Posts
For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
Sure her husband was disbarred for his serial-rapist tendencies and the ensuing perjury in front of a Grand Jury. Billy Jeff's dissembling, dissimulation, manipulations, prevarications, and outright contrary to past fact statements on just about everything are matters of public record. And both Bill & Hill think it's insulting to ever try calling them to account. They are unaccountable, irresponsible, and consider themselves above the laws of the land. Hitchens keeps on applying the metaphorical wood to their figurative backsides:
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
Over-the-hill childless crones like Gloria Steinem continue to support this tag team of intimidation towards any female that resists getting hit upon by the Buffoon-in-Chief. The feminazis, as Camille Paglia so aptly reveals, have discredited themselves by an emotional unconditional surrender to "the rapist in the Oval Office" and his hapless spouse. But the feminazis will stand by their [wo]man even though the moral caverns they traverse to do so are dark and deep. Hitchens' sum-up:
Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.
But the black community, as they are far less malleable and complicit than feminazis in the submission to the various houseboys and man-servants that the Plantation Big House of Clinton Inc., rolls out the "vulgar libels" against Barack Obama. As the Wall Street Journal notes in "The Politics of Pigmentation,"
there's .... a cautionary tale here in how identity politics can come back to bite. The left's color-by-numbers approach to attracting votes has essentially painted the Democrats into a corner, making it very difficult for them to prevail in national elections without winning nearly every black vote. The result is the very antithesis of what King fought for -- an over-reliance on blunt racial appeals instead of issues and ideas.
Throughout the campaign, Mrs. Clinton has led Mr. Obama among black voters, thanks mostly to name ID and her husband's popularity. With his victory in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama has started to cut into Mrs. Clinton's black support. With her remarks, she's now given him an opportunity to make further inroads. And as the fallout shows, she'll have to be very careful about pushing back on this front if she wants to keep black supporters from abandoning her en masse, not only now but in November when they could decide to stay home.
Barack has acquitted himself well in standing above the nasty little dust-up caused by clumsy Clinton ham-handedness as Hillary accused Obama of attacking her in a bare-faced lie---it was the neutral Cong. John Clyburn of S.C. who was the one pointing out the possible insensitivity of subordinating MLK to LBJ.
The Clintons thought they could steamroller their way to the Democrat nomination, but Obama now appears to be a formidable obstacle, as his ju-jitsu politics allows Hillary the space to fall on her face---he needn't respond, she does it to herself.
No comments :
Post a Comment