Who Got the Des Moines Register
Endorsement--Bill or Hillary?
By Carrie K. Hutchens
I just read that the
Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, but it looks more like
they had to be courted into doing so, rather than coming to the
decision for good cause. As reported in "Hillary
Clinton gets crucial boost," (The Times, December 17, 2007)
"Hillary Clinton received a badly needed boost to her presidential
campaign yesterday with the endorsement of Iowa's biggest newspaper,
a vote of confidence that followed days of lobbying by her husband."
Does this mean that
every time Hillary messes up, especially where diplomacy is needed,
that Bill will come running to the rescue? If Hillary can't run her
campaign without Bill, how can she run the country without him?
On the one hand, we
are told how capable Hillary is to handle the position of president,
only to have the other hand slap us up side the face with reality.
When things don't go her way, it starts getting dirty, but though
she claims she is in charge of her campaign, she never seems to know
of the negative acts until after-the-fact. (Her claim -- not mine.)
Then someone resigns. Is this how her presidency would also run?
After all, if she can't handle a campaign staff with a single agenda
-- how can she possibly handle the white house staff and all the
complexities that go along with running the country?
The Times piece also
states, "The newspaper said that Mr Obama 'inspired our imagination.
But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence.' Which Clinton?
Hillary or Bill? It was Bill, after all, that won them over.
The Des Moines
Register may have endorsed Hillary Clinton, but not without giving a
good word about Obama and not without Bill Clinton arguing for her
behind closed doors and apparently with follow-up telephone calls.
So what does she have to be excited about? She didn't get the
endorsement. It was gotten for her by her ex-president husband. Just
how much else has gone her way "simply" because of who she is
married to or by his direct efforts? Would anyone have looked twice
at her as a potential candidate if it weren't for her husband and
the possibility this would be "the" advertising gimmick to win back
the White House?
There was a time when
a newspaper endorsement carried great influence in an election, but
that is not necessarily the case any longer. But if it were the
case, even in a single incident where a publication was so trusted
as to be the ultimate influencing factor in an election, how could
anyone take seriously an endorsement that wasn't readily given
because the candidate, him/herself, was so impressive as to draw the
confidence alone, and without a closed door meeting with the
ex-president who is wishing to be the First-Man of the White House?
Hillary Clinton may
be smiling today and feeling all pumped up over the newspaper
endorsement, but she might want to consider also that it is actually
her husband's endorsement, since he apparently got it for her. Even
more importantly -- she might want to think about the fact many,
many people (voters) know that, too! This is, after all, the
computer age where information spreads like wildfire and can't so
easily be controlled by any one source and definitely not by
Hillary's camp.
Again, the article
says, "The newspaper said that Mr Obama 'inspired our imagination.
But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence.'"
"Mr." Obama and
simply Clinton. So the question remains -- we know which Clinton
inspired the endorsement, which one inspired the confidence? Mr. or
Mrs.?
Carrie Hutchens
is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is
active in fighting against the death culture movement and the
injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
