Today, Americans walk it back, Belatedly, and too late to bring home American and Allied troops who died in battle, government officials released recordings. The media distributes and discusses these en masse. Those prominent in the Press and Public Office say “the people have the right to know,” exactly what the tale that could have been told decades ago. Osama Bin Laden was never more than human, a tragic hero, a comical character, just as you or me.
He had a home, a family. Osama sat around and watched television. This man, like any of us might, searched for recognition. He sought attention in ways that made sense to him. Osama Bin Laden had beliefs. He expressed these. Gratified, when an audience showered him with praise he did more of what yielded greater acceptance.
Bin Laden came to understand that when he spoke, people listened. Many appreciated his message. For good or bad people looked for the hidden meaning. Countries made deciphering his every word their mission. Americans and Allies invested trillions of dollars in troops, tanks, and translations all to quell the force of the man known as Osama Bin Laden.
“We did it!” Americans clamored. Some say we “captured” the man we slaughtered. People poured out onto the streets to celebrate the “mission accomplished.” We, the Americans are “victorious.” Caught off-guard while with his family, this man was assassinated, Americas rejoiced.
“Ding dong the witch is dead.” Which “witch” will be next? Might it be another average guy with ill-intent, or will powerful persons declare it is you or me? You might say that would never be, but. .
A week after the massacre, it is now revealed that the real Osama Bin Laden is but a sad and sheltered figure. Past the time when it might have helped save the lives of millions of innocent Iraqi and Afghani people, those displaced, dismembered or just dead, United States Leaders show the people that Osama bin Laden was never more than a mere mortal. We are now allowed to see that the “enemy” who the world sought and feared, is but a man. Bin Laden, scruffy in appearance, today, is cast as a megalomaniac. Americans are told he had an inflated ego. What human would not think him self significant having been given center stage?
When three Presidents, each of whom represents the most “powerful nation” on the planet, formally declares you as “Enemy Number One” might you not consider your forcefulness grand? To know these Heads of State publicly express the need to have you in their sights how can you not think that you, as an individual must be truly important? Indeed, anyone with that much command must be a force to be reckoned with. Given the floor, by those who later would execute him, Osama Bin Laden took it!
Early on, like a character in a book, Bin Laden was assigned a role. Later, when his performance was recognized a brilliant Osama became more prominent. The Actor was elevated to the stage. Broadway beware. This man mesmerizes. His skills as a speaker, a preacher, a Teacher allowed audiences’ world wide to suspend disbelief. People forgot that a man has no power beyond what we give him . . . and oh how we did. Osama Bin Laden, with our assistance became the “face of the enemy.”
He became larger than life. Feared. Jeered. “Wanted” “Dead or alive.” Osama Bin Laden was designated the enemy. Thus, this human became a faceless monster, an inhuman demon. Artists, Authors, or perchance more accurately, Administrations painted his picture for us. “He is a barbarian, an aggressor, a liar, madman, a vile animal that can be exterminated without regret. Before we make war, even before we make weapons, we make an idea of the enemy. Every society has its official image of the enemy.” For Americans and Allies it was Osama Bin Laden. Tomorrow might it be you?
Drama fills the airwaves. The tragic comedy comes to life, or is theatre of the absurd. The curtain rises. The cast murmurs. They say, it was first heard, or read in May 1897. At the time, Mark Twain and his demise were the topic. Today, The New York Times splashed the story on the front page of the paper. Bill Clinton Tried to Get Meek to Drop Out. The former President and friend of the Meek family, “last week tried to convince Kendrick Meek, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Florida, to drop out of the race.”
Tonight, on Countdown, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s Show, Charlie Crist affirmed the reports. The Florida Governor said he has close connections with a man who knew of the conversation, first-hand. Even before this claim, the story spread like wildfire.
Yet, as Mark Twain had stated more than a century before, Kendrick Meek reiterated. As far as I can see, nothing remains to be reported, except that I have become a foreigner. When you hear it, don’t you believe it. And don’t take the trouble to deny it. Merely just raise the American flag on our house in Hartford and let it talk.” The soon-to-be authentically Democratic Senator stood before a throng of supporters and said.
(CNN) – At a press conference Thursday night Democratic Senate nominee Rep. Kendrick Meek called press reports that he was asked to drop out of the race “inaccurate at best.”
“Any rumor or any statement that I decided to get out of his race is inaccurate at best,” Meek said.
Meek said neither former President Clinton nor the Democratic National Committee called him to say he should get out of the race.
He also addressed Governor Crist’s comments earlier in the night that Meek was asked to step aside.
“He’s trying to push Democratic votes in his direction,” Meek said. “He wants to climb on my back to get those votes.”
Meek ended the conference saying, “If there was a conversation between Bill Clinton and I, we’re the only two people that can say how that conversation went.”
As he spoke these words, people were left to ponder. Why might the rumor have been raised? What is the reason for such unfounded gossip? Might Governor Crist only wish to feed a flame and fuel his campaign? Until moments ago, we could have only guessed what occurred. Many in the audience may not have expected what occurred. The drama unfolded.
What was the motivation? Asked and answered, by Bill Clinton himself. Who was the person actually behind the gossip? Again, asked and answered by the Meek family friend, President Clinton.
What the public saw earlier was Julius Caesar or his alter ego. Then, the knife pierced his flesh. With his last breath, or first, during his resurrection, Kendrick Meek might be heard to whimper, Et tu, Brute.
Tuned into the television, Congressman Meek and his backers might have finally relieved themselves of the bond that has for too long been a blameless barrier to greater success.
President, Bill Clinton himself took the stage. He humbly or smugly, dependent on your perspective, said he talked to Representative Kendrick Meek about ending his bid for Senate twice. Once again, in his vapid vigor to further the Party, President Clinton divides it. He conquers all that he argues is good for America. Just as his habit has been, Bill Clinton asserts that he feels our pain, and then, serves himself.
For me, these realities have never faded from view. Reform cannot be achieved when a Party or persons within a politically motivated campaign place their win above what benefits all the people. Personally I know, that the truth and all the tales told prior to the revelations do not change my vote. I would honor my beliefs regardless of what others might say. I stand with the one Senate aspirant who has consistently worked for the people, who is one of the people, and who believes as I do, in the democratic principle.
When we place politics before democratic principles, the right to run for office, vote on policy, and those who work for the people, then we commit to our own certain death. This performance may have come to a close, or perchance, this is but the opening act. The question remains. If we do not learn from history, are we not destined to repeat it?
“Now, that doesn’t mean that questions of Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the whole range of challenges that we often engage on with the Chinese, are not part of the agenda. But we pretty much know what they are going to say. We have to continue to press them but our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crises.
The news appeared in cyberspace on Friday, February 20, 2009. As Yogi Berra once elucidated, it was as déjà vu, all over again. International and domestic activists have come to realize, once again, America is a democracy dependent on dollars. Amnesty International advocates shook their heads, wondered, and worried of what might be. Students for a Free Tibet collectively shrugged their shoulders and expressed a shared distress. Citizens at home, in America, barely blinked. An avid Obama supporter, was resigned to realities that, only weeks ago, she might not have thought she would willingly accept. Moneybag democracy lives. Hillary Clinton serves the President, the precedent past, present, and perhaps, future.
Days ago, with Secretary of State Clinton abroad in China, the world was given an opportunity to witness America’s new direction. Most anticipated dollars would no longer have a greater influence on United States policy than humanitarian concerns did. Globally, people waited to cheer for the change that had certainly come. Then, Secretary Clinton, pleaded with Beijing to buy United States bonds. Contrary to her pointed comments on human rights, made during her presidential campaign, as a representative of the Obama Administration, Secretary Clinton spoke as though she no longer believes as she had, Chinese ownership of US government debt had become a threat to national security.
Perhaps, Hillary Clinton, and her President, surmised Capitalism, or a democracy devoted to dollars must survive at all cost. Certainly her husband, and his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright had reached this conclusion near a decade earlier.
Like Secretary Albright, Hillary Rodham Clinton, chose to sell America’s soul. When the first woman Head of State spoke of her decision, few United States citizens said a word. In the 1990s, then Head of State, Albright, in a 60 Minutes interview, discussed the American policy decisions that caused the deaths of more than half-million Arab children in Iraq. She said without hesitation, the loss of young lives were the price the Clinton Administration thought wise to pay. Madeline Albright mused; the sacrifice of little ones was “worth it.”
Hardships on fellow humans are the cost citizens in a comfortable and “civilized” society must pay for democracy. Apparently, Americans, even the most Progressive amongst us, seem to agree. Then, as now, few if any said a word.
Today when news came over the wires, Secretary Clinton stood firm in favor of economic relations with China, regardless of human rights violations, only a few countrymen responded. Activists were ‘shocked’ when they heard the American Ambassador, Clinton, take such a stance. Representatives from Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet spoke out.
T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was “shocked and extremely disappointed” by Secretary Clinton’s comment. The advocate for honorable and equitable civil liberties may have trusted that at least where China was concerned, the Clinton’s had a record, or at any rate, had offered respectable rhetoric.
James Mann, a Johns Hopkins scholar who wrote a history of U.S.-China relations, also recalled. When asked of Secretary Clinton’s most recent comment, Professor Mann stated he was struck by the contrast. Bill Clinton, he said, as president more than eight years earlier gave strong speeches on behalf of political freedom in the People’s Republic. “Bill Clinton told the leader of China he was on ‘the wrong side of history,'” Mann recollected. “Now, Hillary seems to be giving them the reverse message: that China is on the right side of history.”
However, historians might consider the statement that President Bill Clinton is better known for was his truer agenda. “It is the economy stu***!” In March of 1997, writer for China Daily, Ren Yanshi avowed the Chinese government certainly perceived the United States had a record of human rights violations, during the Clinton years. In a “Moneybag Democracy,” the United States of America caters only to the rich. In the States, a consumer culture allows the prosperous to profit further. The people, the poor suffer greatly.
In recent years, as the rich got much richer, this truth was revealed in radical ways. The word “Katrina” evokes much empathy. “Bank bailouts elicit more emotions within the ranks of what once was the Middle Class. Some might say, these truths are the reason that change has finally come to America. Until today, the thought was coins and currency would no longer guide an Administration or US policy. Barack Obama brought hope to the world.
Students for a Free Tibet embraced the new Administration. They believed the current White House could and would make a difference in the lives of all people. Surely, a President Obama would not serve only the affluent.
As a Senator, Barack Obama was among the sponsors of the act, which bestowed the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, on the Dalai Lama. Senator Obama urged Chinese president Hu Jintao to “meaningfully address the Tibet issue.” After the election, Tibetans were encouraged. They sent President Obama letters of Congratulations. Thus, it was an unexpected and an unwanted surprise to hear Secretary Clinton cavort, cajole, and say as she did. The proponents of social justice stated, Clinton’s remarks “sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time.”
“The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda,” said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group.
Long-time activists, domestic supporters of Barack Obama, persons such as Jessica, see Secretary Clinton’s statement differently. This woman who energetically endorsed Barack Obama from the moment he announced his campaign would have welcomed a more mindful position. She yearns for United States policy to be benevolent as she believes Barack Obama, the man, is. Jessica, who organized her community to come out and work for what she craved, an Obama White House, now thinks America cannot “afford” to do other than cater to the wishes of the Chinese government.
A jubilant Jessica has been joyful since her presidential candidate was chosen to serve. She avows; “Unfortunately, due to our greed, China owns us. If they pulled their money, this country would die. Sad fact but true.”
American lives would be lost if foreign affairs focus on humanitarian concerns in China. There can be nothing worse. Who would buy the wares that please the people in the States, or Jessica might say, in her own defense, furnish jobs for those born in the Far Eastern nation. The argument could be made; and certainly, descendants of Wal-Mart founder, Sam Walton, would be the first to offer it. US dollars support a much-improved Chinese culture.
George W. Bush might have mused the latter claim an important one. Perchance, that is why the former President chose to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics. United States indebtedness served to justify relations with China, a country well-known for human rights violations. The desire to feed a Capitalist market, the need to assuage the hunger of citizens who habitually consume on credit, and a country famished for cash, will do all that they can to appease those who beat and brutalize Chinese citizens.
The people of China, many Americans cried at the time, cannot be punished because they live under totalitarian rule. Nor can US athletes be penalized. Cruel and inhumane treatment is not acceptable, or at least it would not have been months ago, to Jessica who did all she could to help place the now President, Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
In primary season, Jessica stood staunchly against what she then thought were Hillary Clinton’s hawkish views. She, might have agreed with essayist Stephen Zunes when he wrote for the Foreign Policy in Focus on December 11, 2007, “(F)ront-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.”
Nonetheless, today, Jessica, the proud Progressive, a self-identified peace lover offers, “If there is no money, people will die. Fact. I hate it (almost) as much [as an idealist would.] I also agree we are a soul-less country.”
Then, she quickly deferred to her disgust for the George W. Bush years. She stated the crimes committed by the former Administration were deplorable. Jessica concludes, “(W)e have to hold the previous administration accountable for their crimes.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose position on censure has wavered would concur with Jessica, today. If the subject were an investigation or possible prosecution of the Bush White House, Nancy Pelosi would be on-board. However, Speaker Pelosi may, or may not, think the United States can ignore human rights violations on the part of China. One never knows. History and statements made in the past, are often inconsistent.
Almost a year to the day, on February 21, 2008, Secretary Clinton’s good friend, the esteemed Representative from San Francisco, Pelosi, spoke eloquently of what she did not publicly discuss with fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton, now in 2009.
“If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world,” House Speaker Pelosi told reporters during a visit with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala, India.
Indeed, America, the Moneybag Democracy has forfeited ethical influence. Economics has replaced principled certitude as US policy. The press understands the priority. The commercial media knows dollars deliver. Damn the lives and liberties of our brethren abroad. In the United States there is but one mission, moneybag democracy.
Perchance this truth explains why coverage on the decision to forego human rights concerns is limited. An article appeared here, or there. Yet, few commentaries focused on the human rights aspect of the Secretary Clinton’s travel. The Los Angeles Times reported, Clinton added environmental and security issues to economic talks in China. Most say Secretary of State Clinton has sealed the deal. She has merged the past with the present. Former First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton has performed laudably for her President, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or for the precedent moneybag democracy.
How do you stop a train that long ago left the station? How might you un-ring a bell that rang weeks months, or even years, before you knew the chord was struck? How can a countryman, or woman rewrite history? How might a Clinton, or two reclaim entrance into the White House? Perhaps, she [or he] has already done what, since Barack Obama secured the Democratic nomination, no one expected. The Clintons have found a way through the front door of the White House prior to 2012. Days ago, President-elect Obama met with Hillary Clinton to discuss her role, and her husband’s, in the Oval Office and in international affairs. Senator Clinton emerged as the candidate for Secretary of State.
While Americans voted for change in 2008, and millions cast aside even the politics of past Democrats, the Clintons included, Barack Obama calculated his choice for this most senior position would be his former antagonist, Hillary Clinton. Some reports say the New York Senator requested time to think. Other accounts suggest the Obama Administration asked only for her thoughts. What might Hillary Clinton wish to pursue. As the hours pass there is one certainty. “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has engaged three prominent lawyers to help President-elect Barack Obama vet her candidacy for Secretary of State.”
Several within the President Elects inner circle were critical of the possible appointment. Advisers to the former First Lady said nothing is definite. Senator Clinton will weigh whether to take the job if President-elect Obama offers it. Yet, it seems the die has been cast. Senator Clinton and her spouse have secured the powerful position of Secretary of State.
Breathless with consternation, numerous inquire; is there a way for one small individual to sway a gargantuan group who controls what was and will be our government? Countless fear not. It seems the Clintons will once again control policy, people, and alter the political landscape planet wide.
Momentum builds. A rolling stone, or a rumor, gathers no moss. When a report is not immediately rescinded, we must accept, as frequently occurs, gossip grows into reality. Hence, scores conclude, Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State.
The way is cleared. Only the justifications need to be formalized. Qualms need to be calmed. One cabinet job would put focus on “Two Clintons.” That circumstance cannot be corrected, and perhaps, the President-elect would not wish to alter what is. Some say the status of a former Commander, well-connected would benefit the soon-to-be current.
“He’s a former President of the United States. He’s been traveling around the world, and he’s got his foundation and a lot of foreign policy efforts going on,” proclaims Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff. The current Professor of public policy, Mister Panetta pronounces, “What they will have to obviously be careful of are the potential conflicts that might appear.”
Conflicts may extend to interests, investments, and the invisible hand of another American widely considered a world leader. In the past, the President may call upon another former United States Chief Executive for advice. He, or she might ask for counsel, or invite the previous President to serve as an envoy. However, if, as proposed, the once Head of State sleeps with and sings sweet nothings in the ear of the current Secretary of State, it may be a challenge for Premiers and Prime Ministers to determine which President presides. A nation in negotiations must be confident; the person they speak with communicates the preferences that take precedence in policy decisions.
Rogues often rise from rolls in the hay. “You want to be able to determine when you are going to make use of a former president in terms of foreign policy or trying to help on particular issues. That can be a very powerful tool if it’s used well,” Professor Panetta advised. “It has to be used with discretion. Delicate details in an intimate relationship cannot be ignored, particularly when more than passion is at stake. Lives can be lost on the turn of a phrase. A United States President, be his name Bill or Barack, must not forget how much influence he has in and out of the bedroom.
Charles Hill, a Professor at Yale, perceives a possible peril if Hillary Clinton is appointed Secretary of State. The scholar, Hill explained, the former President’s constant presence could lead some world leaders to question the authority of the new Commander-In-Chief. As he attempted to digest the dynamics, Charles Hill asserted, “He’s got to maintain his stature. He should not want Bill Clinton getting all the ink or Hillary Clinton.”
The ink may have already been put to paper and dried. Deeds may be done and decisions made. Hence, Professor Hill’s concern for supposed sins may only be academic. Nevertheless, he states, the selection would violate “one of the cardinal rules of foreign policy: “Secretaries of State don’t deal with ex-presidents. And if they do, the White House raps their knuckles.””
A slap of the hand, a slight blow to the wrist, a reprimand, or a retort will not change what has been a constant in the life of Hillary Clinton. Bill will not be removed; her resolve will also remain.
Hillary Rodham Clinton the oft-perceived to be a hawk, will deliver dictums if or when she chooses. As she told Barack Obama in a recent debate when he remarked, it was difficult for him to know who he was running against, Bill or Hill, she replied, “Well, I am here, he is not.” To that then Senator Obama said as Heads of States may say tomorrow, should Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State, “It is hard to tell who I am running against [or working with] sometimes.”
The sensibility expressed by Barack Obama in earlier times is not singular. It has been stated and said again. When an individual associates with the Clintons, direct dialogues are reported to be other than those involved thought the circumstances to be. Some might say, for the Clintons, the shortest distance between an ambition and an accomplishment is often an indistinguishable path.
As an assistant to the Senator, a former 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue aide stated, when First Lady, Hillary Clinton learned how to be effective as a “backdoor diplomat,” Now, through her characteristically tough talk, the once Presidential aspirant intends to acquire what might arguably be considered the keys to the second most powerful position in the world.
A few prominent persons at home and abroad may muse Senator Clinton is not the best choice. Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province might say as he had in March when Senator Clinton and her supporters exaggerated her foreign experience record, this is a “wee bit silly.” Nonetheless, Barack Obama never asked the man who truly brought tranquility to his homeland of Hillary Clinton’s talents. Had he, he might have heard the tale,
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” Lord Trimble reflected. In the Spring of this election year, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient pondered then recent statements about Hillary Clinton being deeply involved. His conclusion was, the rhetoric was “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”
Perhaps, David Trimble is correct. However, Hillary and her adept assistant have capably adopted a different perspective; Senator Clinton mastered “a lot of the intricacies of these issues before ever joining the Senate’s Armed Services committee. She’s tough; she had meetings with some Prime Ministers and Presidents where she had to deliver some blunt messages for us.” Perchance, in the past, the world leader who received most of her brusque communications was her husband Bill.
This appointment would provide her far greater opportunities to be brash with world leaders. As benevolent as Barack Obama may wish to be in his appointments, as Lincolnesque as he longs to be, it may be wise to consider the wars Hillary Clinton welcomes, her words, and President Elect Obama’s own experiences of the dynamic duo of Bill and Hill. The actual person, the personality, and the prospect of what Senator Clinton brings to the world stage, may not be as magnificent as the former President-elect Obama, First couple, or their supporters would wish us to believe.
While granted, a team of rivals who work together may be reminiscent of the illustrious words of President Lincoln, “We are not enemies, but friends … Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection,” human emotions may not evoke “the better angels of our nature.” People, personas, and the power they seek may have wings, and wants more fragile than a seraph.
Confident in his current role, perhaps, the President Elect forgets. In May 2008, he bellowed, Hillary Clinton has the “bluster” of President Bush. It is she who was ready to obliterate Iran if provoked, or Senator Obama, if he stood in her way.
On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Hillary Clinton, not Bill, offered the statement “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel].” The former Presidential challenger, when she thought she had a chance to sit in the Oval Office and commands said, “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Given the opportunity to retract her words, the potential Secretary of State did not.
“Massive retaliation” is the message Hillary Clinton chose to cling to. The then Presidential hopeful did not waver. Hillary Clinton confirmed her truth, reprisals are needed. Talk of diplomacy was for Senator Clinton naive.
Then, the candidate the people chose to govern expressed a divergent thought. Barack Obama emphatically stated, “We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran.” Being more sensitive to slights, Mister Obama offered, “[I]t is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we’re shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we’ve seen out of George Bush.” In what now appears to be ancient wisdom, the one, or that one that Americans elected to act with restraint affirmed, “[T]his kind of language is not helpful.” Tis true!
Barack Obama may wish to recall the rants and rage expressed by Senator Clinton not so long ago. The President-elect might ponder beyond Bill. Hillary Clinton, on her own, now wishes to serve in an alternative capacity. However, as she attested to through words and actions, she is her own master. She will posit her own positions, irregardless of who might be her President, Bill or Barack. Might it be mused, Hillary Rodham Clinton will officiate, cooperate, or obliterate, whatever she may choose.
Post Script . . .
I know not what to do with my frustration. Do I merely restate what others have said before I put pen to paper? I tried to, many times. In frustration, I have walked away from a composition that expounds upon futile arguments. I relent. Barack Obama offered Hillary Clinton a position in his Cabinet. He proposed she might be our next Secretary of State. Now he and his transition team vet the New York Senator and her spouse. However, in truth, as I assess recent history and recall that Hillary Rodham did not wish to be considered for Vice President unless . . . thus, I presume the mere consideration is a confirmation.
For days, the White House transition team told no tales. They did not confirm hearsay. Nor did they deny the talk. Hillary Clinton was offered a Cabinet position in the Obama Administration. Ultimately, after much speculation, word came down from senior sources unknown. The former First Lady is “under consideration.” Hillary Clinton will have to decide whether she wishes to abandon her Senate career and pursue another path.
The signs say she is interested. The smile at a Press Conference as she discussed the possibility, the saucy statements, the legal assistance she provided the transition team, all say ‘Sure, I would love to be Secretary of State.’. Hence, countless conclude. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the one, the person who will serve at the pleasure of President-elect Obama, and I can do nothing, but voice my apprehension aloud.
Should Senator Clinton become Secretary of State, America and the world will have to weigh each day what perchance, Barack Obama did not wish to, or thought would not be a problem. Bill and Hillary Clinton are forces not to be underestimated. Negotiations are not their forte. The two favor force and power. Peace is not the prospect they pursue. If this train leaves the station, and the bell rings, no one will be able to look back. The damage will be done. Perhaps, we will live the truth of the words oft cast, “Past is prologue.” Woe is me or we.
Sources of Scorn from the possible Secretary of State . . .
Throughout the ages, life has been but an allegory for the Shakespearean drama Macbeth. When people observe the strength of a wedded woman, they wonder. Might she be the spouse behind the man? Couples whose passion for power burns brightly may be reminiscent of those who perform in the tragedy played out on many a theatre stage. A pair, married partners, in the present, may be as characters in a revival of the this best-known of William Shakespeare’s tragic productions. The tale, written in centuries long past, often evokes reverie of today’s truths. Only the characters differ.
If this dramatic piece, were to be performed today, possibly, Hillary and Bill Clinton would be cast as the main characters. The two are slightly more modern, and a bit less morose than the actors in years gone by.
Pray tell or protest; Hillary Clinton and husband Bill have captivated an audience. Spectators ruminate on what is no longer a rumor. The Clinton family, who may have temporarily surrendered or suspended a campaign for the White House, will stand center-stage throughout the Democratic Convention. Indeed, Barack Obama, the man many believed was cast in most powerful role in this play, may have learned what others never doubted, the mesmeric Clintons never go away.
This couple can coerce concessions and compel compromise. The two can kill with kindness or cause carnage with finesse. History harkens back. Bill and Hill have slain mighty dragons. They also enthusiastically destroyed darlings. It seems the desire for absolute power invites this prominent pair to act with intent.
About a decade ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton persuaded the American public of her purity when she stood by her man. Not long after, she charmed citizens of New York State. Lady Clinton convinced her constituency she was not a carpetbagger. As she planned for a Presidential campaign, the supposed fragile female showed a hesitant public, she, Hillary could stand strong with the soldiers. Now, several say the New York Senator has served admirably on the Hill.
Some may ask, what of Bill. Did the former President not bring us peace and prosperity, supporters inquire? In her stump speeches, Lady Clinton avows, indeed he did, she did. They did it together. The duo, brought this country back from debt and a deficit too great to fathom. Surely, this couple is not corrupt, or coercive. They have given the audience, Americans a reason to believe that they are altruistic.
Softly swayed by seemingly selfless actions, those charmed by the Clinton charisma do not recall that the Clintons helped to create the financial debacle the electorate now experiences. An audience content with celebrity, dazzled by a drama, and grateful for fiscal favors sees no reason to reflect upon what might have been had the Clintons not repealed the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts.
Today, there is no time to ponder in retrospect. The play, even a revival is new. The time is now. Hence, observers only wish to move on. Those who watch this most recent reenactment of Macbeth might muse; just as the beloved monarch King Duncan was murdered, metaphorically, Barack Obama has been essentially eliminated. What was to be his climatic performance, will be but a whisper in the wind as Lady Clinton, her husband Bill, and child Chelsea deliver their lines. Truly, what is scheduled to occur could be classified as theatre of the absurd.
Granted, the Presidential hopeful may naively believe he chose to do as he did, However, those who have been victim to the marvels of a magnificent manipulator and her husband know, the presumptive nominee has been played for the fool. Senator Obama was deceived into thinking he prevailed. In truth, Barack Obama is victorious in name only.
We know not how long his triumph will last. Lest the audience forget. This theatrical production is as it has been since the primaries began. It is a tragedy. Barack Obama is but a pawn in this drama. Lady Clinton was and is confident; the Illinois Senator can be moved and maneuvered!
The wondrous woman from New York understood this from the first. She did her research. Hillary Rodham read Barack Obama’s most recent book, the Audacity of Hope. . As she perused page after page, the studied First Lady Clinton could not contain her excitement.. Senator Clinton saw more than she could wish for. Her rival, the man who could deprive her of her dreams admired her husband. Even more helpful, Senator Barack Obama genuinely thought well of her.
In his prose, Barack Obama often spoke highly of the pair. When Mister Obama spoke of either of the Clintons, he was complimentary. Indeed, Lady Macbeth, or the former First Lady Clinton had the presumptive nominee in her clutches before she even began to coddle a relationship. Hillary recognized, she could use his adulation of her, and her husband, to her advantage, and so she has.
The woman, who on rare occasions was “too full of the milk of kindness” knew that in her fervor for supremacy, she could call for dark forces to “unsex” her and fill her with “direst cruelty.” Hillary Clinton acknowledged that if she felt it necessary to gain control, she could. She would do whatever needed to be done. The former First Lady could be wily, clever, and keenly manipulative. Barack Obama, she grasped before the Presidential campaign began, would be putty in her hands. It was there, in print, as if etched in blood. Deeply felt veneration cannot be easily washed away. This benevolent soul, Senator Obama, would not be a brutal opponent. He could not crush the Clintons. Barack Obama had too much respect for the twosome.
Hillary Clinton understood long before the final days of her Presidential bid. What most thought a loss for the Clintons, was in some regards, a gain. Indeed, as Hillary Rodham would reflect further, she determined, her defeat might be a gift. The public and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama might feel great compassion for the woman who almost won.
In fact, during a debate Barack Obama smiled and said he expected Hillary Clinton would be among his advisors. Some thought he had her in his grips. However, it was then Hillary knew, with greater certainty; the Illinois Senator could be played like a violin, or a harp cradled gently between her thighs.
The former First Lady saw his weaknesses, and she, as a master at manipulation, could and would use the vulnerabilities Senator Obama exposed over and over again..
She did so, even on that night. The American audience may remember. It was Scene One, Act Two, when Lady Clinton responded to the remark that she might serve as his counsel. Seemingly stunned, Hillary smiled. She laughed with a lilt in her voice. Her face may not have revealed the joy in her revelation. Hillary Clinton knew, she could, and would conquer. She, with the help of Bill could reduce her rival to tears, or destroy his will to dominate. In her heart, Hillary Rodham was sure she would survive, and perchance be President. Pooh-pooh the naysayer. The Clintons would prevail, of this the Lady was convinced.
When Bill expressed his distress, and asked what if they did not succeed in their attempts to demoralize and destroy the opposition, Obama, the former First spouse reassured her husband. She said, to his inquiry of what if were to fail, “We fail! But screw your courage to the sticking-place, ?And we’ll not fail . . . What cannot you and I perform upon the unguarded Duncan or Obama?” A man unaware is always defenseless.
The frailty of faith found in the exaltation expressed by Barack Obama whenever he spoke of the Clintons helped Hillary to achieve her success, or at least hold the possibility in her hand. Today, former First Lady Clinton is assured her name will be placed in nomination on the floor at the Democratic Convention. Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton may secure the votes necessary to anoint her as the Democratic Party’s nominee.
For years, the talk has been telling. “She is stronger, more ruthless, and more ambitious than her husband. Women, the play implies, can be as ambitious, and cruel as men. Yet, social constraints deny the feminine among us the means to pursue aspirations on their own. Perchance that is why initially Hillary Clinton called upon her husband to help her campaign. She needed Bill, or thought she did. Then, in New Hampshire, she found her voice. Once the New York Senator found herself, and realized her strength, she was able to do what Lady Macbeth could not. Hillary Rodham could do away with her challenger and leave no trail of blood,.
Barack Obama maybe cast as the Democratic contender. The Illinois Senator may presume that he won his Party’s nomination. He could and would be prominent at the August Convention. However, if this is his belief, he is mistaken. Perchance, he has not had the opportunity to read the full script. Senator Obama may not realize that he is but one in a cast of characters in a Clinton drama.
The Presidential hopeful could not have known how cryptic the character who appeared so genteel could be. Nor did he have reason to realize how persistently tenacious the former President Bill Clinton was in actuality. Prior to the primaries, Senator Obama may not have fully grasped, the change we can believe in occurred in 1992. Nor could he have known the Clintonistas would contain any threat to their supremacy.
Presumptive nominee Obama did not fully understand, once the Clintons took the stage, transformation, as authored by Bill and Hill would become a constant. It continues, even on into Denver. Ultimately, it seems Barry had to bow to the truth he referenced in his most recent book. Hope was first born in a small town in Arkansas. Its name was Bill. Bill brought along Hill. Each gave birth to Chelsea. The Clintons, now a complete set of auteur, will author any change we can believe in.
Barack Obama was not the one who had the courage to make dreams come true. Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill holds the honor.
The Clintons would have it no other way. In the past, the former President has proven himself formidable. His First Lady fearless. Neither will accept no for an answer. They never said die before, that is unless the death of others, even children, would benefit them. Nor would the two, or three, think to go away quietly now. The theme adopted by this dynamic duo has always been “Yes; we, he, or she can!” Inevitably, they do. Today, once again, the masterful directors of this delicate drama, Hillary and Bill showed us all, they believe, and they achieve.
A presumed loss in the Democratic primaries does not deter her or his confidence. They are the Clintons, passionate and powerful.
Each trusts the climatic conclusion in this comic tragedy remains hidden. The audience does not suspect; indeed, they love the suspense. Hillary has yet to deliver the monologue penned in the final manuscript. When Lady Clinton is ready, she will reveal what she knows to be real. The catharsis will be realized when the crafty Hillary Clinton stands alone as the hero. The speech will not be as the one she delivered when she mocked her rival Barack Obama.
“The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” . . .
Her words will be beautiful and brilliant. For Hillary has “lived a little long[er]” than Senator Obama. She has “no illusions about how hard this is going to be” to realize her dream of dominance. “You are not going to wave a magic wand to make special interests disappear,” she told a crowd of delighted supporters months earlier. Hillary has no desire to have those who funded her campaigns vanish. She can control the Capitalists, just as she directs the Democrats. Even the esteemed Barack Obama, who some say is now the Democratic Party leader, can be brought under her spell.
After all, this drama has been carefully staged, produced, and directed by the sly Hillary Rodham Clinton. This clever Lady can tame the shrewd, or symbolically slay a mild-mannered man name Barack Obama. She has clout and ultimately, in this performance she will retain the crown. She has her wily ways to convince the people of what she wishes them to believe. Please review the research. Pew. For the People and the Press.
If Hillary wanted her name placed into nomination, it would be done. If the Presidential aspirant yearned for a delegate vote count, so be it. Keynote speeches from her husband, daughter, and herself, in primetime, of course. The Clintons came. They dominated. They conquered just as they always have.
Since Bill and Hill first stormed onto the Washington scene, there has been one drama after another. With the Clintons in the White House, in the Senate, or in the political theater, Democrats have been mired in melodrama. No one, not Barack Obama, least of all Barack Obama, can escape Clinton escapades. The presumptive nominee is now the focus. Hillary and Bill envision Senator Obama as the flawed hero. The Illinois Senator must fall.
Infidelity, imprudence, impeachment, and improbabilities, all the stuff of dramas. Bill and Hillary have realized all. Implausibility and improbability; these are the Clinton signatures.
Today, it was announced. The next step in the comic tragedy would occur. The expected Obama coronation would be canceled. Hillary, Bill, and daughter Chelsea would appear at center stage. The Clintons could be expected to perform as no one in history has.
The former Presidential candidate, her husband, and daughter would be allowed to perform at the Democratic Convention. Each was offered a prominent place on the playbill. The three would deliver keynote speeches; regardless of the fact that none were the presumptive Democratic nominee. Once again, Bill, Hilary, and Chelsea are the main characters on stage.
As the Denver Democratic convention approaches Americans are again in awe of what the Clintons create, chaos!
For days we, the people have heard Clinton campaigners clamor. Her name must be placed on the short list. She must be on the speakers’ panel. Finally, those who love Hillary insisted, the candidate’s name must be placed into nomination. Hillary has to be honored; the Denver Group demanded. After all, the New York Senator did receive eighteen  million votes, regardless, of the veracity of intent.
The Presidential aspirant, Lady Clinton, said, a catharsis is necessary. A week ago, the female Clinton told a small gathering that she is in negotiations. This sharp-witted Senator would not be stymied. Nor would her devotees be dissuaded. Democrats for Hillary would be able to vote for the candidate of their choice at the Denver convention.
“It’s as old as, you know, Greek drama,” she said. “There is a catharsis. I mean everybody comes and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that’s all to the good.”
For Hillary, and husband Bill it is. Good is realized when history does not hearken. When mesmerized by memories of times gone by the public does not question what was in the past. Good, is when Lady Clinton and President Bill can call upon friends who benefited from bank laws rescinded to create a fervor. Good is when the presumptive winner of a nomination loves your legacy more than he wishes to create his own. Good is the greatest drama revived. It is all good when Lady Clinton is in the limelight.
Clinton and Lady Clinton References Revisited . . .
Months ago, it was Springtime. The Primary Election season was about to come to a close. In March, talk turned to the month that begins summer. Senator Clinton was elated, as were we all. At the time, it seemed soon June would be busting out all over. The Senator from New York believed she had a chance to secure the Democratic nomination. The former First Lady spoke of how wondrous the sixth month of the year might be. When asked of her plans for the rest of the year, Hillary Clinton rejoiced. She recounted; June 1992 was a euphoric time for the Clinton family. Perchance, in 2008, she said, the same thirty days might again bring reason for euphoria. The Senator expressed, the unexpected might occur, just as it did in 1968, when . . . the disturbing, distressing, disquieting, the dire, calamitous catastrophe crippled American citizenry.
Yes, in March, animals still hibernated and perhaps, the American people were a bit sleepy from their long winter nap. The electorate was focused on Spring fever. Any reason for jubilance brought joy to those who participated in the political process. In the third month of the year, not only was nature anxious to awaken from a sleepy season, the people in the United States were eager to be reborn.
The last seven years were too long. The storms and strife were too severe. In America, it was time to turn the page. The pain inflicted by the Bush Administration was too great. The people craved peace and prosperity. They were willing to fight for what they thought best. Some remembered the 1990s fondly. Perchance, we could go back to better times. Certainly, now it seemed anything would be possible. Women had achieved a victory. So too had working class, “whites.” Finally, Clinton and her constituency thought this was true. The former First Lady, Hillary Clinton had just realized a triumph in the Ohio and Texas primaries.
Prepared for what many had long said would be a much-deserved coronation, Senator Clinton was elated. Against all odds, or perhaps, as predicted the elected official from New York proved there was no reason for her to suspend her journey to the White House. Indeed, she often spoke of how excited she was as she contemplated the time when the moving van would pull up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and she would again hold the keys to the Oval Office. Hillary Clinton said she was “ready to clean house” at the most prestigious abode in the land. That was Spring. That is the time of the year when many think to tidy up.
Yet, while the two wins were glorious, many thought these were not enough. Journalist believed there were problems for the presumed nominee. Barack Obama had much support, possibly more than the magnificent Senator from New York. Thus, in an interview with Time Magazine the Presidential aspirant was asked and answer . . .
One group that probably ultimately wouldn’t want it to go on too long is the Democratic Party itself. Can you envision a point at which – if the race stays this close – and with the difficulties that everyone has analyzed in accumulating enough delegates to get any distance ahead where party elders would step in and say “Senators Clinton and Obama, this is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall. We need to figure this out.”
No, I really can’t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months.
At first blush, people may agree. Americans may hastily remark, “Tis true. Senator Clinton is correct.” However, in actually, only a portion of hr statement is valid. Memories fade quickly. People recall what they think wise to believe. Might Bosnia and sniper fire come to mind? It seemed the esteemed First Lady described a desperate circumstance more than once, although she knew the reverie was not real, or possibly, she forgot.
Then, again, just as now, Americans allowed for the misstatement. Months elapsed before any one questioned what was said. Endless excuses could account for what occurred then. It was cold outside; brains were frozen. Americans were caught up in the moment. The candidate mesmerized the masses. The media did not bother to investigate for they too rejoiced at the idea that a woman might become President, or perhaps, memoirs are meant to be mythical in scope.
Possibly, that is why citizens in the United States accepted an impressive chronicle of thirty-five years of service to the country, eight of which were in the White House. Few would wish to admit to what was revealed when that recollection proved to be less than what had been presented.
The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton’s desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day’s calendar that she attended.
The documents offer no insight into her role in appointments to key administration posts or in courting donors for her or her husband’s political campaigns.
And they do not add to an understanding of how she coped with revelations in 1998 of her husband’s sexual betrayal with a young White House worker, or provide a paper trail of the discussions that led to her declaring her candidacy for the Senate in 1999.
The dry records carry all the emotional punch of a factory worker’s time card, showing where she was for much of her eight years in the White House but telling nothing about what she was saying, thinking or doing.
Could it be that reveries do not expose as persons would wish to believe. Hence, people choose to forget. More than a decade has past and that may have an effect on reminiscences. Documentation shows President Bill Clinton was the Party choice long before June. In April 1992, while there were lingering questions as to his character, contrary to what Senator Clinton thrice stated recently, her husband was able to cinch the nomination before the last primary. Confident words came from then “Progressive” leaders.
Ronald H. Brown, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said tonight, “I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season, based on his performance today.” Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee “so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.”
Ah, perhaps Senator Clinton asks America to forget. Hillary Rodham may revel rather than muse, “memories are short.” Anecdotes, ancient accounts make clear, even when Bill Clinton sought the Democratic nomination, the Party hoped for time to concentrate and converge. Yet, if Senator Clinton were to admit this, June would be her bust. The Presidential hopeful may state . . .
“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June, in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact.
“The Kennedy’s have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to. I am honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate, from the state of New York, and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family. Thank you.”
While the Senator may offer her gratitude for the sympathy she endeared to evoke the former First Lady does not apologize for the use of a statement once, twice, or perhaps three times. Forgetfulness reigns, for in March there was no causal relationship. The latest assertion only applies to what today, most appreciate may be callous. Where were Americans in the Spring?
Perchance, Senator Clinton, then and now has no empathy for what is, and what was. Nonetheless, few citizens can forget what this present election brings out, bigotry. Rampant racism in the age of enlightenment has a hold on this country. Intolerance has benefited the Clinton campaign and at times, almost crushed Barack Obama’s and the nations dream. What Americans would wish to forget is how divided our homeland is, and how this effects the security of a candidate. Barack Obama may not mention the possibility of political bloodshed as Senator Clinton did; however . . .
Mr. Obama learned about Mrs. Clinton’s remarks as he rode in his motorcade from Miami to Sunrise, Fla., on Friday. He and his aides discussed the matter, but decided he would not address the comment when he arrived at an afternoon rally.
Instead, to an audience of 16,000 people who filled the Bank Atlantic Center arena, Mr. Obama praised the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton and assured Democrats that their party would be united after the long primary campaign ended.
Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious at the remark, particularly because his safety is a particularly sensitive issue. He was the first presidential candidate to receive Secret Service protection more than a year ago because of specific threats, none of which were disclosed.
In an interview earlier this year, Mr. Obama said he was aware of the threats, but felt safe because of the Secret Service protection, which he pointed out was given to presidential candidates because of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
“It’s not something that I’m spending time thinking about day-to-day,” Mr. Obama told The New York Times in February. “I made a decision to get into this race. I think anybody who decides to run for president recognizes that there are some risks involved, just like there are risks in anything.”
Barack Obama is likely not as sleepy as the electorate can be. The Presidential hopeful may not be captivated by the Clinton charisma. Nor does he probably forget as easily as the rest of population does when Senator Clinton slips. Barack Obama was not cocooned in the winter or spring. He was aware; and chose to forgive what is challenging to forget.
A brilliant man, a Rhodes scholar named William Jefferson Clinton stood in front of the gas stove with his sweet protégé, a country known as China, a nation much like a lost lad. The powerful President wished to mentor a territory adrift in the Twentieth Century. As a father might teach a son, Bill handed the boy a box of matches. Hillary Rodham Clinton, surrogate mother as she thought herself to be, while experienced, and wise in her own right, said nothing of the possible peril. Indeed, rarely was she able to speak of what went on in the family’s little White House. The then First Lady did not enter private rooms; nor did she attend her husband Bill’s closed-door ‘conferences.’ The encounter, near the range, was thought to be a restricted exchange. The couple while close had separate lives. Special spouse that she was, Hillary did not have security clearance.
The current Senator from New York was a proxy parent at the time. She was aware of what went on within the inner sanctum of the Oval Office. Bill, Commander of the residence and the region known as the United States, felt very close to his wife. He says, then and now, he shared all secrets with his partner. In 1995, Bill Clinton told Hillary Rodham Clinton of his plans to present the Asian guardian in his charge with an ignitable force. Benevolent Billy hoped the child, China would be empowered. Of course, the elder man made the younger male promise he would never use the thin sulfur tipped stick of wood near the stove. Although the oven was close at hand when Bill provided the tools and taught the little gent how to use them.
President Clinton also asked for a pledge. Children or associates that might benefit from the gift the Chief Executive bequeathed his student must be contained. The United States must forever remain the world’s superpower. Bill Clinton trusted nothing would change once the child was given his gift.
In 1995, China National Non-Ferrous Metals, headquartered in Beijing, and San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc, funded by the Chinese government, joined with other interests to purchase the Anderson, Ind.-based Magnequench, which made Neo powder for use in magnets.
The two Chinese companies were headed by the husbands of the first and second daughters of then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. One of those daughters was at that time “vice minister of China’s State Science and Technology Commission, whose responsibilities included acquiring military technologies by whatever means necessary,” according to David Cay Johnston in “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Corporations Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill).”
“Complaints about the sale of Magnequench were made to the U.S. government because of the military applications for the magnets,” Johnston reports. “Still, the Clinton administration, an ardent proponent of globalization, approved the sale.”
The Clinton administration requested that the technology and production remain in the U.S.
“If we believe this was truly a national defense issue, the company should not have been allowed to be sold in 1995, to the group it was sold to, which was backed by the Chinese government and Chinese entrepreneurs,” says Virginia Shingleton, head of the economics department at Valparaiso University for the past 12 years.
Thirteen years later, long after Bill’s munificence exploded and harmed all in the neighborhood where the Clinton’s once lived, the matriarch, strong woman that she be, spoke of the harm caused, but blamed it on another, later inhabitant of the property on Pennsylvania Avenue. The former First Lady of the White House, in a feverish campaign to reclaim the estate, does not wish to damage her husband’s reputation or her own, Hence, Hillary Clinton continually cries out.
“A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn’t even get a hearing,” she said.
“The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China.”
What the passionate Presidential aspirant does not tell the common persons who can help her regain the property she feels she deserves is, Magnequench was originally sold to Chinese interests when her darling husband was at the helm. President William Jefferson Clinton signed the documents, which would become the law of the land despite concerns for national security and eventual job loss. Although, alarm was expressed at the time, Commander-In-Chief Clinton relinquished the rights to ownership, or bestowed the matches upon the child.
Experts say the Chinese acquired the “technical sophistication” that created the magnets long before George W. Bush took office.
Nevertheless, as the former First Lady speaks, family friend, and a person who objected to her husband’s actions at the outset, smiles and bows, or bobs as he weaves. The prominent Representative, like a doddering, foolish, old uncle, conveniently forgets the past. He would not wish to blemish his own record within the community or sever his ties to the Clinton’s. Chances are good, if Hillary Clinton inherits the throne, Evan Bayh may also personally prosper. Thus . . .
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind,, Clinton’s top surrogate in the state, often joins her on the stump in bashing the president (Bush) for allowing Magnequench to move abroad. What Bayh doesn’t tell voters these days is that he has blamed the company’s moving on a 1995 decision made by Clinton’s husband’s administration.
Back in the day, when the Clinton’s ruled the roost, governed the manor, and controlled the countryside, Senator Evan Bayh foresaw the destruction that might befall the nation and impact his plot of land. The man who represents the state of Indiana, and did all those years ago, understood if the child [China] were to be given an opportunity to set his [economic] world ablaze, he [it] would.
Senator Bayh predicted if the burgeoning boy [China] was equipped to burn the house down, the residents in the homeland might find themselves out in the cold. Countless considered the possibility, an avid and curious learner given information, and the means to multiply his skills, will succeed. In other words, if China was granted an opportunity to gain knowledge and talents, they would.
What is forgotten by the candidate and ignored by her beau, the previous President is: when a Head of State ships vital Union jobs overseas, then a strong economy will not be sustained here at home. Apparently, the affable fellow who stood at Senator Clinton’s side as she tours his home territory Indiana, also fails to remember the flames he knew were coming. Back in the day, indeed, as recently as a year ago, a statement prepared for Evan Bayh expressed more than a cautious concern for what the Clintons did.
A memo prepared for Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not, and that the consortium promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005.
An Oct. 6, 2005, press release from Bayh[Bayh] noted that he asked for the Government Accountability Office to study “concerns over foreign takeovers of American companies with national security implications & after an Indiana company called Magnequench closed thanks to a 1995 decision by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States CFIUS to approve a Chinese consortium’s takeover. At the time, Magnequench made 85 percent of the magnets used to guide U.S. smart bombs.”
Said Bayh, in the release: “The committee responsible for providing this protection does not have a good track record, as I saw myself when it allowed an Indiana company that made smart bomb magnets to be purchased by a foreign business. When it comes to protecting our national security interests, we should be doing more, not less..”
Now on the campaign trail in support of fellow Senator Clinton, Bayh dismisses the outrage he once expressed at the Clinton administration’s approval of that 1995 sale, or at least he does not discuss it. Currently, the melodious Indiana Senator sings another song. He emphasizes no companies manufacture Neo magnets in the United Sates and evades the essential reason. His bud Bill, husband to Hillary, is the cause for concerns within his neighborhood.
What Bayh doesn’t tell voters these days is that he has blamed the company’s moving on a 1995 decision made by Clinton’s husband’s administration.
Andy Albers, a former vice president of Magnequench, said he received a phone call from Clinton’s campaign to go over key details of Clinton’s Valparaiso event before it happened on April 12.
“I told them all the truth, but it didn’t go anywhere,” Albers told ABC News. “Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton are living in some false reality here, making all these false accusations.”
In Pittsburgh on April 14, Clinton told voters that “not only did the jobs go to China, but so did the intellectual property and the technological know-how to make those magnets.”
Albers says no secrets or intellectual property transferred to China when Magnequench moved in 2003, despite the claims of these politicians.
Perchance, the Hoosier State Senator is more enamored with magnetism than magnets. Hillary Clinton can be quite a charmer, and Bill is not bad himself. As a couple, the two can mesmerize constituents and cause a community to forget its sorrows, or the story of woe that is their history in the White House.
Consider not only the gift President Bill Clinton gave to his protégé China, contemplate the present he bestows upon many a voter. Bill Clinton, the man with the matches, reminds crowds gathered in the rural regions of Indiana and North Carolina, the two states next to hold primary elections that he and Hillary feel their pain. The story he tells in these hamlets is, when he was in the Oval Office, America was in the Golden Age. The working man and woman prospered.
The magnanimous Bill Clinton decrees only he and his wife can bring back the euphoria that was life in the United States in the 1990s. He tells the hordes of rural folk that ‘other people may look down on them, but not the Clintons.’ The enchanter, the esteemed Mister President, indulges, “Hillary is in this race today with a real chance to win because of people like you.” He honors the crowd, “If it had been up to the experts and the party elites and the wealthiest Americans who are Democrats, she’d be toast.” Bill bestows . . .
After the speech, no one brought up the fact that Bill Clinton fits that definition himself: a wealthy party elite. In the eyes of small-town voters, Bill Clinton will always be one of them.
Katherine Clontz watched Clinton in his last stop of the day in Whiteville.
“He’s really charismatic. He does know the people’s pain and what they’re going through right now, the struggles of American people,” Clontz said, acknowledging that Clinton’s skill helped him when he was governor of Arkansas but sounding a note of mistrust that he now lives in New York.
“Call me a sucker, call me what you will,” Clontz said. “But I think he does understand and try to help the people.”
It’s a political gift. And Bill Clinton still knows how to use it.
Hillary Rodham has also acquired the flair. When in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the former First Lady shared the lopsided legend and the public swooned. The electorate in the Keystone State cast a ballot that said, Senator Clinton we entrust our lives and jobs to you regardless of what is real. Evan Bayh offers his novel version of jobs lost and escapes scrutiny. Perhaps he too has acquired the cult of personality. The Clintons and Bayh can relate and captivate. The three can help America forget that failed policies began with Clinton not Bush. Ah, what a little magnetism or magnets can do.
The days grow increasingly darker as Hillary Clinton supporters and staff members continue to deride Barack Obama. No longer is it enough to question his experience, which is arguably equal to the candidate’s husband, Bill Clinton’s, before he entered the Oval Office. The former Vice Presidential contender and Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro has gone farther.
In 2008, the Twenty-First Century, an era when people think themselves tolerant, Geraldine Ferraro claims she did not demean or dismiss Barack Obama. She merely stated that his skin color was the only reason for his success. She declared . . .
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said, according to an article published in the Daily Breeze. “And if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Presidential aspirant Clinton proclaims she does not agree with her friend and member of her Finance Committee and she wishes to distance herself from the remarks; yet, candidate Clinton does not wish to do more than express disappointment.
“I do not agree with that,” she said. “It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal.
“We ought to keep this on the issues,” Mrs. Clinton said. “There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we’ve produced for people. That’s what this campaign should be about.”
Clinton herself highlights the distinctions. She also engages in a bit of clash. The Senator from New York lessens the worth of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama when she avows, he is only able to articulate eloquently; he has no solutions. Clinton maintains Barack Obama is not a military expert. He cannot possibly serve as Commander-In-Chief. He does not have the proper credentials. Clinton affirms; she is ready to reside in the White House. Hillary Clinton hastens to add, a vote for her is a historical ballot. America has never had a women President. Former vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro agrees. The two attest to the “fact” gender bias is blatant and that needs to change. Geraldine Ferraro, rebuffed the notion that race was ever an issue. For the honorable former Congresswoman, the idea that her comment was racially prejudiced is pure nonsense. This esteemed Clinton supporter, Geraldine Ferraro argued in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California.
[T]he “sexist media” and the country has “gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.”
Senator Obama was not pleased by the initial statement and certainly not appeased by Hillary Clinton’s response to the claims or the clamor. Barack Obama states . . .
“I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd,” Mr. Obama told the Allentown Morning Call. “And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign they shouldn’t have a place in Senator Clinton’s either.”
The question is, what do you think. Has racism reared its ugly head, or is sexism a more significant problem in the United States of America. I offer my personal view and invite yours dear reader.
I am a white woman. I have been forever. While I recognize that persons identified as female often receive lower wages and have fewer opportunities, I believe what women go through cannot compare to what African-Americans do. Girls, pale and pinkish in color, are considered gorgeous and glorious. They are adored and loved. As teens, a lass is admired. An adolescent, or young lady who is white is wooed. The fair skinned female is wonderful to observe and a delight to behold. A white woman evolves and becomes beloved. The same is not true for a Black child, girl, or boy.
Indeed, in 1954 America, Kenneth B. Clark helped us to understand the angst a Black child feels. He and his wife Mamie, through a series of studies, discovered an African-American child’s wisdom. When given the choice, young girls with brownish-purplish hues in their skin, without hesitation, decided it would be best to have, or to be an Anglo doll, rather than a Black beauty. In 2006, when Kiri Davis, of Manhattan’s Urban Academy, repeated the research she too realized the ugly truth. Early in life, a tot grasps the great gap that exists. The quality of life for a Caucasian American is far “superior” to that of a Black born in the “United” States. Geraldine Ferraro, did you ever long for a doll whose skin was dark?
Might we consider that white woman, Abigail Adams felt safe, and was considered sane, when she asked her dear husband, John to remember the ladies. The wife of an esteemed colonist did not think of her mate as a master. Nor did, sis Abigail feel that she did not have the right or reason to speak. As the men worked to establish independence, the women also asked for their civil liberties. Whilst more than a hundred years passed before women suffrage was achieved, in all the years prior feminine beings did not suffer to the extent Black persons did.
Lest we forget, that centuries later Black Americans, born in this nation, did not have equal rights, even after they were supposedly awarded. African-Americans had to fight for Civil Rights time and time again. Prior to 1964, Black persons were meant to be seen; however, only in the shadows. The darker-skinned people were not to be heard. African-Americans were only intended to serve. Little has changed. Many Black Americans secure jobs that offer few opportunities to achieve or excel. En masse, Afro-Americans assist those who are allowed, and expected to, accomplish more.
In reality, two score after the dark-skinned individuals received a legal right to be more fully free, equality is still an illusion. The white population authentically cherishes few Black Americans. We need only contemplate the fact the Voters Right Act must be renewed every twenty-five years. The sting of racism lingers. Ms Ferraro, are you asked to demonstrate your literacy when you wish to cast a ballot, is any white women required to prove she is able?
Geraldine, if I may be so bold, as a person who spent the first five and one half years of her life closely connected with a Black family, I witnessed much bigotry. I felt more. The intensity of love I feel for those who helped raise me is invisible. People on the street, in a store, or even those who I encounter daily, do not know my history. When people see me, they set eyes on a pale pinkish person. If they too are light in color, they feel safe when they first think to mention racist attitudes. Before I voice my disdain for such intolerance, white persons will offer what they would not to an individual with a dark-complexion.
A black man, woman, or child from the time they are born until the moment they pass on from this Earthly existence must prove him or herself to a white male, female, or a person who is young enough to honestly speak of the color of their skin. Yet, according to Geraldine Ferraro, to think that being Black is anything but lucky, well . . .
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”
Geraldine Ferraro , if you ask me what I think of your repeated racist statements, I will tell you. However, I trust words will not be sufficient. I ask that you spend a day, a week, a month, or a lifetime in a Black body.
Life in a world where the color of your skin determines your wages will not only be lower, but conditions will likely be extremely poor. Access to quality education and health care, when your skin is dark is sadly, frequently not determined by the money in your pocket, but the color of your complexion. If, as an African-American you are able to excel, you will have to continually prove yourself. Try to imagine an existence where you must fight for the few scant opportunities tossed your way. Affirmative Action laws are awarded and taken away.
Then, Congresswoman Ferraro, contemplate that as an African-American, finally, or on occasion you are recognized for your worth. You are a Magna Cum Laude, Harvard Law School graduate. While in school your were first of your race to be appointed President of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, you are fortunate enough to realize your passion. People acknowledge your successes.
The audacity of hope gives you courage enough to campaign for public office. Much to the surprise of many, you are elected to the Illinois State Senate for eight years. Then the people in your region confidently place you in the United States Senate. Geraldine Ferraro visualize that you have received ample acceptance from the American public. In a run for President, you achieve what even white men or women have not. Finally, you, a Black person, a potential President of the United States, in America, is bombarded with brusque and brutal barbs that trivialize your accomplishments.
I inquire Geraldine Ferraro, “How is that, or how would you react to your “informed” rhetoric were you an African-American?”
Presidential aspirant Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks of her ample experience. The Senator from New York reminds us in advertisements and advisements that she, the former First Lady is abundantly qualified to serve as President of the world’s superpower, the United States of America. For decades, Clinton gave to her country and the community. She would like to continue to work for the people; perhaps, in a more profound manner. As Hillary Clinton affirmed of herself, “I have crossed the Commander-In-Chief threshold.” However, some question her qualifications.
We agree; Senator Clinton has already walked within the private quarters of the White House. She was privileged enough to inhabit the residence. She, and her spouse, were selected by the people, not once, but twice to represent this nation. In her position as First Lady, the Presidential hopeful gained much wisdom. As Senator, she expanded her knowledge.
Hillary and husband Bill Clinton are deeply connected. The pair has been through trying times. Yet, repeatedly, they triumph. Nearly a score ago, William Jefferson Clinton coined the term “comeback kid” about him. From his first Presidential bid to has last, and then again after he left office, the boy from Hope, Arkansas never lost his. This extraordinary man married a woman who mirrored his amazing ability, Hillary Rodham. On March 4, 2008, Presidential hopeful, the wondrous Hillary Clinton did as her husband had done well over a decade ago. She too can now be called the quintessential candidate who will not be kept down. Despite a mass of primary and caucus wins, Barack Obama, learned as many before him had, the experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton will carry on with greater vigor until she realized substantial victories.
As near newlyweds, Bill and Hillary governed in Arkansas. Against all probability, the fresh young couple, from a small Southern state, entered the national scene. Together, they engaged in many difficult and persistent disputes with the privileged political notables. Hillary argued against all claims cast against the couple. She spoke of a vast “Right-Winged Conspiracy.” Ultimately, the Clintons prevailed and came to occupy the Oval Office.
They endured when others lost faith. Bill’s hometown, Hope, provided him with extraordinary will. Apparently, Hillary had the same ability to dream and create the impossible. The two are practiced. They have been beaten down, and just as the Phoenix, they rise from the ashes.
Many Americans recall when the Governor of Arkansas and his bride first appeared on the national scene. people recognized Hillary was not and would not be the woman behind the man; the two were as one. The First Lady of the Natural State was as articulate, erudite, experienced, and eloquent, just as her Rhodes Scholar husband Bill was and is. The couple met in college. Each attended and graduated form Yale Law School. Each was and is a professional in his or her own right. In 1991, the thought was elect one and the nation would have two esteemed and eligible individuals working in the White House for “us,” the citizens of the United States.
Thus, Americans were convinced. The Clinton’s, as they are often called, moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bill Clinton and Hillary shared a bed. They exchanged secrets. The two lawyers understood the complexity of their given roles. They were familiar with the particulars in each other’s lives. Couples communicate. Americans saw evidence of what the Clintons could do. The deficit was reduced. A surplus produced. The people prospered. Many would say, ‘life was good under the Clinton’s.’
Hence, there is reason to believe as Louis Murray of Barry, Vermont declared, on a cold day in March 2008, as he emerge from the polls. Mister Murray told a National Public Radio reporter, “She is truthful, truthful.” We can only wonder of the rest of his statement, “[T]his Obama, I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t trust him. I am not prejudiced or anything. I just don’t trust him.”
Perhaps Louis Murray mirrors his mentor. Hillary Clinton, only days before the March primary vote expressed her reticence. She was questioned about her faith in Barack Obama, or at least she cast doubt on his. In a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Senator Clinton was asked of a concern expressed by many constituents. ‘Is Barack Obama a Christian?’
“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.
“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
“It’s just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.
“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.
This terse and tentative dismissive of the rumors that Barack Obama may be Muslim, hence a threat to the Jewish population, or pro-Israel policy, is but one of many stealthy, subliminal actions in an ample arsenal of Clinton agendas. The experienced campaigner and her cohorts have been up to much mischief. However, they deny, or refuse to comment, on claims and confirmations.
The comment seemed like a casual aside. Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, was touting the New York senator’s strong support for Israel during a conference call in January with leaders of major American Jewish organizations. During the call, Lewis energetically contrasted Clinton’s pro-Israel credentials with those of Barack Obama. To make her point, she said that Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser” is Zbigniew Brzezinski, says one participant who would talk about the call only if he were not identified.
Brzezinski-the former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter-is not Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser.” That is the job of a triumvirate who once worked for Bill Clinton: Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig. But Brzezinski, who tells Newsweek he has advised Obama “only on occasion,” has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community. “When Brzezinski’s name appears on an advisory list, that’s a red flag right away,” says an influential American Jewish leader who did not want to sour relations with the Obama campaign. Many American Jews mistrust Brzezinski because he endorsed a 2006 article, later a book, called “The Israel Lobby,” which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington’s ties to Israel.
Lewis’s aside is not an isolated incident. (She did not respond to a request for comment.) As the race between Clinton and Obama has sharpened in recent months, other Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by Newsweek. In addition to Brzezinski, the e-mails attack Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a former Clinton negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view, and they raise questions about Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for “greatness” to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “bloodsucking religion.” (Obama disagreed with bestowing the award.)
Yet, regardless of Barack Obama’s denouncement, and rejection of talk or actions against Israel, irrespective of his support from and for the Jewish people, the Clinton Camp rages on. Repeated assaults, similar to those the Clinton’s “experienced” when they first entered the political fray are not being used against the man they consider the enemy, presumed Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.
In an e-mail sent Feb. 4-a day before Super Tuesday-Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: “Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barack Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries.” (She didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
While no definitive evidence exists, there seems to be a direct correlation. A region is flooded with electronic mails that claim the devout Christian Barack Obama is Muslim, just before a primary or caucus in that given territory takes place. Search after search proves the gossip is false. Barack Obama is not and was not Muslim; nor was he educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa.” Yet, a fearful public reacts to rumors with venom. Possibly, probably, an experienced and educated Clinton has read the research.
Fueled with more fire, and fiercely familiar with what it takes to command a lead a country, Hillary will do what she feels she must to triumph. As the former First Lady asserted, for Hillary Clinton, this campaign “is personal.” Hence, her campaign avowed, they would ‘throw the “kitchen sink” at Barack Obama. The Obama momentum, 11 straight wins, would be derailed. The New York Senator would to be regain her title. After all, she, and her husband, are the Comeback Clinton’s.
The infinitely experienced and esteemed Hillary Clinton is able to evaluate a situation and a person perfectly. She has done so for thirty-five years. When Senator Clinton states Barack Obama is not prepared to be Commander-In-Chief, those who trust her as Louis Murray does, look and listen. Most forget; for years, Senator Clinton prepared for her coronation and cultivated military connections.
Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York’s defense contractors
by Kristen Lombardi
April 26th, 2005 12:00 AM
When someone like Newt Gingrich commends a Democrat’s service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know, you’re looking at a serious hawk. That hawk is Hillary Clinton, junior senator from blue-state New York and possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Gingrich, with an eye on his White House bid, told a group of newspaper editors last month that she’d make a formidable opponent. “Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee,” the GOP hard-liner said. Gringrich should know: He sits with her on a star-studded Pentagon advisory group.
When not fending off terrorists or bucking up the troops in Iraq, Clinton has been equally fierce about defending defense dollars for her home state.
Just ask Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who got the back-off sign from her at an April 19 budget meeting of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. Clinton isn’t assigned to this smaller group, but she showed up anyway. And we know what she said, because her aides sent out a press release and video snippet of their Democratic boss fighting the good fight on Capitol Hill.
Lieberman, a fellow committee member, had sought a coveted $1.7 billion contract to build the presidential Marine One helicopter in his home state. The deal was awarded January 28 to Lockheed Martin-in upstate New York. Now Clinton feared he would try to block its funding.
She spoke briefly, telling the subcommittee: “Now that the contract has been awarded, we think it is important we proceed expeditiously.” Cut this money, in other words, and you’re crossing me.
As countless knew long before the March 4, 2008 primaries,, and as Barack Obama now understands more than he hoped to imagine, do not threaten Hillary Rodham Clinton or her desired rise to power. The wrath is far greater than a woman’s scorn.
Contempt from the Clinton Camp is intended to crush any member of Congress or rival candidate. The experienced Senator Clinton is skilled in her craft. She is clever and deftly able to avoid confrontation as she did a week prior to the Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont primary elections, during a Democratic Debate, the honorable former First Lady was asked of her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement. There was much controversy surrounding her stance.
In 1997, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed her support for the action. “The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,” she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. “Look around the globe: Those nations, which have lowered trade barriers, are prospering more than those that have not.”
At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.” She added: “It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.”
She continued to endorse the accord for quite some time. Once in the Senate, Clinton voted inconsistently on trade policy. Hence, the issue was [and is] of great import. Specifically, in Ohio, where the most recent debate was held, workers struggle to survive. Jobs once held by American laborers are ‘outsourced.’ Since the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] was initiated, employment is fragile. Yet, when given the opportunity to discuss what Senator Clinton would do about trade agreements as President of the United States, Clinton deviated from the subject and instead voiced her objection. She did not speak to how the economy was hurt by NAFTA. She addressed her own distress.
Before focusing on the topic, she said she found it “curious” . . . that, according to her, at the “last several debates” she seemed to be targeted for the first question.
We can’t recall if she’s right about that. But we’re pretty sure the matter will have been thoroughly vetted by morning. It also will be interesting to see if Clinton will be seen as standing up for herself or acting a bit petulant.
It all might have been mainly a ruse to work in that reference to the SNL spoof that showed Obama being fawned over by media types. Here was the entire Clinton remark, when the NAFTA query was kicked her way:
“Well, could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”
Hillary Clinton, as was obvious through her numerous odious remarks did not care whether her adversary was cozy. Indeed, she intended to ensure he was not. Behind the scenes and far off in Canada, the Clinton campaign worked to establish that Barack Obama or one of his advisers might be insincere. Early on, there was no mention of the mendaciousness within the Clinton Camp. Hillary and all those who help her focused on what presumed was her manifest destiny. However, as time marches on, Americans have a truer picture. Will Louis Murray have reason to pause?
(CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation’s government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA – an allegation they used against Barack Obama’s campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday’s critical primary votes.
“Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. . . .
The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie – and that his remark had implicated Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s.
The Thursday story also said CTV’s Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama’s aide. . .
Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.
Substance is a shaky matter. The experienced candidate comprehends this. Hillary Clinton who has achieved an image of strength understands the weight of her words. When the Senator from the Empire State chided rival Barack Obama, she set a tone and advanced an agenda that would be the impetus for further insinuations.
Clinton’s gambit may have struck some of those critiquing the debate as woeful, but SNL opened its latest show with another skit depicting Obama as the media’s darling — and her as its victim. More to the point, the coda to the sketch was an “Editorial Response” — delivered by the candidate herself.
Hillary Clinton learned her lesson well, when her husband’s affaire de coeur was revealed. Clinton realized if the public feels her pain, she garners admiration, appreciation, and awe. The Presidential hopeful was reminded of this recently. In New Hampshire, tired and distressed, the forlorn former First Lady tearfully spoke of her despair. The people responded. In that race as well, Hillary Clinton snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
This experienced elected official, knows how to play the game, and even make the rules. Hillary Clinton rants; she rages. She is a self-proclaimed “fighter.” The soon to be coronated Commander-In-Chief, if she has her way chuckles when a coy response is required. She croons and catches America off guard. Hillary Clinton cries, and many weep with her. People relate to the rhetoric of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and why would they not.
Clinton loaded her speeches with a laundry list of policy promises . . . She boasted of the endorsements she has received from retired admirals and generals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (both of whom, as it happens, served under her husband). “I’ve been very specific in this election,” she said in a serious understatement.
And she’s been equally specific in her blistering critiques of Obama of late. On Monday, after the Associated Press reported that Obama’s senior economic adviser had indeed privately told Canadian consular officials not to take the candidate’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric all that seriously, Clinton lit into both Obama and the media. She said the alleged communication, which the senior adviser claimed had been misinterpreted, shows the Obama campaign has “done the old wink-wink. Don’t pay any attention. This is just political rhetoric.” She also suggested the media would be treating this more seriously if she had done it. “With this story, substitute my name for Senator Obama’s and just ask yourself.
Oooops. It seems of late we might have to, for as noted earlier in this essay, the tale may be as true if not truer for the Clinton folks than it ever was for the Obama campaign. The circumstances of this conundrum are yet to fully be realized. However, the situation does not look good for the Clintons. Yet, that “truth” does not deter Hillary “Comeback” Clinton. She continues.
At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, “That was beautiful, but what did it mean?” Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House.
I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ – a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.
While the clamor increases, few are able to focus on the more quiet and calm candidate, the Presidential hopeful who displays calm in a storm, Barack Obama. On the defensive as he has been forced to be in the first week of March, the candidate remains cool. The Senator from Illinois does not squeak and therefore, may not receive the oil. Nor must reporters toil in order to gain access or information from Barack Obama. While this subtle nuance is rarely discussed, it may be quite significant. At least it is to the Assistant Managing Editor, of “Newsweek”.
Evan Thomas spoke of his bewilderment on Hardball, with Chris Matthews. As a group of pundits bandied about the details of the March 4 election results and all the doings that led to the conclusion, a sweeping Clinton win, the conversation turned to talk of who would be the best Commander-In-Chief. The 3 Ante Meridian red phone call commercial crept into the dialogue.
Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor, “Newsweek”: One thing I don’t get about the ad, the whole idea of 3:00 a.m. is, you want coolness and detachment, right?
She is not cool and detached. She is really either hot and angry or she’s icy cold and tough. But I don’t think of her as being cool. I think of Obama as being the cool, detached guy. Now, maybe he doesn’t have the experience, but I think, if you peel this onion, there is something about it that just doesn’t make sense to me.
I mean, she doesn’t strike me as the person who is the cool, detached, steady person at the other end of the phone.
Barack Obama however, is steady. The potential President said of himself in an interview with Time Correspondent, Joe Klein. “It’s just not my style to go out of my way to offend people or be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. That’s offensive and counterproductive. It makes people feel defensive and more resistant to changes.” Barack Obama does invite inquiry; however, in a mild tone. Frequently, the less ferrous candidate asks Americans, might we fully examine Hillary Clinton’s experience? Perhaps, we, the people, should. If we are to truly trust Hillary Clinton as Louis Murray does, it is important that we know why we have faith in this future leader.
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
Perhaps, pillow talk was not always pleasant in the Clinton household. Granted we know the two stayed together. We can assume they worked through the problems that presented themselves in those earlier troubled times. Bill was there for Hillary when she decided to run for her Senate seat. The former President is his wife’s chief cheerleader. Bill, just as Hillary boast of her record and the résumé.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.” . . .
And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers; his campaign released a list naming about 45 of them, and said that others were not ready to go public. Mrs. Clinton quickly put out a list of 80 who were supporting her, and plans to release another 75 names on Wednesday.
The competitive, confrontation, conduct of Hillary Clinton is consistently clear. Possibly, her character traits are the qualities she thinks define her as a Commander-In-Chief. The experience the former First Lady speaks of may entail more than her thirty-five years with Bill. Certainly, her persona has been with her for a lifetime. It seems her duties as the First Spouse were negligible.
Mrs. Clinton’s role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet, little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.
An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the cold war over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging . . .
She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment – or withdrawal – of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
My personal experience may serve to enlighten. Each morning I awaken and we talk. He tells me tales. Barry details his dreams, those he experienced in his sleep and those he aspires to achieve throughout the day. We reflect on what was the day before. Barry and I discuss as we did before bed, what occurred in the office. His suite is not oval is shape. The walls in his workplace are angular.
When my significant other, my partner, thought to “stay the course,” an associate advised him that might be best. Business decisions can be brutal. As an authority figure within the corporate structure Barry, must be sensitive to his base, the people who support him in his struggle to succeed. I questioned that truth, or did I comfort Barry, assure him that he must accomplish the mission. Whatever I said, most definitely, I shared his burden.
I have helped my closest friend and confidant through many a corporate crisis. I listened and offered opinions. Yet, his experiences in his work were not mine. I am capable; yet, I could not do what Barry does daily. Barry and I are a couple. We are extremely close, intimate, and united. However, we are not one. Who he is, what he thinks, says, does, and feels, is distinctly unique to him. I have never been his eyes, his ears, and certainly, I do not have his heart. I may know Barry better than any other human could. Couples have told us they have never met two people that speak more openly or often than the two of us.
Nonetheless, after all these decades, I could not walk into his executive suite and do his job as though I had done it forever. Indeed, Barry commands with finesse. Perchance, I could be as eloquent. However, I will never be Barry. Nor was his experience my own. I stand alone, as me, myself, and I.
Yet, in this election season, I and all other Democratic voters are asked to suspend disbelief and forget Hillary Clinton’s own account.
Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. . . .
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance.
When osmosis, access, right of entry, and contact defines experience, we need not wonder why the State of the Union is dismal. If a person who we sometimes share a bed with qualifies as our alter-ego, then perhaps we have had many women Presidents.
Hillary Clinton is exceptional in that her experience encompasses manipulation, exploitation, and ethics a peacemaker who not value. The depth and breath Clinton alludes to is arguably, illusive. Her excellent management style leaves a staff, as the Washington Post notes, even in victory, battling itself. Yet, these qualities have impressed voters such as John Murray. What does this say of us, a people so ready to attack another country, that before we bombed innocent men, women, and children, we did not verify the “intelligence?”
While not cool, calm, or collected, Hillary Clinton exudes a strength that leads many Americans to believe she has been and will continue to be Commander-In-Chief. Congratulations Senator, former First Lady, and possibly President Hillary Rodham Clinton. You have convinced citizens to suspend disbelief and many do.
In this country many of us equate strength with the lack of emotion. The strong one is the one who can endure life without feeling. The weak one is the one who shows their emotions and thus are banished to a life of disappointment and tragedy. With the introduction of the political narrative of Barack Obama there has been a lot of talk about the word hope. I don’t ever recall this word being dissected to the degree that it has been during his unlikely run towards the White House. One would believe that no other politician has ever invoked the word in an election before. So what makes it so different today than say in 1992, when a young upstart politician challenged the status quo?
For his part, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around another of the oldest and most powerful themes in electoral politics: change. As a youth, Clinton had once met President John F. Kennedy, and in his own campaign 30 years later, much of his rhetoric challenging Americans to accept change consciously echoed that of Kennedy in his 1960 campaign. Wikipedia
Or what about in 1960, when another youthful hope monger spoke so eloquently of hope for a new world while accepting the oath of office for President of the United States:
Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need — not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,”² a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. American Rhetoric
So if it isn’t that the concept of hope is something new to elections, what can it be? I remember being a child and towards the end of November I would be filled with hope of the coming season. I wish I could say it was because I looked forward to exercising the true “spirit of the season” and all the good will towards my fellow man stuff, but that wasn’t what filled me with joy. I would begin to have hopes of the new toys that I looked forward to receiving for Christmas. I would watch in excitement at all the commercials of the coming new and latest toys and I would mentally create these lists of must have gadgets that I was sure to see under the tree on Christmas morning.
There was just one small problem, my father was a selfish man who found it difficult to spoil his children. So for many years there was the promise and hope for all of these things only to be followed on Christmas morning by the stark reality that was less than I had hoped for. You see as a child I could not understand or accept that my father was the man that he was, you see I wanted him to be like me or who I thought I was. The truth was that he could only be the man he was, not who I so desperately wanted and maybe needed him to be. I would awaken on Christmas morning to small tokens and I would end up crying later. After a while, my hopes began to lessen year by year until they were replaced with the gradual numbing of reality. The reality that no matter how much I hoped there was always going to be disappointment. In the end, I just stopped hoping and came to accept the cruelty of life.
As my life continued, I came to the conclusion that my problem in the first place was that I had dared to hope, that I had dared to believe in anything other than myself. I decided that from that point on that emotions were my problem, I would no longer allow anyone the ability to control my emotions. In fact I would bury them, my hero became Spock from Star Trek because he had no emotions. For many years I lived as emotionless as I could. But after two broken marriages, addiction, and suicidal moments I realized the that the strength I thought I had found in having no emotions was actually my downfall and my weakness. What I learned was that true strength and power does not belong to the cynic or the emotionless, but to those who are willing to express their emotions and become vulnerable to disappointment and hurt. True courage is not to never be afraid, but to be afraid and go on anyway.
Barack Obama is not God or a second coming of Jesus and his supporters do not believe this despite the cult analogies. He is simply a man who dares us to believe beyond ourselves. He is not promising to solve all of our problems or that the Government can. What he is offering us is a chance to put behind us many of the things that currently divide us and to focus on the many more things that unite us. After all what really can one man, even the President of the United States do? Over the last few decades we have seen what the politics of division and win at all costs has wrought, a country so divided we are on the verge of breaking. There are many who say that the answer is to continue as we have, that the only way to succeed is to beat the other side to a pulp. Today we are refighting the Civil War only class has replaced slavery. Will it take a bloody conflict to resolve our differences? I don’t know. There are many who are placing their hopes and aspirations on him and those people will be disappointed, because he can do nothing against those forces without our help and our actions.
What I do know is this, if we are able to appeal to the common good in all of us shouldn’t we to avoid that bloody conflict? Make no mistake about it if we do not enlist their help to change this country are we prepared to fight to take it? If Barack Obama’s hope fails it won’t be because he failed, it will be because we failed. If it is to succeed it will require many of us to overcome our cynicism and partisanship to come together for the greater good. The reason he does so well among the young is because they are not as jaded as their older counterparts, they still believe in change. The question now becomes can we transfer that hope into action or will we sit and wait for the disappointment so we can say, “See, I told you so”. It is no longer enough to vote, the last midterm election should have shown us that. We must follow up those votes with action. Just as with any seismic change in America, it must be bottom up, not top down. Our biggest fear is not that we are doomed, our biggest fear is that our hero will be bested; that the things we cherish love, hope, justice, and kindness to our fellowman will not win in the end.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic – John F. Kennedy