Bill Clinton exposing himself
...The Democrats will be reunited in their hatred of conservatives. I have seen too often during the Clinton years where Maureen Dowd can write about what a jerk Bill Clinton is only to turn around and support him when he has an opponent. That is what liberals do. The blacks who support Obama will be back in the fold when the race baiter's start talking about how scary Republicans are. Bill Clinton knows this and that is why he will continue his cynical manipulations. E.J. Dionne who was critical this morning will be embracing the Democrat candidate when the race for the general election begins.Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.
There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."
That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.
Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.
But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?
...
On the Republican side the conservative media is roiled by the McCain reemergence. It is easy to come up with a list of all the reasons not to like McCain unless you are in the liberal media where writers are perplexed about why people dislike him. He is an apostate on too many issues to be liked by conservatives. While he is good on the war, he is bad on Gitmo and interrogations. While he is good on spending he is bad on tax cuts. He is an idiot on ANWR, but he has a lot of liberal company in that idiocy and that is another reason why he is the liberals favorite Republican. It is the latter title that really damns him.
I try not to use the word idiot. I try to understand why some people may believe the way they do, but when it comes to ANWR the opposition to drilling is so irrational that idiocy seems to be the only explanation. You listens to the arguments put forth for not drilling and you know they can't be made in good faith. Perhaps it is because I see oil wells on a daily basis and I know they do no more harm, as a general rule, to the environment than a water well, that I find it so difficult to understand the opposition to drilling wells that will enrich the US and save consumers money.
BTW, within a block of my parents home in Stephens, Arkansas there is an old well that is shut in now, which leaked oil into a drainage ditch and made something of a mess. The ditch and the well are completely overgrown now without any remediation work. The environment is not nearly as fragile as some would like you to believe. I don't know why Clinton never did anything about that leaking well, but it could be because it was not that serious of a problem.
The New York Times, the Queen of Sleaze, Hillary Clinton. This doesn't disturb me in the least given that this is the same newspaper that had managing editors on their staffthat allowed journalistt o submit and publish fabricated news.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so disturbing about the very self-righteous NYT is that they have failed to question the glaring fact that Bill Clinton is actually using his wife to run for a third term. They fail to mention that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a sexual harassment case which is covered under civil rights statutes. They have failed to point out that Hillary Clinton who is allegedly running for president doesn't seem to have any control over the husband the ex-president. They have avoided raising questions about why Bill Clinton needs a re-electioon strategy team even though he is barred by the Constitution from running for a third term. The sanctimonius NYT and other journalists have failed to raise questions about who is paying for ex-president Bill Clinton's secret detail while he is on the campaign trail for his wife. Finally, there is something unseemly about an ex-president rolling in the political gutter to beat up on one of the other presidential candidates. Based on the NYT's silence on these issues, it appears that they are as ethically challenged as the Clintons.