By Carrie K. Hutchens
It seems the Clintons (and their camp) want us to believe that Hillary Clinton is both the underdog and the winner. Not that an underdog can't win in the end, but usually the term refers to one that has the disadvantage and is going against the odds. But I thought that Clinton was boasting that she had all the experience, the ability, the money and the contacts to beat the Republicans in the general election. Is she now saying that was all a farce and she is actually disadvantaged?
The problem with Hillary Clinton and her husband, the man that doesn't know what defines sex, is that they seem to change their stories so frequently that it is difficult to know from one moment to the next what is the special of the day and which Hillary is serving it up.
One minute Hillary is the take-charge woman who has the nomination and election all sewn-up, and the next minute, she is so desperate she is wanting to change the rules in mid-stream regardless of how unethical it would be to do so. She suddenly wants Florida delegates to count. Would she be trying to get them to count if it had been Obama or Edwards that had won the popular vote? I think not!
What role should the super-delegates play?
"For Clinton, Ohio, Texas emerge as must-wins" by Patrick Healy (The New York Times - Feb. 11, 2008), reports on a very revealing difference between Obama and Hillary, "Clinton advisers have said that super-delegates should support the candidate who they believe is best qualified to be president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of voters and the best interests of the party."
Hillary was so busy talking "I" and "me" and what she wanted, it seems that she forgot there are some people called citizens of the United States that a president is suppose to represent -- not be dictator of. People that certainly don't need her guiding their lives as she seems to think she should have the right to do. Hillary knows best? She can't even get her own life straight, how is she going to get it "right" for others? But then I suppose whether it is right or not is not the issue. Her being in control is what she needs... what she appears to thrive on. But it looks like she is not as in control as she once thought she was.
Healy further reported, "She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out," said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. "The campaign is starting to come to terms with that." Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view."
The irony is that while some of the donors and super-delegates are reportedly getting nervous and some are expressing concern about the financial imbalance, the Clinton campers are reporting that Hillary has financial resources to regroup. So on the one hand, Obama had the financial advantage, but on the other, Hillary actually has the financial resources? And... we are to believe which suggestion made by her and her people?
The underdog with all the advantages? Guess a Clinton would expect most to be too stupid to realize the claim is an oxymoron or that there is a game of manipulation at play.
Hillary Clinton may very well be the underdog in this stage of it all but if she is -- she no longer has all the advantages she boasted. It does seem, however, that whatever Hillary suggests is the reality we are to accept -- it is a matter of convenience and not necessarily the "true" reality of the day.
On still another questioning note...
What is it that Hillary thinks she has done for the past thirty-five years that we should be impressed with? Maybe she should clarify, give specifics and provide documentation, rather than to simply throw that tired statement around as though it is gospel and with the expectation we should receive it as such.
The short of the story is...
We need a president that we can trust to be the person claimed to be. We need a person that we can trust to tell us the truth -- not a chameleon that has no hesitation in twisting other people's words and presenting the lie to us as true. How can we trust someone that would do that? How would we ever really know if what was said was true or a convenient lie? We wouldn't.
The underdog with all the advantages? Is that like 35 years of unexplained and undefined proven experience?
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.
Featured Article
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hillary Clinton: The Underdog with all the Advantages? -- proof please
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment