Two For One is Two Too Many

Two For One is Two Too Many
Vol: 76 Issue: 29 Tuesday, January 29, 2008

“Clinton lied ten years ago about Monica Lewinsky and he’s lying about a very viable candidate and somebody who could really bring change in this country [Senator Barak Obama]. He [Clinton] is embarrassing poor Democrats.”

Who said that? Rush Limbaugh? Brit Hume? Bill O’Reilly? Would you believe . . . liberal talk-show host Ed Schultz appearing on uber-liberal Chris Matthew’s MSNBC program, “Hardball.”

As the primary season continues, more and more of the focus is on Bill Clinton, almost zeroing out Hillary’s best efforts to remind the electorate that it is she, and not Bill, who is running for president.

To be fair, it is a unique situation — nobody — not the Clinton campaign, the Democrat Party, the electorate or the pundits have any historical precedent to fall back on.

Bill has trotted out about the only precedent that applies, dredging up his 1992 campaign promise of “two for the price of one” in which he offered Hillary up as a kind of ‘co-president.’

Hillary first two terms as ‘co-president’ included “Billing-gate” ([the Rose Law Firm billing records that went ‘missing’ from 1994-1996);

“Cattlegate” where Hillary turned $1000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000.00 in a matter of weeks;

“Travelgate” where Hillary fired the entire White House Travel staff, gave their jobs to pals Henry and Susan Bloodworth Thomasson and then lied about it;

“Filegate” where Hillary was using FBI files against Clinton enemies — and then lied about it.

Hillary’s co-presidential staff included Craig Livingstone, an ex-bar bouncer with a history of cocaine use;

“Fostergate”, when Hillary’s former law partner [and a central figure in Whitewatergate, Filegate, among others] Vince Foster was found dead in a Washington park of an apparent ‘suicide’ in which he evidently shot himself in the head with his left hand, rolled himself up in a carpet, and then evidently unrolled himself and disposed of the carpet in Marcy Park before being found dead.

Leading Democrats have considered the ramifications of yet another Clinton co-presidency, and suddenly, the FOB list (Friends of Bill) began to shrink.

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich accused Billary of “leading a “smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.”

“Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former president, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic Party,” Reich wrote on his blog.

In a recent conference call with reporters, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle criticized “President Clinton’s inaccurate descriptions of the differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the war, about his inaccurate portrayal of Barack’s comments … he made about Republicans.”

Former Clinton pal John Kerry warned that Obama’s record was being “swift boated” – to Kerry, a euphemism for being unfairly attacked.

Kerry did not name the Clintons directly as the perpetrators of the “swift boating,” but the implication was clear.

“The fight is just heating up,” Kerry said. “We won’t let them steal this election with lies and distortions.”

Nicholas von Hoffman, a veteran liberal columnist, wrote in the liberal flagship, “Nation Magazine” that Hillary Clinton is an “experienced political thug.” He also accused both Clintons of “playing demolition derby politics” likening the Clinton political machine to ‘a skunk’.

Hillary’s post-White House fundraising practices are also making former Friends of Bill nervous;

Hollywood mogul Peter Paul claims he spent about $1.7 million and arranged for hundreds of thousands of dollars of other in-kind contributions for both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s Senate race.

Campaign finance laws required that those in-kind contributions be reported to the FEC. They were not, but since, like most Clinton allies, Paul was a twice-convicted felon, a Grand Jury refused to indict her.


The most crushing blow of all came yesterday when the entire Kennedy family came together to officially and loudly endorse Barak Obama’s candidacy.

Caroline Kennedy, the only surviving member of former President John F Kennedy’s family, has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1980 when Uncle Teddy was running for office.

So when she not only endorsed Obama, but compared him favorably with her father, it was a double gut punch to the Clinton campaign.

Teddy’s endorsement also compared Obama to JFK, saying that Obama “inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision, and support our hope and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come.”

The Kennedy mystique still resonates among Democrats, despite the best efforts of the surviving Kennedys to erase it with the Kennedy-Scandal-of-the Month.

(Being too scandalous for the Kennedys (!) is like being too liberal for or too Far Left for the New York Times. It boggles the mind)

The Clinton nomination is in serious trouble — trouble so severe it might possibly even be fatal to her presidential hopes.

It also creates a real problem for the GOP — who is betting it all on facing off against Hillary Clinton in the general election.

The GOP doesn’t think that Hillary can win, and they are probably right. I only chose the Hillary scandals that sprang off the top of my head — if I did a bit of digging, I could fill a whole page. (That’s what the GOP hopes to do during the general election.)

The worst thing that could happen to the GOP’s election year hopes is a Barak Obama candidacy.

Let’s face it — Barak Obama is an attractive candidate.

Leaving aside the ‘first black president’ (a first woman president cancels it out) Barak Obama’s negative baggage is limited to his middle name (“Hussein”), the fact his father and step-father were both Muslim, and that the pastor of his church is a supporter of Louis Farrakan’s Nation of Islam . . . and all that remains is his half-term Senate record.

His speeches are mesmerizing, his eloquence is almost musical, and his message of hope and unity are inspiring. Were it not for his pro-abortion, antiwar, ultra- liberal credentials, I think I’d be supporting him myself.

It is a real conundrum — one summed up well by David Limbaugh, who wrote:

“When you contrast this negative side of the Clintons against Obama’s image of hope and change — as shallow as that might sound to us conservatives — the Clintons might have just written the final chapter on themselves, just maybe.

As one who has never been an admirer of the Clintons, I would be celebrating over all this but for the stark reality that Obama could very well be much tougher to beat than Hillary Clinton. So it is with a profound sense of the bittersweet that I observe what could be the Clintons’ political demise.”

And with it, the real possibility that come November, America could elect its first wartime Democratic Chief Executive since FDR.

“This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s