Michael Collins: BUSH - CLINTON 2008

BUSH - CLINTON 2008


Ambition Gone Wild or the New "New World Order"
Poised in the Wings?

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The 2008 presidential primary has been a close race. It should be over by now except for the shouting. There is "virtually no chance" that Hillary Clinton can claim the delegates needed for nomination. We should be witnessing Barack Obama's triumphal march to the Democratic convention in August.

But much like Michael Myers in Halloween, Hillary Clinton has picked herself up off the canvas every time she seemed down for the count. She lost Iowa, reanimated her campaign by winning New Hampshire, but then failed in 9 of the next 23 official state contests. At the same time, spectacular turnout increases showed that the Obama movement was pulling Democrats to the primaries in record numbers.

Clinton's Ohio win was negated losing the delegate race in Texas while splitting the popular vote. Before these two contests, Hillary needed to win 60% to 75% of remaining delegates. She failed to meet that goal in both Texas and Ohio. The word went out – there is no way you can win. Only a scorched earth campaign offered any hope for Hillary.

Yet Hillary will not stop despite the virtually insurmountable odds, the recent high profile endorsements for Obama, and her overwhelming rejection by 61% of the voters in both Mississippi and Wyoming just after the Ohio win.

The vulgarity of her campaign created rare agreement by some in the mainstream and alternate media. Clinton's tactics are particularly vicious and her charges and sound bites appear to be an "intelligent design" for the Committee to Elect John McCain President.

Two Vipers at Obama's Throat

The nastiness started when the Clinton campaign chair in New Hampshire wondered why the media wasn't focusing on alleged drug use by Obama in his youth. Clinton was forced to fire the operative and then suffer through the humiliation of a public apology to Obama.

There were other cheap shots by Clinton's campaign, all of which seemed within the realm of the typical nasty campaign. Then these weapons of mass distraction were launched.

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002." Sen. Hillary Clinton Mar. 3. Is she endorsing McCain? Better yet, is it possible to interpret this statement as anything other than as a McCain endorsement?

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Bill Clinton, Mar. 21 North Carolina

The former president riffed on the Rev. Wright controversy. What was the former president's reference for "all this other stuff"? Obama? Clinton's cheap shot had a clear target; Obama's patriotism. The reference to "our politics" is interesting. How many fingers would it take to count the members of that club?

At the moment he became a viable contender, Obama had two vipers at his throat. Their message was simple: he's less qualified to lead than McCain and he doesn't love his country.

Why is Hillary doing this if she can't win the nomination? What's husband Bill up to?

There are two theories that capture the imagination.

Entitlement

The first is a conventional explanation that claims Clinton knows that she's lost the nomination. By continuing to tear down Obama, Hillary helps assure a McCain victory and all that implies (the "100 years war" policy). She's then positioned to take the nomination and the White House in 2012.

This casts Hillary as totally indifferent to the struggles and suffering that a McCain presidency would bring to citizens. His sole purpose so far has been to advocate for an imperial United States occupying strategic oil depots in the Middle East in perpetuity.

When asked about the economy, he said, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” That's hardly the level of skill required if the chief executive is to successfully navigate the economic storms faced by 300,000,000 citizens.

If this theory is correct, Hillary Clinton would have us endure four more years of Bush policies just to serve her ego driven ambition.

Rule by Proxy

The alternate theory is that Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush have formed some sort of political alliance or clan. In this scenario, Hillary is at the service of these two schemers, a critical functionary in their post-presidential quest for power and influence.

Is this possible? How could these two have the unmitigated ambition and skills necessary to pull off a master plan that invokes nearly every conspiracy theory over the past few decades? Where's the evidence?

There's no need for a conspiracy theory. In fact, if true, this can't be the type of shadow conspiracy associated with behind the scenes manipulation because it is all so very public.

Husband Bill was adopted, as it were, by the elder Bush given the status of his two political heirs? This combination would serve the purpose of perpetual power for the backers of both ex presidents. United, the two would be a living symbol of continuity by the "center" and an assurance to the incumbent ruling class that policies in dire need of change will stay the same.

The raw ambition theory is easier to believe. After all the time she's done, Hillary may have thought, "Screw him! It's my turn." It's the rawest form of entitlement mixed with the unrealistic persistence of an embittered loser.

If the Clinton campaign were a brute force scheme combining the Bush and Clinton political factions to preserve established wealth, why would they be this obvious?

Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosure group
By Jeff Mason
Reuters
Monday, March 24, 2008; 9:30 AM
WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

END

Also see: The Money Party (5): "Us versus Them"

Permission granted to reprint in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

0
No votes yet

Comments

. . "virtually no chance" that Hillary Clinton can claim the delegates needed for nomination . .

The same can be said of Obama, a fact left out in the "Crush Hillary" movement.

Somehow the punditocracy can't see beyond it's collective navel - even though the candidates are very clear-eyed - that this one will be decided by the voters, quite possibly on the floor @ the convention. And as a body the electorate will to continue to confound the best efforts of every single "expert", all of whom have been terribly wrong since the beginning of this (most exasperatingly long) campaign 'season'.

So far the only person to benefit from this level of useless chatter has been McCain, who oddly enough begins to look positively rational compared to the screeching 'progressive left'.

McCain has left the planet several times already. The 100 years war statement and reiterations are just so entirely offensive to just about everybody, I can't wait to see what he's up to next.

I'm agnostic on Obama, to a large degree, but I find the Clinton's arrogance amazing. If Obama does take the nomination, the two videos I referenced will become common viewing in homes that leave the TV on. These are calculated moves to tear down Obama - 'you're not as qualified (as McCain) as I am or McCain to lead' and the two patriots theme by husband Bill are devastating statements and themes to introduce.

May she be judged by her works.

"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton

You are really one to talk about cheap shots. I could say a lot more but will leave it with this simple suggestion. There are a host of sites that will more than welcome this type of opinion, speculation, conspiracy theory and invective screed. Try dailykos, democraticunderground or tpmcafe where shilling and disinformation are commonly accepted.

to head a 'foreclosure' task force. He's largely responsible for the problem even though the very best people warned him starting in 2001. That one fragment, since I offered it in the article, says more than any other, more than any cable news speculation, about the nature of a Clinton presidency. More of the same old tired policies and implementers with the same end; enrichment for those who have and homelessness for those who don't.

There are very serious problems out there and nobody is talking about them in any depth, no one of prominence other than Gore, Kucinich, and, on the war, Paul. I am unapologetic in focusing on the failures of those who would lead.

"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton

It's the other crap you post:

The vulgarity of her campaign created rare agreement by some in the mainstream and alternate media. Clinton's tactics are particularly vicious and her charges and sound bites appear to be an "intelligent design" for the Committee to Elect John McCain President.

Two Vipers at Obama's Throat

If this theory is correct, Hillary Clinton would have us endure four more years of Bush policies just to serve her ego driven ambition.

The raw ambition theory is easier to believe. After all the time she's done, Hillary may have thought, "Screw him! It's my turn." It's the rawest form of entitlement mixed with the unrealistic persistence of an embittered loser.

Not to mention the other factual inaccuracies that I don't want to take the time to rebut. As I suggested, if you want to post pieces like this, there are sites where it is appropriate. Take it there.

Here's the source of my grave doubts about Hillary (and I've discussed these findings in a number of articles btw). I was particularly taken by her video embracing McCain (a fellow supporter of the Iraq War Resolution) and her disparagement of Obama's 2002 speech against the war. This colors the entire Clinton campaign and casts doubt on her sincerity and certainly on her record (as for the other statements, one person's cheap shots are another's firmly held opinion).

The article is my true opinion of her campaign and here are the sources of my well justified doubts.

They knew before the IWR vote. Every one of them either knew or could have easily determined that this was based on lies. Hillary voted for it as did many others. That is a damning political act and one that colors the rest of the programs announced.

Here's some truth that isn't discussed on the campaign trail. This is Hillary's "hard decision" in action. Even if you think that she didn't know what was happening, she needs to be held accountable for her very poor decision making. But she knew.

These are the shots I'm most concerned about, particularly with anyone who supported the Iraq War Resolution:

500,000 Million dead Iraqi children (through 1996): UN (US, GB lead) embargo of Iraq, particularly 1992-2000.

1.2 Million dead Iraqi civilians - men, women & children: Consequence of U.S. preemptive invasion.

5.0 million orphans: announced recently.

There was no reason to go to Iraq and the facts were available to both the public and particularly to legislators. They made a Faustian bargain to vote Yes with with all this out there in the public domain, this and more; knowing full well that we'd be at war. It wasn't a "hard decision" in terms of the facts. There should have been zero votes to support this.

There's a reported 60,000 Iraq War veterans in the U.S. with PTSD and 120 suicides a week rate for some time, far exceeding the official 4,000 announced death total.

Heard anybody talk about this who was involved? I mean in particular, the death tolls and number of orphans. Obama's clear on the run up to the war but even he doesn't discuss this.

Why not? It can't be swept under the rug. The entire world knows but in our most important election, we can't discuss it.

I think Hillary and the other supporters of this war should be the ones to go elsewhere, like out of the campaign.

"Furthest from him is best, whom reason hath equaled, force hath made supreme above his equals." Milton