’ Survivor. Her modus operandi would be very appropriate for that venue. I wonder how far she could progress?
5:43 pm
@Rick:
“All presidents aspire for power – mostly so that they can enact policies they believe in. The Clinton’s have demonstrated an appetite for power simply for the sake of exercising it with policies a secondary consideration or worse, simply a means to an end.”
That is probably the most un/incredible thing I read in your posts for a while (probably since your “attention whores only fake assault because they are classified as hate crimes” post). It’s not incredible that Hilary is a power-addict . . . it’s incredible that you think somehow the other players seek power for altristic reasons.
You really think that there’s a difference between Hilary and Romney (aside from style?) That the reason he will be whatever his audience wants to see is because he thinks it’s the only way to advance the policies he believes in? Gotta flat out disagree with you on this one, sir.
9:14 pm
By no means am I ever going to “pull the switch” for Obama, but in regards to the tonight’s debate, he is CLEANING HILLARY’S CLOCK. I kind of admire the guy for the way he takes her on. Thank God someone’s willing to stand up to the Clintons.
I understand the appeal to Obama, he’s a dynamic liberal socialist. I never did understand Bill’s appeal (he reminded me of a used-car salesman) and as far as Hillary goes, what’s up with her? She’s the antithesis of excitement, but with no substance. I don’t understand the attraction with her in the slightest. Really. She’s monotone, she’s can’t get her story straight for more than three days straight and that voice could peel paint when she gets “excited.” For all you socialists out there (not that there will be a lot on this website), please tell me what the draw is to Hillary, because I don’t see it.
I swear, I must be going insane. If it’s really a thing where “she’s not Bush” there are a lot more qualified socialists than Hill (Rendell, Shumer, Feinstein, the list goes on).
12:18 pm
[...] And the scribes and town criers sang his praises and told of his great deeds and of his victory and prophesied the death of the dark Queen until the day came that she cried out in anguish and defeat. But the King unleashed powerful wizards of special interest and once again cast his spell on the people of the Hampshires and Nevada and Lo! The people saw the Queen was not dead. [...]