Clinton Releases Her Own Delegates

Monday, 31 Mar 2008 07:13 AM

By Lowell Ponte

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink

Two Texas callers to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in recent days identified themselves as Republicans who, in accord with Limbaugh’s cunning “Operation Chaos” effort to prolong Democratic nomination battle bloodletting, caucused for Hillary Clinton.

Both callers said they have been selected as Clinton state convention delegates who might become Clinton delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Clinton has repeatedly in recent days said that pledged delegates from most states are entirely free to cast their convention votes for whomever they wish — that Democratic pledged delegates have the same right to switch their vote as do the party’s unelected, undemocratic superdelegates.

She may be wrong about this, and in any event such behavior by elected delegates would be divisive and unethical, a betrayal of voter wishes and trust.

But this does not render Sen. Clinton’s statements meaningless.

Mrs. Clinton’s statements have freed her own pledged delegates, including those from Texas, from their oath and obligation to vote for her.

Delegates who were pledged to vote for Clinton, including these potential undercover Texas Republicans, by Mrs. Clinton’s declarations are now at liberty to vote for her rival Barack Obama or any other prospective candidate.

What objection to their vote switching could she make, in light of her recent efforts — and in violation of what her campaign promised last February — to pilfer Obama delegates?

In 1996, Bill Safire of The New York Times described Hillary Clinton as a “congenital liar.” Safire’s truth has been reaffirmed by recent press investigations. In the Irish peace process, e.g., those involved dismissed her claim to have been a key player.

As first lady she never attended any National Security Council meeting. She had no security clearance and without political clout might be ineligible for one, given her radical past as a legal intern in the offices of lawyers for the Communist Party USA.

CBS news footage of Ms. Clinton’s 1996 visit to the war zone in Bosnia shows that, contrary to her claims, she was never under sniper fire.

Caught again speaking less than the whole truth, Clinton said she “misspoke” but blamed sleep deprivation for her claim of battlefield experience. If her mind gets this fuzzy, do we want her to take crisis calls to the White House at 3:00 a.m.?

Perhaps Ms. Clinton, now in her 60s, was not lying but suffering “senior moments” of memory loss or hallucination.

But the press has missed a bigger issue here: was the whole Clinton war in Bosnia, where U.S. troops remain after more than a decade, a bad idea?

Yes, an ugly schism was underway between Serbia and Kosovo. Yes, the Serbian-Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic — who died in 2006 while standing trial before the Hague War Crimes Tribunal for crimes against humanity — was a dictator and ally of Russia.

But the Clintons committed U.S. military forces into the Balkans to terminate ancient Serbian claims to Kosovo and to make Kosovo a new, independent nation in Europe.

They did so with bipartisan congressional support, just as President Bush committed forces in Iraq backed by Senator Clinton’s vote.

Whatever its faults, Serbia is a Christian nation, and Kosovo since its occupation centuries ago by the Ottoman Empire is a Muslim region. The Clintons were using American weapons to kill Christians and to support Islamists from across the Muslim world fighting to turn Kosovo into a new Muslim country within Europe itself.

The Clintons likewise used U.S. troops to oust a pro-American government in Haiti and replace it with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former priest defrocked for his “incitement to hatred and violence” who had run an anti-capitalist dictatorship in Haiti backed by street gangs and who boasted that his greatest personal hero was Fidel Castro.

Such is the anti-American, anti-Western foreign policy we can expect from a third Clinton co-presidency.

Will Hillary Clinton ever give a speech about gender as profound and honest as the speech Senator Barack Obama gave about race?

No, Clinton never will, wrote Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick in the March 21 issue of Slate.com.

Ms. Clinton, they wrote, cannot be an honest feminist. “She has been on the wrong side of gender bias,” they wrote. “She consistently relates to and protects and stands with the oppressors in the gender wars, not the victims.”

Hillary Clinton, they wrote, has “helped him [her husband Bill Clinton] humiliate the women he’s been involved with.”

Bill Clinton has been Hillary’s ticket to the highest echelons of political power, and she as a candidate “has largely benefited from her husband’s extracurricular activities . . . because . . . America seems to like her best when she’s being victimized.”

Hillary Clinton’s most loyal bloc of voters in 2008 has been single, divorced, poor and old women with little education. To them Ms. Clinton is a fellow victim who symbolizes the grievances, resentments and vengefulness they feel.

“One of the most laudable things about Obama is that he always elects to rise above the politics of victimization,” wrote Henneberger and Lithwick. “One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on it.”

Obama also pays his bills honorably, notes reporter Kenneth P. Vogel, but in the March 30 Politico.com he details companies and people the “cash-strapped” Clinton campaign has thusfar stiffed for millions of dollars it owes in debts. Is this how Clinton would run the government?

Hillary Clinton may be willing to use “the Tonya Harding Option,” attacking rival Barack Obama so viciously that he becomes unelectable.

If she cannot win in 2008, Clinton’s behavior suggests, she would prefer that Obama lose so she can run again in 2012 and win election at age 65 with no incumbent Democratic president seeking a second term.

If this week’s Tonya Harding chatter seems familiar, it should to readers of this column. On March 10 we discussed Clinton’s “Rule or Ruin” strategy” of “kneecapping her opponent, leaving him too damaged to run” and win, like a dirty linebacker who deliberately breaks the opposing quarterback’s leg.

Once again Newsmax was far ahead of other news and opinion sources.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Businesses Seek Shelter Away From King Obama

Tuesday, 05 Aug 2014 08:33 AM

In recent days both President Barack Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew have invoked the term economic patriot . . .

Iraq Again Under Siege

Friday, 13 Jun 2014 10:27 AM

When President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, this column described his action as playing "Big Casino." . . .

French Economist Advocates Hefty Taxes

Tuesday, 29 Apr 2014 08:45 AM

Author Piketty wants governments to treat citizens very unequally. He proposes a tax of at least 80 percent on those who . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved