The Clinton Shadow Looms

I am regularly targeted for abuse for having the temerity to criticize the Clintons. Following a brief and pious sermon, devoid of facts of course, on what a "great president" Bill was, I'm berated for not being able to "get over it". "After all", so the line goes "the Clintons are gone". Conversely, these same people who, along with countless others like them in the press, once managing to regain some sort of composure, will invariably savage ex-presidents Reagan and Bush in an attempt to demonstrate what a crummy former president really looks like. Oftentimes a swipe at the Clintons isn't necessary. If the names Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Newt Gingrich for that matter, were ever to disappear from the vernacular of the left a hundred Beltway Snipers wouldn't be enough to fill the void.

In truth, the actions of any president are felt years, if not decades, after they've left the political stage. As such, they can and should continue to be fodder. But unlike every other president in modern history, Bill Clinton has not relinquished the spotlight, nor have he and his loyal cadre considered loosening their death grip on the reigns of political power. By contrast, the dreaded Ronald Reagan virtually disappeared once leaving the White House. The same is true for the first president Bush. Though the Clintons blamed "the previous administration" for nearly everything they could not spin into a positive, Bush remained dignified and, by tradition, silent for the sake of the nation and a then-sitting president that he undoubtedly had little respect for. Even throughout the campaign and the first two years of his son's tenure in the oval office he has stayed all but invisible. Targets and bogeymen they remain, however.

Fair enough, but the hypocritical demand that the Clintons somehow be granted deference is almost too much to stomach, especially considering that Hillary's presidential campaign began before her husband left office, and that Bill has inserted himself (pardon the pun) in every political issue since George W.'s first day in office. Tradition and decorum are no more concerns of the Clintons than are morality and law. Rather than being things to respect, they are to be gotten around, or simply done away with.

None of this is a problem for the press, far from it. The input of the Clintons, both in and out of office, is eagerly anticipated, and often actively sought out. More importantly, the reality that they remain the preeminent Democrat power brokers is being slowly, though joyously acknowledged. Among the most orgasmic is Newsweek's Howard Fineman. In his Nov. 4 piece, "The First Families Square Off", he attempted to describe a supposed blood feud between the Bushes and Clintons, but perhaps unwittingly showed it to be a decidedly Clinton-driven offensive. His own biases were put up front in the article's subtitle, "Hillary bashes Dubya while Bill and Poppy work the phones". By deeming the Bushes to be undeserving of their names, he has revealed himself to be suffering from the same petty vitriol that has so cruelly ravaged the mind of Maureen Dowd. But this was no less illustrative than his MSNBC column from Oct. 22, "Sniper Crisis Demands More From President"), in which he asks,

"I have a question for the president as the sniper's murder toll reaches 10 in our region and my kids are huddled indoors after school instead of being at Little League or tennis practice: why in this crisis haven't I heard more from you and seen more action from your crime-busting, terrorism-fighting White House?"

It is unclear what the president could or should have done beyond ordering federal law enforcement into the investigation, and pressing against the Posse Comitatus Act by engaging military surveillance planes in the hunt. Surely if Clinton were still in office he would have picked up a weapon and hunted the perpetrators down himself, but had Bush been more involved publicly, Fineman and his cohorts would almost certainly have accused him of "politicizing" the case and using it as a "distraction" leading up to the election day. This unspoken truth did not, however, prevent him in the same piece from proclaiming,

"I know George W. Bush reasonably well, and know that, despite his rootin' tootin' rhetoric, he isn't a callous man."

In other words, Bush just didn't give a rat's rear-end. Apparently Fineman has some surreptitious and close relationship with Bush that leads him to this conclusion, where so many others, friend and foe alike, have described him as a sincere and softhearted man that sheds actual tears, not the invisible Clinton variety. But never let it be said that Fineman would allow human suffering to obstruct his seething hatred of Bush. Just weeks after 9/11, with mangled human remains being pulled from still smoldering U.S. landmarks, a world turned upside-down and a nation clamoring for a decisive response, Howard Fineman characterized the president's easily justifiable ultimatum to Afghanistan as "fitfully swaggering rhetoric" by a "missile-loving neoisolationist with little knowledge of the world at large".

Is there any wonder why an "impartial" publication like Newsweek would want Fineman as their "chief political correspondent, senior editor and deputy Washington bureau chief"? And is there any wonder why during his recent appearance on NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" he wouldn't happily admit to the Clinton's desire "to humiliate the Bush family if they can". Judging from his disdain for the Bushes and devotion to the Clintons, this would be welcome.

But like so many others, Fineman fails to understand that the continued presence of Bill, Hillary and company has less to do with the promotion of liberal beliefs than it does with their insatiable lust for power.

During the presidential campaign of 2000, I told whoever would listen that the Clintons didn't want Al Gore to win. A Gore victory would have been a net loss for them rather than any sort of gain. With Gore in the White House, Bill would have been relegated to the status of an eight-year-long one-night-stand. After twelve years of Reagan and Bush the media and the Democrat Party were willing to hold their noses, cover their eyes and cast aside once revered ideas of right and wrong, the rule of law and the traditional perception of a marriage. The Clinton's could win, and that's what counted.

But Gore was a true believer and just a bit less of a cheap opportunist. The left could, therefore, get what they wanted without the soiled morning after sensation. A Bush victory, on the other hand, guaranteed Bill the status of beloved president in exile and voice of the resistance, a role that he has played to the hilt. It would also prevent the replacement of his loyal disciple Terry McAuliffe as Democratic Party Chairman and spare Hillary the difficulty of challenging and incumbent president Gore in 2004 or an incumbent VP Lieberman in 2008. After that much time the Clinton power structure in the Democrat Party would have surely disappeared, and Hillary's presidential aspirations along with it.

The calculated effort to map out the most accommodating state in which to establish a Senate staging area for the triumphant Clinton return to the White House was a masterful political maneuver, though hardly well-concealed. The public grumbling from the Gore camp about the diversion of desperately needed party funds and media coverage to Hillary's carpetbagger campaign illustrated what was truly under way.

Since then the Clintons have been the makers and breakers of careers within the Democrat Party and the undisputed crafters of party strategy. Bill's fingerprints were all over Bob Torricelli's ouster from the New Jersey Senate race, he was acknowledged by Howard Fineman to have been a driving force in drafting Walter Mondale in Minnesota and was certainly involved in the obscene production of the Paul Wellstone memorial pep rally. He was also involved in the termination of Andrew Cuomo's gubernatorial race in New York and has been behind the funneling of Democrat funds to target Jeb Bush, at the expense of people like Carl McCall.

None of this is particularly troubling to Fineman or anyone else on the left. It has been roundly accepted that what is good for the Clintons is good for all Democrats, and is in turn good for the country. The Democrat Party certainly had its share of unsavory characters in the pre-Clinton era, but the Clintons have now become the party.

To a certain extent, they have become the media as well. In my last column, I constructed a satirical case to implicate George W. Bush as the Beltway Sniper. I did so only half tongue-in-cheek. The reality is that any exaggeration about Republicans in general, or Bush specifically, will be given serious consideration by the press. By contrast, there is seemingly nothing that the Clintons can do that will result in lasting condemnation. Fraudulent land deals, the shaking down of Buddhist nuns, the coveting of Communist Chinese money while our nuclear secrets are flowing to them, the selling of presidential pardons, proven perjury and credible charges of rape are inconsequential. The press merely feigns disgust for a fleeting moment and gleefully regurgitates the spin. Should Bill ever be caught on video taking a knife to a woman's throat, it would likely be covered as a failed attempt to administer an emergency tracheotomy. Anything is better than a conservative, isn't it?

In a time when foreign policy and national defense should be of paramount importance, they long for the days of the Clinton's meaningless photo opportunities, appeasement and utter neglect that encouraged al-Qaida, facilitated daily bloodshed in Israeli streets, and delivered nuclear weapons into the hands of the North Koreans. In a time when our armed forces are needed more than ever to defend American lives, they are nostalgic for a time when it was demoralized, starved for funds and considered by the world to be the U.N.'s, not the U.S.'s, military. And if Howard Fineman and his kind have their way, those days will soon be returning. Let's just hope we survive them.

This says it all:

If America means anything at all to you, don't vote for another Clinton Democrat, it may take a few elections but we can help rid that party of crooks and corruption. Vote Republican etc. and help shut the door on Bill and Hillary, their Socialists friends and agenda. Help return the Democratic Party to what it once was!

I actually wrote Howard Fineman about that column about the Beltway Sniper. He never answered me, of course, but I did my best to shame him. The column accused President Bush of not commenting on the Sniper because of Karl Rove, and said that if Karen Hughes were still in DC things would have been different.

There were other loathesome comments in the piece, but that one sent me over the edge.

I am glad to see someone else with a larger audience than mine has taken Fineman to task.

And I am dead certain Clinton was behind that travesty of a memorial service for Wellstone.

But unlike every other president in modern history, Bill Clinton has not relinquished the spotlight, nor have he and his loyal cadre considered loosening their death grip on the reigns of political power. By contrast, the dreaded Ronald Reagan virtually disappeared once leaving the White House. The same is true for the first president Bush. Though the Clintons blamed "the previous administration" for nearly everything they could not spin into a positive, Bush remained dignified and, by tradition, silent for the sake of the nation and a then-sitting president that he undoubtedly had little respect for. Even throughout the campaign and the first two years of his son's tenure in the oval office he has stayed all but invisible. Targets and bogeymen they remain, however.

And why is this so, one might ask? Simple. Because previous presidents have remained in the background after leaving office out of RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE! And, respect for the office of the President requires something the dems have lost, PATRIOTISM! DEMS DON'T EVEN LIKE AMERICA ANY MORE.

This is the Democrat Politburo in acion, awaiting its next opportunity to sieze control of the police powers of the State and the multi-trillion dollar treasury. The Clintons are felony class politicians, with scores of accomplices.

The next time these fascists get control, may the end of the first American Republic, as our Rule of Law has proven a bitter myth.

Didn't have time to read the whole thing but I got the gist of it.

I won't deny that I despise the Clintons but to act out of hatred for them is to play their game. They try to provoke the hatred of their adversaries ON PURPOSE because it diminishes their effectiveness. Remember when Gingrich was made to ride in steerage on AF1. His later complaining was a PR triumph for the Clintons.

Now consider this: The Clintons hijacked the Democratic Party ten years ago and it has done the Democrats monumental harm since then. Remember the Democratic Congressional majority? How long did it last, about a millenium? It only took the Clintons two years to destroy that majority.

Here's the awful truth for Democrats and anybody else who believes in the Clintons: They never deliver. NEVER. Yes they try to screw their enemies as much as possible but their worst victims are invariably their own supporters. Think about this the next time the Clintons p*** you off. They have dished out far more punishment to the Democratic Party than anything Republicans could have dreamed of.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.