Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) began her 2008 campaign by announcing a Presidential Exploratory Committee on January 20, 2007. Even after her defeat in Iowa’s primary, she ran her campaign as though she were already the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. She then proceeded to lose 12 straight contests in a row, and her campaign strategy of incumbency changed during and after this period with wild swings in tone, lines of attack, and almost every other factor imaginable, save one line which has remained constant: “I’m in. And I’m in it to win.” What lies unsaid at the end of that little sound-bite is the “no matter what it takes” that the American public has only begun to understand.

Recently, Senator Clinton has even suggested that pledged delegates can switch their political allegiances at whim and that super-delegates should not pay attention to who has the popular vote and the most pledged delegates—effectively, she is arguing that the will of the voters should have no bearing on the nomination process. Unfortunately, this arrogant and self-serving line of thinking is hardly the first dirty tactic that voters have seen.

Senator Clinton has run her campaign on a graceless foundation of hot air and hyperbole, on deceit and duplicity, and on secret handshakes with the party elite behind closed doors. She has introduced damaging rhetoric to political discourse through the sacrifice of her surrogates (recall Geraldine Ferraro) and she has herself been no stranger to the deceptive doubletalk which has dominated American politics since FDR (“There’s nothing to base that on, as far as I know” [on Senator Obama being some kind of Muslim Manchurian candidate]).

Senator Clinton has run her campaign on the basis of her “35 years” of experience in politics. What is this experience, exactly?

“I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”

What actually happened, as Nobel Peace Prize winner (for bringing peace to Northern Ireland) and former First Minister Lord Trimble recalls,

“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.” (link)

Well, okay. It’s great that Senator Clinton was vocal in her encouragement for peace. Yeah, she exaggerated a little. So what? The problem is that her tactics aren’t limited to exaggeration—they are dependent also on downright fabrication of events.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

If by “ran with our heads down” she means “took a leisurely stroll across the tarmac” and if by “sniper fire” she means “cute little Bosnian girl”, then her statement isn’t false at all. Unfortunately, this time semantics aren’t on her side and Senator Clinton now says she “misspoke”. Really? Twice? When pressed for elaboration, she held that she had a “different memory” of her one and only landing in Bosnia. Later, she said, “So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I’m human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation”, her flippant words laden with condescension and disdain. Nowhere have the words “I’m sorry” left her mouth, however insincere. Is this what Americans are to expect should Clinton become President?

Days before the Ohio primary, she shouted “Shame on you, Barack Obama!” for his campaign fliers asserting her support of NAFTA. Here’s Hillary in her own words:

“Oh, I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” (1996)

Additionally, MSNBC broke down some White House documents which show that Hillary held five strategy meetings on how to win congressional approval for NAFTA, and that her support was helpful in blocking labor and environmental unions’ protests against the agreement. (link)

Is this another “different memory” of events? Even if she says she didn’t agree with NAFTA at the time, as MSNBC says, the facts remain that she helped to get it passed. Remember, Hillary cares about actions, not rhetoric:

“[McCain has] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

So in addition to her actions to pass NAFTA, what other actions has she taken? What kind of judgment has her “35 years of experience” given her? Well, here’s one answer, from a floor speech in 2002:

“This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.”

The vote she’s talking about is the one that authorized the war in Iraq—the war that has embroiled the United States in a conflict that has no end in sight and that has now claimed the lives of 4,000 American servicemen and women and anywhere from 87,000 to 675,000 Iraqis.

So is this what Americans can look forward to should Hillary become the Democratic nominee, or even President? Do Americans—and the rest of the world—deserve this lack of judgment and flat-out flagrant disregard for democratic principles, for truth, and for honesty in the Leader of the Free World?

The answer, of course, is no. Too long have American politics been dominated by the selfish desperation for reelection that leads to such underhanded tactics and disrespect as we have seen throughout Senator Clinton’s tenure in the public eye. Senator Clinton ought to be considered a relic of the past—the time for change has finally come.

Washington Post: Among Top Officials, “Surge Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting

New York Times: At Street Level, Unmet Goals of Troop Surge

1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage
2. advancement in general
3. continuous improvement

——–

George W. Bush on Iraq:

7/17/07: “We can report that satisfactory progress is being made…”

Mid 2006: “Progress will be steady…”

Nov. 2005: “Iraqis are making inspiring progress.”

Oct. 2005: “Iraq has made incredible political progress.”

April 2005: “We’re making good progress in Iraq.”

Sept. 2004: The United States is “making steady progress…”

Oct. 2003: “We’re making really good progress.”

——–

He must be using a different dictionary than me.

courtesy of digg.com and liveleak.com

While Al Gore’s seething indictment of the Bush Administration, The Assault On Reason, continues its assault on the New York Times Best Seller’s List, President Bush has been busy vindicating its title. No longer worried about his perpetually falling approval rating (mainly because its so far down, there is no return), Bush has decided to dig in his heels and go against public opinion, common sense, and overall decency when it comes to almost every decision he now makes.

First came his hypocritical decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence two weeks ago, when he decided that Scooter’s 30 month punishment was “excessive.” Even though, as I said last week, Libby was prosecuted by a Bush appointed U.S. attorney, convicted by a jury, sentenced by a Republican appointed judge, had his appeal denied by a three judge panel that included Republican appointed judges, and was handed a sentence which thousands of other people around the country have received for the exact same crime. Now, many people would consider Libby’s commuted prison term unreasonable, corrupt, or borderline illegal. Bush himself said at the time of the crime he would fire anyone found responsible for the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name. But that would have been too principled a stand for Bush to take, so he decided go for the underhanded scumbag route instead.

Congress, meanwhile, this week decided to act on a problem that one would think has near universal support: children’s health insurance. While they may not be able to agree on much of anything, from immigration reform to the War in Iraq, the House of Representatives did decide bi-partisan bill that would expand medical coverage for underage kids.

Enter the White House. From the New York Times:

The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.
The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

The current program expires in September and Congressional action was needed to ensure that 4.1 million more children will have access to basic health care. Common sense would indicate that this bill would be a no-brainer, maybe even earn the President a couple percentage points to send his approval rating sky rocketing over the 30% barrier. Unfortunately, it seems he is more interested in satisfying insurance companies than sick children. His reasons for the upcoming veto, according to a White House spokesperson include: “The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending. This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”

Holy Shit. Just imagine what chaos that would cause. People jumping ship on insurance companies that won’t even pay for treatment that they are entitled to, to a program where they are guaranteed it. Insanity.

But the coup de gras against all forms of reason still rests in Iraq, where the Bush administration continues to dig itself an ever increasing hole just so they won’t have to admit they just might have made some mistakes in the War’s justification, timing, planning, execution, and follow up. Finally, though, Congressional Democrats seem to be stepping up to the plate. Almost a year after they were put in office to end the war, they seem to be willing to take the fight to the necessary next level. Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press was a start, where Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) got in Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) face about the right course of action and bogus justifications for continuing to “stay the course.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also announced yesterday that the Senate will be holding an all night filibuster on Iraq on Tuesday night so that Republicans can justify the continued presence of troops, in spite of five years of mayhem, misdeeds, and mistakes. The White House even released a report showing 10 of the 18 benchmarks it set forth six months ago have not been met. Iraqi parliament, who has enacted none of the legislation recommended by the U.S., will be taking the entire month of August off to vacation. White House spokesman Tony Snow’s reasoning behind their extended break was it is “130 degrees in Baghdad” in August. He’s right. I mean it’s not like our troops still have to put on their uniforms, armor, and weapons and battle insurgents in that same scorching heat. Why should Parliament have to convene in an air conditioned room and make decisions for a country engulfed in a civil war?

Now comes news that the military is considering actually expanding the surge and sending more troops in. At the same time, Dick Cheney is pushing ever harder for military action in Iran. I’d say I am surprised, after all the failures of this war that they actually want to expand it into a regional conflict that would require vast amounts of troops that we simply don’t have, but it just keeps within their pattern of ignoring the facts, the American people, the world, and just plain common sense.