What does Washington DC know about Hillary that we don't, and should?
Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:59:05 AM PDT
On March 3, 2008, John Aravosis posted on Americablog a piece enitlted; "What will the Republicans throw at Hillary Clinton in the fall?"
In the post he suggests that there is a lot of information about Hillary that the public doesn't know and that Washington has kept quiet about. As hard as that is to believe.
Now I like John, though sometimes I disagree with him. But I have to wonder what are these explosive revelations that he is sitting on. And why aren't we hearing them?
In his post he wrote:
So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?
Lots. But I'm not going to detail those things today because I'm, surprisingly, still pulling punches with regards to what I write about Hillary. I don't want to damage Hillary should she become our nominee, as increasingly unlikely as that appears. I don't want to write about very real scandals in Hillary's past, scandals that we will be forced to revisit for the next 8 months, and 8 years. I don't want to write about the rumors about Bill that no one has written about to date, even though the rumors include lots of details which are at least just as true as Obama being a Muslim. While Hillary's campaign is pushing known lies about Obama, such as the "Muslim" connection, most of the stories about Hillary are anything but lies. They're real stories that she will have to discuss publicly, again and again and again, to her and our party's detriment.
But I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country. The Clintons are counting on the fact that none of us will write about their negatives, because we're too nice. So they can get as dirty as they want, with impunity.
This is where I disagree with John.
If there is some very damaging material on Hillary, does anyone think, despite John McCain's assurances last night that he will run a respectful campaign, that these charges will continue to be kept under wraps?
Does anyone really think the their anti-Hillary 527, C.U.N.T., or like group will not throw all this at Hillary? Rovian tactics say that there really doesn't have to be anything to them, they just need to throw them out there and see what sticks and then exploit it. Chances are they already have the information and just waiting for the opportune time to use it.
Shouldn't we know all this before we are locked into a candidate? We know that the Republicans will use everything they can to damage her. Even with the knowledge that after spending 16 years defining her and painting her as the devil incarnate, she will activate their base, they will ensure victory by going for the kill.
An October surprise? Just release all the alleged information that is bottled up in Washington on her (information John says he has now).
An October surprise after we've locked on a candidate, long after we should have had this information. Long after we can do anything about it.
I appreciate John not wanting to damage one of our candidates. But sitting on this alleged information even if she gets 65% or more of yesterday's delegates does her, the party and us no good. In reality it should have come out weeks ago.
The Republicans will not be so considerate, and we cannot wait for this information until after Denver. We shouldn’t wait for this information until after more primaries. We shouldn't have waited so long as it is.
We need to know now.
.
.
.
Full disclosure: I am a Barack Obama supporter, but have said I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
Permalink | 23 comments