Is it just me — or does Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she has formed a “Presidential Exploratory Committee” seem a touch disingenuous? Even a little contrived.
Huh. Like, Hillary Clinton is officially thinking about running for president. No shit??
Really!
Wikipedia says:
Candidates use an exploratory committee as not only a transitional phase for their bookkeeping but as an extra claim on media attention. Some of the most skillful handlers like to leak word that their candidate is testing the waters, then leak word that he or she is thinking about forming an exploratory committee. Additional “news” can be made when the same candidate actually forms such a committee and registers with the Federal Election Commission. Yet a fourth round of attention may be generated when the word exploratory gets dropped from the committee filing.
Barak Obama also recently announced formation of a committee to explore his own presidential ambitions. I buy that, somewhat, on the basis of a possibility that Obama may yet not run for president — dependent on what transpires between now & the first televised debate in April.
Senator Obama wants to run. Everyone wants Obama to run. Barak Obama may win & that’d be awesome dudes. But he is scared. He should be; Obama is a presidential campaign trail amateur. Hillary Clinton — his presumed chief rival — is a very unique kind of Pro.
Who, if taken at her word, has of late been bit by the whim to explore her viability as an ’08 conteder.
Forget that her first run on the US Senate, 6 years back, was that exploration’s literal inception. Forget for now that Hillary enjoyed front-runner status in the ‘08 race before John Kerry even conceded his loss in ’04. Remember what Hunter S. Thompson once pointed out:
“A man on the scent of the White House is rarely rational.”
And bear in mind that Hillary Rodham Clinton was keenly & irreversibly & deservedly on the White House scent back in the day when America’s Vice President attended DC-area Grateful Dead gigs. Before America “was ready” for wildly popular women & black male presidential candidates. Before Barak Obama made his first run on the Illinois state assembly.
Of the Democrats, she has wanted it longest. No doubt.
Remember when First Lady Hillary was publicly accused, in the early 90’s, of wearing the pants in the Clinton family? The media suggested she maybe wielded more presidential powers than the duly elected president. To hazard a guess: that’s when Hillary first laid her own designs on the presidency.
She’s one smart cookie. A cosmic rule-breaker superbly poised to be our next Commander in Chief; potentially the most dangerous woman in Planet Earth’s history.
So why launch her bid with some lumpy bull about an Exploratory Committee?
Not for the free publicity. Contrary; her non-committal stance is designed precisely to avoid media scrutiny. To temporarily dodge the question: What has Senator Clinton done for America lately?
Last thing I remember was her go-ahead to unleash a truly frightful catastrophe on the most volatile region of an already perilously war-whipped world. She voted to use force to topple Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. For it she remains unapologetic. Perhaps not wanting to appear like a girly-girl & a sissy.
At all costs not wanting to alienate any pro-war Republicans who may swing their votes her way.
But now that the race for her party’s nomination is heatedly on Mrs. Clinton by appearances has taken steps to secure a few votes from her own compadres.
Very recently the senator conceded that — had she known then what she knows now — she would’ve voted the other way.
Well no shit Sherlock.
I mean…ya would‘ve? What a gigantic relief!
Know what? A yes vote for War was the dumbest vote ever cast by any US lawmaker. And that Says Something. But who the fuck cares? The question is now how do we deal with it?
Let’s talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and to restore respect for America around the world.
>>Hillary Clinton 1.20.07
Ah? Yes. As I suspected. Mrs. Clinton turns now to her party’s freshly empowered senate majority for salvation:
Clinton said [her proposed] legislation would establish conditions for the U.S. government, such as certifying that the Iraqi government had disarmed the sectarian militias and made constitutional changes to ensure rights for all ethnic minorities, as well as requiring participating in diplomatic activities with Iraq’s neighbors.
If those conditions are not met, the legislation would require a congressional resolution authorizing the mission in Iraq.
>>Washington Post 1.17.07
Hmm. Disarm the sectarian militias. End the civil war? WAY — sounds like a plan! Require diplomatic activities with Iraq’s neighbors…Like, Iran & Syria? Well. No harm I suppose in a little chit-chat with the terrorists. If it’ll help spare the human species from the embarrassment of self-extermination!
One question though: How will Iraq’s government disarm those militias? And…will we really talk to Syria & Iran — is that what Hillary means? I can’t tell. But to hazard a guess: these things won’t happen. Clinton’s proposed legislation will accomplish no progress on the ground in the war zone. Because it’s designed not to bring peace but to give Hillary Clinton a way to change her 2002 yes vote for War into one more befitting the Democratic Party’s presidential front-runner.
If those conditions are not met — ie disarmament of sectarian militias, diplomacy with Iran & Syria…the really impossible ones — The legislation would require a [new] congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq.
Just in time, perhaps, for the leadoff primary contests in the ’08 election season?
Recent Comments