Hillary Rodham Clinton is in trouble. Her husband is out of control, Obama is gaining momentum and her once-inevitable run for the White House is stuck in a sea of political mud.

So Hillary wants to do what the Clintons have always done in times of crisis: Cheat.

After agreeing with the Democratic National Committee’s decision to punish Michigan and Florida for moving the dates of their primaries up ahead of Super Tuesday, Clinton now wants the rules changed so she can claim delegates from both states.

Why? Because she needs all the delegates she can get to try and salvage a win against the surging Barack Obama.

This is typical Clinton skulduggery. Bill Clinton built his political career on a disregard for law, ethics and fair play so why should his political partner/wife/co-conspirator be any different?

She’s not and that’s the danger of Hillary Clinton — a conniving, ruthless political animal who will do anything to win without regard to the consequences.

Those who know the Clintons best say Bill’s mad-dog attack politics of recent weeks is just part of a carefully conceived plan hatched by both to try and recapture momentum lost to Obama.

But the plan may have backfired because Bill, as he so often does, went too far and angered rank and file Democrats. After Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to intervene and counsel the former President to tone down the rhetoric, Bill blew him off and an enraged Kennedy rushed over to the Obama camp with a stirring endorsement.

Democrats worry that the new focus on Bill and his enormous ego and appetite for excess will bring renewed scrutiny on things the Clinton’s would rather not talk about. As Frank Rich of The New York Times wrote this week:

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 nickname for Clinton’s library is “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” because researchers find it so hard to obtain material from the archives. Clinton’s penchant for secrecy rivals that of George W. Bush and such habits are hard to defend in an election where a central issue will be the need for more openness in the White House and an end to the eight years of lies, fraud and corruption of the Bush administration.

Rich also notes:

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.

Giving the Clintons another term of free rent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will not solve the excesses of the past eight years of George W. Bush. Clinton supporters like to trumpet the economic prosperity that existed during his two terms but they ignore the fact that the economic rebound started a month before Bill Clinton took office. Clinton didn’t create the good economy. He inherited it from, of all people, George W. Bush’s father.

Like Republicans who have finally realized the threats posed by George W. Bush, many Democrats now understand what a danger the Clintons pose to their party and their quest for a return to the White House. Ted Kennedy showed that someone needs to stand up against the Clinton cabal.

Once again, Frank Rich said it best:

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.


  1. Aside from whether the allegations in the Rant are true or not, the nation clearly does not need and absolutely would not profit from, another Clinton presidency. It would result in these and other charges, including the several old ones hinted at above, being layered upon all the real issues we must address. It is time for the Clintons to retire to their private foundations and do the good they claim they want to do (and indeed Bill has done some of them) outside public office. I campaigned for Bill; he was better than the alternatives presented by the Republicans in ’92 and ’98. But let’s move on and leave all this behind us as a nation and as a body politic. I do not want to be reading about Vince Foster on January 20th!!

  2. “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”
    It doesn’t suprise me. Obama’s message of change is totally in contrast with the Clintons’ business as usual politicking. The awareness this message is generating will outlive the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Should Obama loose, the Clinton’s are in for a rough ride. That should explain all the fireworks.

  3. Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

    See, Hillary has a history of kissing whoever’s rear end that she needs at the time. I’m beginning to wonder if Bill learned his tactics from Hillary.

    “Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman

    In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world’s largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

    Clinton Was Silent As Wal-Mart Railed Against UnionsClinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her. “

  4. clinton vs any other canidate in the general election, and I’ll vote for any other canidate (would like to see a third party offering too)

    obama vs huckelbee, I vote obama
    obama vs romney, I vote obama
    obama vs mccain, I watch the debates
    obama vs paul, I vote paul

  5. “Let’s leave the hating for Bush/Cheney, where it really belongs!”

    If only it could be that simple. Unfortunately it’s not!

    Perhaps the Clintons past behavior has earned some of this hate.

  6. The degree of hatred for the Clintons absolutely amazes me. It surpasses the many words and claims against Ted Kennedy when he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in the waters under a bridge in Chappaquiddick. Those many vitriolic comments effectively ended any hopes Teddy might have had re running for President, but they didn’t stop him from becoming a Senator, and a pretty good one.
    To say that we shouldn’t vote for Hillary because she might unite the GOP is silly. We shouldn’t vote for her because she might not be the best candidate, but not for any other reason. Any decent Democratic candidate will bring the GOP out in full, nasty, lying, dirt-slinging force. If it isn’t Senator Clinton with whatever baggage she might have, it will be Obama, the black, 1/2 muslim, ultra conservative Christian with the HEBREW first name (Yeah, Barak is Hebrew and it means lightning–remember Exodus [the book by Leon Uris, not the one by a bunch of bible writing historians] and Barak ben Cannan?)
    I’m surprised to see everyone jumping onto the “Hate Hillary” Bandwagon. I thought more thinking, politically savvy readers would give her a chance to state her positions and not nit-pick her to death. I vs. Me, Lewinsky, Vince Foster, commodity trading, Wal-Mart B of Directors–come on folks. At least she has the chutzpah to take a position, and the seichel (sense) to change it if she believes she made a mistake. Who amongst you has not made a mistake, let him cast the first stone, or something like that.
    Obama is against the war. So what? I’m against the war and I don’t see him doing anything more than I am to end it, and dammit, he is in a lot better position than I am to do it legally and forcefully. What else has he done? What are his programs that will accomplish all these grand promises he is making? HOW will he do this or that??? He won’t tell even if you ask because he has a hope, he has words, but he does not have a viable plan.
    And supported by Zbignew Brezhinski? That is support? He might as well have an endorsement by Adolph Hitler. They both are the same.
    And don’t be against him because he is BLACK. OK, I won’t. But don’t be for him just because he is BLACK and you want to show how liberal and progressive you are. Liking someone because they are black is as stupid as disliking them because they are black. Who cares what his race is? The question is whether he is a good man, an honest man, and a man who will move the nation forward in the right direction. That’s where the disputes should be–what direction should we be taking? So let’s stop hating, baiting, and name calling. Let’s regain that unity we had for those terrible days after September 11, 2001. Let’s show the world that Americans are still a good people, a noble people, and a people of charity and kindness.
    Let’s leave the hating for Bush/Cheney, where it really belongs!

  7. “From where I read and hear, that sentence should read in the presentence as in “STILL Hate”.”

    TOTALLY CORRECT! That is why she is not the best candidate. She will galvanize the GOP behind the hate of the Clintons. That’s probably the ONLY THING that could bring the GOP together this year.

Comments are closed.