Lady McClinton

With each passing day, Senator Hillary Clinton is clearly demonstrating characteristics that make her unfit to be president. It’s not just that she refused to admit (at least until the 20th Democratic Presidential debate) that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002.

Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.

However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.

After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.

In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]

We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.

Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.

Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]

We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.

The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.

Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]

As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]

Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.

Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]

As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]

Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”

Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.

To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.

Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.

Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.

But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.

To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.

Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.

Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?

In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.

Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.

As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?




[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.