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.