[Dialogue] My final posting on the Clintons

[Carlos R. Zervigon]

Beware of fulfilled profesies

 

Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP

Zervigon International, Ltd.

817 Antonine St.

New Orleans, LA  70115  USA

504 894-9868 Mobile: 504 908-0762

carlos at zervigon.com

http://www.zervigon.com

 

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of KroegerD at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:34 PM
To: Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
Cc: FacilitationFla at aol.com; Ackroeger at aol.com
Subject: [Dialogue] My final posting on the Clintons

 

I am very afraid of a Romney or McCain presidency.  It used to be you could
count on the congress but those days are over, as the stimulus package again
proves. With Republicans, the Unitary presidency is in place. 

A Clinton presidency WILL NOT Happen!  
Count on it.

 

Published on Sunday, January 27, 2008 by
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref
=slogin> The New York Times 


The Billary Road to Republican Victory


by Frank Rich

In the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the
Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two
miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain,
should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route
to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road
map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the
joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of
the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and
fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a
candidate?

Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton
nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election
with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race,
gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has
successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on
my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m
here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her
husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely
when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one”
back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid,
Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat
targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that
“there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today”
show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So
far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the
table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what
surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton
questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential
library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during
the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your
recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t
talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be
happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington
Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the
Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by
Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and
Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a
new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc
Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of
these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for
abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose
legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but
remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered
questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr.
Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall
Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into
the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the
swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by
frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who
are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National
Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part
because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications
between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would
lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband:
“Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as
completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary
to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on
it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the
records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already
available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a
bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held
hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with
approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce
Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back
on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr.
Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be
tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his
post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that
“whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s
setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little
Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody
anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are
smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of
John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed
at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly
desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired
in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by
her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it,
Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years
began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of
incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale
Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to
be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war
hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for
any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton
cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined
by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and
was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green
Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005
did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When
Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political
expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain
is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they
hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins
over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild)
departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance
reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat
Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the
Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however
unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in
any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters.
Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his
crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could
still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it.
If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina - this
column went to press before Saturday’s vote - the party needs him to stop
whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing
offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a
race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even
stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic
leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr.
Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat
who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination
- let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted - is a Democrat
who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.

Frank Rich is a regular columnist for The New York Times.

© 2008 The New York Timesac





  _____  

Start the year off right. Easy
<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489>
ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080127/eeb0f257/attachment-0001.html