I probably shouldn't say this, but Samantha Powers had a point when she said Hillary Clinton was a "monster."
Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories, with a huge assist from the press and the comedy programs, and Clinton's "working the refs" strategy, insisting the press (the refs) have been unfair to her, have brought the Clinton zombies back to life. These people refuse to die, no matter what they have to do to revive themselves, nor whom or what they take down with them.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, he refused to leave, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge what he had done to his wife, until he could no longer sustain the lies, and ultimately to the country and the candidacy of Al Gore. And on the day of the impeachment he had no shame, holding a rally on the White House lawn.
Yes, the impeachment was overkill, but I am beginning to understand what the Republicans have apparently understood all along, you can't kill these people's political power by normal means. They are the undead, and even if you hold a mirror or a crucifix up to them, they simply grab one of their associates and block the effect of the dangerous item. They find a way to survive.
And now Hillary is following the template provided by her husband. Hillary Clinton's inevitable nomination was seriously damaged after Iowa. So what did she do? She cried on television, talked all soft and feminine and then, after winning New Hampshire, said she had "found her voice," as if she was a political neophyte who had never spoken in public before. What she meant, of course, was that she had found the perfect phony voice for the right moment.
Now she has won three of four states that held primaries on March 4th and everyone is touting her comeback. But we really should examine how she did it.
She did it with lies, smears, distortions, fear-mongering, working the refs, and more false personas. She also accepted an assist from Rush Limbaugh, who by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary may be responsible for up to five percent of her vote in Texas.
She lied about Barack's accomplishments, saying all that could be compared to her years of experience and McCain's years of experience was a single speech. She completely dismissed his years in the Illinois legislature and his years in the Senate, only one term short of hers. All together, his legislative experience is longer than hers. He, of course, has never been First Lady, but do we really think Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Rosalynn Carter would make good presidents because of their experience planting flowers and meeting foreign women?
She also made sure that picture of Barack in tribal dress got out into the media. Then she went on 60 Minutes and answered Steve Kroft, who asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, with a qualified answer. "I take him at his word," she said. And then insisted he was a Christian "as far as I know." She added a smile to make her obvious hedge seem like a sincere statement of support for her rival. This was exactly what she needed to say to the voters of Southern Ohio who are still quite racist and susceptible to fear-mongering. Remember, Ohio went in the Bush column in 2004, either because the voters there were duped by his fear message or because their Republican Secretary of State disenfranchised a sufficient number of African Americans to allow Bush to steal the state's electoral votes.
Then she distorted Obama's position on NAFTA, saying he was winking to the Canadians about his real intention to use his voiced opposition to NAFTA to get votes, all the while having no intention of changing it. Belatedly, we find out that it was actually the Clinton administration that was winking to Canada, but it bears hardly a mention in the media.
She also ran an ad that played to people's fears about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief. She mocked his appeal to hope and cooperation in a display the likes of which I have never seen in a campaign. Interestingly, she decided to run against hope, in complete contrast to what her husband advises: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Obviously, the Clintons don't mean a thing they say. If they say to vote for hope they only mean it if they are the candidates of hope. If they try to stoke your fear, it is because that is the only way they can win. This should be a clear sign that the only thing these two stand for is their own power.
She also went on Saturday Night Live and acted like a real person with a sense of humor and for good measure appeared on The Daily Show. For this election, she didn't find her voice but worked hard to convince everyone she found her funny bone. Alas, it was all part of the strategy to do and say whatever it takes to bury Obama.
But none of this is funny. It is truly frightening that this woman is willing to do whatever it takes to win:
Use fear tactics
Change her persona as many times as necessary
Say whatever will work whether it's true or not
Agree to the rules to not seat delegates in Michigan and Florida and then claim the rules should be changed, and the delegates seated because she "won" there (in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot, and in Florida many voters stayed home because they knew it wouldn't count)
Know how each state chooses delegates – some by primary and some by caucus – and then insist primaries should count more than caucuses (because she lost all the caucuses), and big states more than small states (because she only wins big states).
Praise the Republican opponent as more ready to be president than your Democratic rival because that way if her rival wins the nomination, the Republican can defeat him in the Fall , and she can come back from the dead again in four years to become president
The Clintons believe in breaking the rules, making new rules, and changing the rules when the rules don't suit them. No matter how many times the media or others declare them close to death, they rise up and fight another day. They are definitely some kind of monster that cannot die by normal political means. The rules of nature, ethics, and civility that apply to normal humans don't apply to them. They reject the traditional Democratic rules of campaigning, and resort to the rules of Karl Rove, another monster.
If that doesn't make them monsters, I don't know what does. And if somebody doesn't stop these monsters, they are liable to destroy the hopes and dreams of a lot of young, middle aged and older Democrats, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
