The Clintons are big on loyalty. Their court jester ( or is he the idiot of their village? the flying monkey of their Oz?other ideas?) James Carville famously called Gov. Richardson a Judas because he dared to endorse Obama over Clinton. So, how loyal have the Clintons been ? No group stuck with the Clintons more consistently than the African-American community through the dark days of the Impeachment witch hunt. Clinton had their near unanimous support , and it played an important role in saving his Presidency.
James Clyburn (D-SC) is the Majority Whip, the Third Ranking member of the House Leadesrhip. He is also the highest ranking African-American in Congress. Still officially uncommitted in the Primary, Clyburn says that
black people are incensed over all of this.
That is, the behavior of Bill Clinton in South Carolina.
He let it rip in an interview with the NYTimes:
When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar. I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.
Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”
Why should we take the African-American vote for granted? If Clinton is nominated in spite of Obama winning more states, might they not also stay home, as the Clintonistas are threatening to do in the GE?
Apparently loyalty only counts in one direction. It flows from the people towards the Royalty. The King and Queen themselves need show no loyalty to their subjects. Isn't peace and prosperity enough?
The Clintons have convinced the media, or at least the liberal blogosphere, that the dysfunction of the Clinton years is out of bounds for discussion. Even in this most Pro-Obama forum, we are not allowed to talk of the sordid tales of Lewisnky, Whitewater, and all the rest for fear being called a troll. What is wrong in considering character in who is more qualified to be President? Indeed, Sen. Clinton has gone one step further and claims that having survived the scandals makes her more immune from Republican attacks. She may have survived, but her credibility has been destroyed: fully 60% of Democrats think she is untrustworthy. Surely the Super Delegates will take that into consideration when deciding who is the stronger candidate against McCain?
How do the Clintons get away with it? Because Hillary Clinton was indeed correct in asserting that there was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy out to get them. We were right in supporting the Clintons back then. But the situation has reversed now. The Clintons have gleefully joined the VRWC now in their attacks on Sen. Obama. Hillary's newest Best Friend Forever is none other than Richard Mellon-Scaiffe, the leader of the VRWC.
Christopher Hitchens said,
For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done.
This was written before the Bosnia episode, before Sen. Clinton carried McCain across the Commander-in-Chief threshold, before she had lost the Iowa caucuses. It reads even more true now.
But then Christopher Hitchens is another one of those elitists who are out of touch with the American People. Not salt of the Earth like Richard Mellon Scaiffe.
Permalink | 6 comments