copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Often a King, a Queen, a Prime Minister, or even a President is anointed for they have what it takes. A bloodline qualifies a person for a position of authority. An individual may have married well. A network of acquaintances often secures an honorable appointment. After all, people profess, “It is not what you know, but who you know.” A court may declare an individual all-powerful, or a media mogul, with monetary ties to those who “count” may commit him or herself to a candidate, or to a campaign.
The reasons for a selection may not be obvious, or at least a naïve public would not fathom the possible influences. Yet, we observe the obscure rendezvous daily. The so-called objective press tells us what to think and whom we must consider a credible source. On Friday, December 28, 2007, America was reminded that Hillary Clinton was the chose one. She alone is more than qualified to be Commander-In-Chief.
Less than a week before the Iowa caucus, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, was invited to speak to a global audience, to an expectant nation, to the American people. She did so with conviction. Cable News Network featured the former First Lady in an exclusive interview. The presumed future occupant of the Oval Office appeared Presidential indeed.
Definitively, Clinton discussed the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. As she assessed the nations’ next necessary move, the New York State Senator was treated as though she was Commander-In-Chief, President of the United States of America.
One might ask, “Who died and left Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office?” Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was slain, or accidentally, she took her last breath, or insert the theory of your choice. Hence, “The Most Trusted Name in News” chose to select our next President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Regardless of Hillary Clinton’s recent slip in national polls and the possible cancellation of the previously planned coronation, Wolf Blitzer, Ted Turner, or parent company Time Warner thought the former First Lady was the best person to advise Americans on the crisis in Pakistan. In truth, there has long been an alliance between the Cable News Network and the Clinton clan.
Some might recall another discussion during the most recent New York Senatorial campaign. In a cover story, Time Magazine the crown jewel periodical in the Time Warner media kingdom, explained to “uninformed” voters, Senator Clinton had “virtually nonexistent opposition for her senate seat.” Hence, Time Warner’s NY1 TV news channel [“the CNN of New York”] vehemently refused to host a Democratic New York Senate race debate stating there was no need. Clinton did not have a viable opponent.
Notwithstanding numerous protests, and cries of foul, the New York Cable News Network claimed her antiwar challenger, union leader Jonathan Tasini, has not raised enough money to be considered creditable. The station capriciously stated, a candidate must raise a half-million dollars before they are worthy of note, or are granted an opportunity to speak to the television audience. Apparently, actual money buys airtime that support from the electorate cannot.
Ironically, NY1 has already hosted and televised a Democratic New York gubernatorial debate between frontrunner Eliot Spitzer and a Democratic challenger who was at only 10% in the polls. But that candidate had raised about $6 million. So spending millions to get just 10% in popular support was rewarded by Time Warner’s channel, while building a more effective grassroots campaign, largely of volunteers, was punished. (One wonders how much of the money went to NY1.)
Did I mention that Time Warner’s Political Action Committee [PAC] is one of the many corporate PACs that underwrites Hillary Clinton’s reelection campaign against the “virtually nonexistent opposition”?
While Hillary Clinton does face a field of qualified opponents in this national Presidential campaign, according to Cable News Network she is still classified as the presumed winner again and again, at least in CNN polls.
The American public may never have a chance to ask “Which came first, the media’s preference or the people’s opinion?” A Clinton victory may have been cinched before the public campaign began.
In an earlier era, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the candidate with “experience,” lived in the White House for eight long years. While she may not be George W. Bush, the man who, current Chief Executive Officer of Time Warner, Richard Parsons has long supported; nor is she John McCain, a Republican nominee that Parsons now backs, of those considered electable, Clinton may be the best Bush clone. That alone may be important enough to an elite entrepreneur who wishes to ensure his interests will be protected. Hillary Clinton has corporate connections more meaty than all other contenders.
A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm–the Glover Park Group–that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting.
Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. “She’s got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors,” says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.
For Richards Parsons, the list of Clinton’s top contributors establishes Hillary Clinton is an attractive aspirant. She is solidly in the Conservative Camp. This is likely the reason that Parsons, the individual, also invested in her Senate campaign in 2006. Now, in 2007, he and his network can further assist the candidate in her endeavors . . . and they are.
After the death of Benazir Bhutto, Americans were invited into the Situation Room, not the one located in the White House. We, the viewing public entered the halls of the Cable News Network. There we discovered who died, and who was made President. As the Time Warner, Cable News Network broadcast began Journalist Wolf Blitzer announced right from the outset who was in charge of the nation and foreign policy. Blitzer proudly declared . . .
Hillary Clinton’s get-tough approach to Pakistan — in our exclusive interview, she has some harsh words for President Musharraf and for the Bush administration . . .
The television audience then saw the presumed “future” President of the United States. Her face filled the screen. The United States flag was visible over her shoulder. A golden ambiance set the tone; then the words of our “leader” echoed through the air. Former First Lady, soon to be Madame President Clinton proclaimed her beliefs. She shared her policy and offered instructions to the world at large.
I don’t think the Pakistani government, at this time, under President Musharraf, has any credibility at all. They have disbanded an independent judiciary. They have oppressed a free press.? ?Therefore, I’m calling for a full independent international investigation, perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations has been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon.
I think it’s critically important that we get answers. And, really, those answers are due, first and foremost, to the people of Pakistan, not only those who were supportive of Benazir Bhutto and her party, but every Pakistani, because we cannot expect to move towards stability without some reckoning as to who was responsible for this assassination.
And, therefore, I call on President Musharraf and the Pakistani government to realize that this is in the interests of Pakistan to understand whether or not it was al Qaeda or some other offshoot extremist group that is attempting to further destabilize and even overthrow the Pakistani government, or whether it came from within, either explicitly or implicitly the security forces or the military in Pakistan.
You know, the thing I have not been able to understand, Wolf — I have met with President Musharraf — I obviously knew Benazir Bhutto and admired her leadership — is that President Musharraf, in every meeting I have had with him, the elites in Pakistan, who still wield tremendous power, plus the leadership of the military, act as though they can destabilize Pakistan and retain their positions, their positions of privilege, their positions of authority. . .
That is not the way it will work.
Or is it Senator Clinton. It seems if you and your cronies, your contributors wish to retain positions of privilege, and positions of authority a destabilizing death may be to your advantage. Perchance, it already was. You certainly appeared to be in control, as a Commander-In-Chief addressing the nation in our time of need. Americans awaited an explanation after the Bhutto assassination, and before we could blink, we had the answer. “Who Died and made you President?”
Sources of Authority . . .
- Clinton calls for ‘independent, international investigation’ of Bhutto’s death. By Mark Memmott. USA Today. December 28, 2007
- The President Who Died for Us, By Richard Wightman Fox. The New York times. April 14, 2006
- Richard Parsons, Time Warner Chairman. Hall of Fame. NewsMeat.
- Hillary: Love Her, Hate Her. By Karen Tumulty. Time Magazine. August 20, 2006
- Situation Room. Cable News Network. December 28, 2007
- Hillary Still Hiding on War; Time Warner Provides Cover, By Jeff Cohen. ZNet. August 25, 2006
- Hillary Inc. by Ari Berman. The Nation. May 17, 2007
- Transcripts. Situation Room. Cable News Network. December 28, 2007
- Poll: Democrats see Clinton as strongest, most experienced leader. Cable News Network. August 13, 2007
- A year from Election Day, Clinton remains person to beat. Cable News Network. November 5, 2007
- Poll: Clinton recaptures lead in New Hampshire. Cable News Network. December 19, 2007
- Hillary Clinton (D) Top Contributors OpenSecrets.org.