If someone had asked you last fall to speculate about how the Clintons would react if by some miracle Barack Obama stole Hillary’s mantle of inevitability regarding the Democratic nomination, how would you have responded?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question if ever there was one; but it bears asking because the mainstream media makes its money by focusing on hype (“Hillary Wins in PA!”) instead of examining the most significant reality of the campaign: The consequences of the Clintons’ behavior in response to Obama’s (let’s call it what it is) inevitability.
That behavior, to no one’s surprise, is marked by lies, expedient flips and flops, vicious attacks, and an angry selfishness we have come to associate with the Clintons even on their best days.
But the more important point pertains to the extreme intensity of that behavior in the context of a Democratic primary, a reality that allows us to compare Hillary’s situation with that of a bad poker player whose arrogance has forced her to go “all in” despite almost impossible odds.
So what are the consequences the mainstream media is ignoring when we hear its pundits blithely speak of Hillary’s strategy with regard to superdelegates or of positioning herself for a run in ’12?
To enumerate them, we must begin with the remarks of “professor” Bill Clinton, who insists he was merely giving a lesson about political history when he brought up race more than once in South Carolina. Furthermore, we can’t lose sight of the fact that Slick Willy insists he was continuing his service as a teacher when, replete with his signature finger pointing, he recently deconstructed the Carolina lecture in such a way that (surprise of surprises) he came out the victim.
Next, we cannot ignore an historic pedagogical coincidence whereby the former president’s service was emulated by “assistant professors” Ed Rendell and Geraldine Ferraro, both of whom also claim they felt an irresistible compulsion to enlighten the public about certain racial issues while fiercely denying they had obeyed an urge to shill for Hill by playing the race card.
But whatever was in the politician trio’s hearts and minds, the consequence is that black Americans have angrily reacted to their explanations as professorial bull. Moreover, this crucial bloc of angry Democratic voters will soon realize (if they haven’t already) that if they remain unified, they can hold veto power over the one who could have put a stop to loose talk about race but instead reprised her vile “nuts and sluts silence” (her husband’s standing as the “nation’s first black president” notwithstanding).
Making Hillary’s “all in” gamble all the more disastrous, black voters can exercise that veto not just in November if Hillary should manage to steal the nomination but at any time after. Will they? At this point, no one can say with certainty, but all Americans can ask themselves how they would react to a similar situation that put their self-respect on the line.
If, miracle of miracles, the black veto doesn’t stop Hillary, there is another veto forming that is backed up with greater numbers, a boatload of power, and resources so great Hillary will be forced to reprise her performance of raging against the lies and money of “a vast [Left-Wing] conspiracy.”
Yes, as Hillary distinguishes herself from Liberal Wimp Barack by promising to be a shot downing, beer chasing, shotgun toting president who will sleep in her day clothes so that she’ll be ready for the cameras when she takes that three a.m. call from Israel and tells its leaders to hold their powder because by 3:01 she’ll have ordered Iran nuked into oblivion, she’s making Liberals so angry they’re talking about her with language right out of the Bush Derangement Syndrome Handbook.
Well, if not all Liberals, a lot of them, including members of MoveOn, a group funded by the likes of George Soros and Google, whose money makes Hill and Bill’s pile look pretty puny.
You say MoveOn’s Radic-Libs can’t effect a veto by themselves? Then, turn your attention to the NY Times, the Mainstream-Lib Newspaper of Record.
The day after the Pennsylvania Primary, that powerful Liberal voice laid into Hillary in an editorial blaming her as “mostly responsible” for the “mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled” attacks that made the Keystone State primary worse than the “contests that preceded it.”
Ripping into Hillary’s ad that “wave[d] the bloody shirt of 9/11” and was “torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook,” the editorial goes on to issue an implicit threat: “She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her …”
Even straight news articles are certain to stoke anti-Hillary anger among Liberals who will associate acts not connected to the Clinton campaign with Hillary because every Liberal has memorized the aphorism quoted by Michael Dukakis: “A fish rots from the head first.”
In this regard, consider a widely reprinted Washington Post piece (at least one Pennsylvania newspaper placed it above the fold, right side) that recounts news of the burning of signs the Obama campaign had “trucked in by the thousands” as well stories about Obama volunteers being greeted with “racial slurs” and county commissioners who endorsed Obama being bombarded with “hate mail.”
In the end, however, it is Hillary’s embrace of “Republican issues” and the intensity with which Hillary has characterized her opponent as a callow wimp who “can’t stand the heat” and therefore should “get out of the kitchen” that has so deeply angered and disgusted Liberals.
It is precisely that anger and disgust that causes us to believe Liberals, like blacks, will exercise their Clinton veto today and tomorrow; for they are in no mood to ever again play that game called “Webster Hubbell Rolls Over One More Time.”
As this gathering anti-Clinton wave turns its attention to other important issues that demand a veto of Hillary (and Billary), we Conservatives are happy to reap its practical rewards.
However, all on the other side who participate in efforts to veto the Clintons should know we support them as a matter of principle and therefore congratulate them and wish them well as we stand prepared, should the need arise, to cast our veto against Hillary in a general election, a promise, by the way, about which our friends on the Left need not entertain the slightest doubt.