Senator Clinton was able to win Ohio and Texas by barraging the citizens of those states with unwarranted fear mongering, a press conference on NAFTA, television appearances on comedy shows and ads that portrayed Senator Obama as a person who is saying one thing, but intends to do another.
The red phone ad, with its racially polarizing undertones, is interesting to say the least. The subliminal message is that a black man is not qualified to protect the innocent white children of this country, and, could even be considered the enemy. The hypocrisy and irony of this ad lies in the fact that the majority of African Americans in the House of Representatives overwhelmingly support Senator Clinton. The true question is whether any of them have asked themselves, what is really going on? Have they considered Hillary Clinton's long history of hypocritical entanglements?
FOREIGN POLICY
On her website, Senator Clinton is quoted as having said "[w]omen's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights" during a 1995 women's conference in China.
Her statement begs the question of whether there were women in Rwanda during the genocide that transpired in 1994, one year earlier. An estimated 800,000 people were killed in what has been termed the worst massacre in the history of the world. She and her husband were viewed by many as being "complacent" for their inaction. U.S. intervention in this travesty was not even a consideration in the Clinton administration. Great foreign policy, Hill! This is truly the type of experience we are looking for in our new commander in chief. Also, can you explain once again just exactly what you did in Ireland and Kosovo to transform matters?
GERALDINE FERRARO
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," said Geraldine Ferraro in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif. Although Senator Clinton expressed disagreement with Ferraro's comments, and said, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters-- on both sides, because we both have this experience -- say things that kind of veer off into the personal." Personal? Excuse me? Senator Clinton should have disavowed her association with Geraldine Ferraro in the same manner she suggested that Senator Obama disassociate himself with Louis Farrakhan. The question that has not been answered is where would Senator Clinton be if she were not married to Bill Clinton? Certainly not a realistic contender for the office of President of the United States!
Not only is the Democratic Party polarized behind Senator Clinton's divisive tactics, but Geraldine Ferraro's comments have paved the way for a racial divide, especially in Pennsylvania and the remaining primaries. The media is now focusing on how white people voted versus how black voted and what they will do in the future. It appears to be nothing more than another divisive fear tactic, ultimately paving the way for John McCain. Perhaps that is why she commented that John McCain has experience day one. Thus the modified adage, if you can't beat him, join them.
REZKO
Another issue that was emphasized just prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries was the prosecution of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an acknowledged contributor to Senator Obama's campaign. What wasn't mentioned was the contributions of his co-defendants, Stuart Levine and Joseph Cari Jr. to both Bill and Hillary's campaigns.
Another matter that has not been fully flushed out in the media is the issue of the contributions of disgraced Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu. Hsu has given widely to the Clintons and their causes; he raised $850,000 for Senator Clinton's campaign, and gave $30,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. Those contributions have allegedly been returned. But no one has confirmed whether Hsu has given any money to the foundation that funds the Clinton Presidential Library, or whether such funds have been returned.
NAFTA
Senator Clinton's press conference regarding Senator Obama's true stand on NAFTA was curious to say the least. Senator Clinton was also accused of telling Canadian officials that her statements regarding NAFTA were nothing more than rhetoric and she should not be taken seriously. She categorically denied having made any such statements but publicly lambasted Senator Obama, as though he were intent on deceiving the working class in Ohio and Texas. The tactic, although disingenuous, worked! The hypocrisy lies in the fact that her husband signed NAFTA and opened the door for jobs to leave America and go overseas. Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps that's a part of her thirty five year experience that she doesn't want discussed.
SECRECY
We are all aware that President Clinton gave then First Lady Clinton the responsibility of reforming healthcare in America. Not only did she fail, but she was very secretive and refused to make her agenda known to her fellow government officials.
Since we're on the topic of being secretive, where are your tax returns Mr. & Mrs. Clinton? Her willingness to provide her returns after April 15 is a clear sign that she doesn't want her finances to influence the vote on the remaining primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. Some have said that her secrecy is her "political currency." And, why are donors to Bill Clinton's Presidential Library not disclosed? Neither is there disclosure on how those funds have been used? On her website, Senator Clinton states "President Clinton draws no personal compensation from the work of his Foundation, and any suggestion to the contrary is without merit." Well, can we please let the financial records speak for themselves?
According to Malcom Andrews, a blogger for the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek uncovered a letter to the National Archives from Bill Clinton specifically ruling out release of communications between himself and his wife. Apparently, President Clinton requested that communications between he and his wife during his presidency not be released until 2012. "Yet, those are the years and times that candidate Clinton now constantly cites as proof that she has the experience necessary to become president. So, trust her, she says, it's all there. You just can't see it," said Andrews.
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
Senator Clinton apparently believes that Florida and Michigan primary votes should be counted or there should be a "do-over." There are allegations that voters in those states will be disenfranchised if their votes do not count. We are all aware that Senator and President Clinton are both attorneys with ivy league educations. Since when does the rule of law not apply? Where was Senator Clinton when Florida and Michigan decided to violate the DNC rules to which they previously agreed? It appears she was campaigning in those states and making sure her name was on the ballot, in blatant defiance of the party rules. Was this a carefully devised plan to lay the foundation for the argument she is now presenting in order to underhandedly provide a way for her to secure the nomination? The argument is now that winning the battle states Ohio, Texas, California, New York, Florida and Michigan is critical in November. If she is the winner of those states, then she should be the presidential nominee because she alone can carry the election in November. Really? How convenient and crafty!
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
shh you're not supposed to talk about this stuff!
The secrecy of the clintons is somewhat equal to bush and cheney but people get enough of an answer from the clintons to think they were answered but the were talked around the subject and not real answer was given. Barack cannot bring out the HSU issue because of Rezko which he was cleared in but Hillary would have a field day. What she wants like tax returns from the other guy is not what she is willing to do herself. The Nafta thing was another classic. Let me accuse you of what I did. She probably has delayed the tax returns because of money she says she gave back and it's still there. I wish MSM would be open and honest and let the country see more than what they have seen like your article. What is wrong with dragging out all the inaccurate things and the things you have listed? If more people could see what is there and to understand maybe the votes would be down the drain for her. But I suspect those who choose not to believe these things which are public record would still not believe and call it slamming her.
Yes, the wet blanket that he covers with some cheap shampoo is less than unconscious maybe he wants us to remember the good ol' 90's .... you know the 90's where AFDC was taken away, of 3 strikes you are out, of the Gingrinch revolution and its contract ON America they helped precipitate, the failure of her healthcare plan, the first world trade center bombing without capturing ben laden, Rwanda, Kosovo and other fun and games like renting out the Lincoln bedroom and stealing china and the real mature taking the w's off the computer keys in the white house ...
And Countess you are so correct there is no law higher than Clinton's law which is parallel to Orwellian law making bombs seem like peace ... ah Hillary maybe you and Bill should retire and make a comedy team playing at Aryan nation and KKK rallies you will do well there and you can have your new friends at Fox news and Rush Limbaugh introduce you and get Geraldine Ferraro to perform an aria
Thanks for writing what has been preying on my mind for a long time. It's too long a list to put into a comment, and I don't have a blog! But all these instances of hypocrisy is really what has turned me off to her the most. I would add three other small things. They may be small, but they fit right in there with that pattern of hypocrisy and projection of her own shortcomings and faults onto her competition.
One: the whole plagiarism fiasco. First she accuses Obama of all "plagiarized" speeches and no substance - as if she's not out there herself giving speeches with the sole intent to inspire people to support her. Then she "plagiarizes" the most inspiring line of her debate history from John Edwards. In the same debate where she renews the attack on Obama for "plagiarism". I call hypocrite!
Two: with the NAFTA issue - she has claimed that she "never praised NAFTA" and was "always against it". Well, she's lying. There are comments in the public record of her praising NAFTA as her husband was passing it, and in the years since. I call liar and hypocrite!
Three: The way she goes after the press and Obama supporters as kool-aide drinking cult worshippers and "haters". Well, the very fact that Clinton and her supporters call us these schoolyard names displayes their EQUAL passion for their own candidate. And the names and taunts are also "hateful". I call double down hypocrite!
Hypocrisy - thy name is Hillary!
"it appears she was campaigning in those states'-- why? Because she had a photo op with a palm tree in it? Please. Obama bought ads that played in Florida despite his pledge not to do so. Couldn't be helped, said he. It's just the way ad buys work on cable.
The most likely reason Clinton won where she won is that the voters preferred her to your guy. That's also why your guy won where he did. The voters or caucus attendees preferred him. Most people with real lives don't pay attention to the things you believe made the difference in Ohio. But that upsets your theory and must be unsettling for you., because it means that not everybody sees Obama as you do, despite all your fervent support and belief in him. Deal with it. And by the way, if the message is 'subliminal', how are you so sure you know what the message is? Do you possess secret powers of divination?
Do you believe there are really people frequenting this website who might actually be persuaded by your essay to switch their allegiance to your candidate? Read the comments you've received apart from mine. You're preaching to the choir.
Wrong wrong wrong Obama went and got the permission of the DNC for a national ad buy and you know what he got their permission it was not considered campaigning in Florida ... Unlike Senator Clinton who promised not to campaign but ended up in Siesta Key at a rally for herself (tagged as a fund raiser but the whole neighborhood was invited) ...
She violated DNC rules --- nobody else did .... Even though people speak about the record turnout in Florida a great deal of the democratic vote was suppressed because it was only a beauty contest ... if it were different Charlie Christ's Amendment One would not have passed at all ...
Slick Willie, in another Huffpo headline, announces that they are covering Penn. like a "wet blanket". A wet blanket has been their problem all along! You gotta love that unconscious stuff!
There is no law higher than the Clinton Law and please do not forget this. Remember she is a fighter and will bite your ear off if you dare to criticize her.
Loading comments…
Posted March 12, 2008 | 10:54 AM (EST)