The important issues in the National Presidential Campaign are being ignored while the nation's media obsesses about what the former First Lady is going to do next in her campaign to undermine the 22nd Amendment...

“Democracy's Apocalypse 2008:What Does Hillary Want?”

By Eric 'Renderking' Fisk - June 4th, 2008

Ren's RantsI'm always in danger of alienating some of our loyal readers when I hammer out a political piece. Perfect example is a heated discussion I had with another webmaster about how The Fedora Chronicles is just too dam'n political. Maybe he meant that The Fedora Chronicles is too far to "The Right," or too far to "The Left," or maybe it's because we allow any retro or Vintage Aficionado to say anything he or she wants about politics... Maybe that's what scares other people about this site.

Recently I've been laying off the politics save for the forum. Most of my rants these past few weeks have been about movies and social issues such as girls growing up to fast and looking like the type of dames that would be on the other end of the phone with Eliot Spitzer. But now I have to throw down and discuss something that really frightens me and should have all of you concerned...

The current list of candidates - all three of them - offer none of us any real hope or genuine choice in regards to a brighter future for The United States and the rest of the Western World. The one who scares me the most is the one proving what I've said all along this year so far. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so." [Be sure to skip to the updated section if you've read this before and you want my take on the latest development...]


The Seeds Of Resentment

Mrs. Roosevelt was one of the most powerful and influential First Lady's in American History and she might have changed the roll of "President's Wife" for ever. She was an activist with her own thoughts and views and wasn't afraid to tell her husband Franklin what was on her mind and how he should vote on any particular bill.

If any former First Lady had any business becoming President, it was Eleanor Roosevelt.

Let me rattle off a few names of some women who have no business occupying the Whitehouse... Nancy Reagan, unless she's changing the drapes again... Rosalind Carter, Laura Bush, Betty Ford, and Hillary Clinton. Yes, I said Hillary Clinton. Here's an analogy...

My wife has been a Technical Support Specialist and an X-Ray Technician for more then 20 years. I've listened to her talk about the problems some machines have had and how she was able to help someone fix those problems over the phone or dispatch someone who could do so in person. But just because I've listened to my wife for all of the years we've been together doesn't mean that I'm also an expert, does it? Nobody should allow me anywhere near an X-Ray machine unless I'm wearing a back-less hospital down with my hands empty or covering my bare butt. (Despite the fact that I built some during the time my wife and I met...)

But Hillary Clinton is able to count her husband's years of experience as her own and none of her supporters scoff. For 35 years she (with Bill) have done this, that, and everything else. And when I've asked Hillary supporters why she she should be elected, all I hear is that "It's her turn," and "If she gets into trouble she can always count on Bill to help her out." And then there's the Dubya bashing...

NEVER ONCE has any one told me about any of her policies, the details of her plans to fix gas prices (although she does have an idea to institute a new "Windfall Profit" tax and suspend some of the gas prices at the pump,) or the rising cost of other products we consume, nor does anyone tell me about the plans she has to fix the Sub-Prime Mortgage Credit Crisis we're still grappling. There's no talk about the rising cost of prescription drugs here in The United States while those same drugs are being sold elsewhere in the world for less money or given away for free. No... the reason why too many people support her is for the mere fact that she's owed the job and her back-up plan in times of a jam is her husband. If she can find him since it's been recently reported in Vanity Fair that he's still chasing skirts.

Again, let me just remind everyone that this whole campaign of hers is in violation of the spirit of the The 22nd Amendment - since she was Bill's 'Co-President' during his term, she's now ineligible to be 'Co-President' again...


Turning Tides

Regardless of what I wrote in other articles (Biggest Losers Super Tuesday 2008 and The Judas Factor,) and what I think now, this behavior of Hillary's is abhorrent... (Skip Ahead...)

Associated Press: "Clinton refuses to bow out of presidential race."

By JIM KUHNHENN and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writers

NEW YORK - Angling for a vice presidential nod, Hillary Rodham Clinton refused to bow out of the Democratic race Tuesday, hoping to maintain leverage as Barack Obama clinched the delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.


"A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?'" Clinton told supporters at a rally in New York. "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard."


Clinton told the crowd she would consult in the coming days with advisers about the fate of her moribund candidacy. But her remarks came hours after she told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama as his running mate.


Many of her top supporters spoke openly of Clinton's potential vice presidential prospects. Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel under President Clinton, said he told the former first lady Tuesday that he was initiating a petition to press Obama to select her for the second spot on the ticket. He said Clinton did not encourage or discourage the step.


If he doesn't have her, I think he can still win. With her on the ticket, he can't be beat," Davis said.


Clinton's national finance chairman, Hassan Nemazee, said he was also pushing an Obama-Clinton ticket, claiming that together they would be able to raise $200 million to $250 million for the general election.


Advisers indicated earlier Tuesday that the former first lady would publicly acknowledge in her speech that Obama had crossed the delegate threshold. But she changed her mind and refused to do so even after television networks and The Associated Press declared the Illinois senator had sealed the nomination.


Her advisers said they considered the delegate numbers to be unreliable, even as the AP estimated Obama had several more than the 2,118 needed to nominate. Earlier, Clinton acknowledged on a conference call with New York lawmakers that the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, according to several participants on the call.

She said none of that publicly Tuesday but vowed the Democratic Party would unite in its effort to defeat Republican John McCain in November.


Clinton won South Dakota's primary Tuesday, while Obama won Montana's. The two contests rounded out a historic five-month primary battle that pitted the first major black candidate against the first serious woman contender.


The South Dakota victory, which was unexpected, gave Clinton an excuse to buy more time to consider options, her advisers said.


On the conference call with New York colleagues, Clinton, a New York senator, said she would be willing to become Obama's running mate if it would help Democrats win the White House.


Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.


"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November. Her direct quote was described by two lawmakers who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for Clinton.


"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate.


Joseph Crowley, a Queens Democrat who participated in the call, said her answer "left open the possibility that she would do anything that she can to contribute toward a Democratic victory in November. There was no hedging on that. Whatever she can do to contribute, she was willing to do."


Another person on the call, Rep. Jose Serrano of New York City, said her answer was "just what I was hoping to hear. ... Of course she was interested in being president, but she's just as interested in making sure Democrats get elected in November."


Rep. Charles Rangel, a devoted booster of Clinton who helped pave the way for her successful Senate campaign, said he spoke to her Tuesday and got much the same answer.


"She's run a great campaign and even though she'll be a great senator, she has a lot of followers that obviously Obama doesn't have, and clearly the numbers are against her and so I think they bring all parts of the Democratic Party together and then some," Rangel said.


Aides to the Illinois senator said he and Clinton had not spoken about the prospects of her joining the ticket.


Most of Clinton's campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.


Universal health care, Clinton's signature issue as first lady in the 1990s, was a point of dispute between Obama and the New York senator during their nomination fight.


Clinton reiterated her commitment to that issue in her

remarks Tuesday.


"It is a fight I will continue until every single American has health insurance. No exceptions and no excuses," she said.


Other names have been floated as possible running mates for Obama, including former rivals New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and governors including Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia. Also mentioned are foreign policy experts including former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, and other senators such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill and Virginia's Jim Webb.


Obama could also look outside the party to people such as anti-war Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska or independent New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Or he could look to one of his prominent supporters such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota or try to bring on a Clinton supporter, such as Indiana's Sen. Evan Bayh or retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

The obvious questions are: don't they know that it's practically impossible now for her to be asked to be Barack's after her earlier comments? [The other question, what campaign has Charles Rangel been watching? Not this one!] and don't they know that thanks to Mrs. Obama, Hillary has NO CHANCE of ever being asked, according to Robert Novak's recent column.

Democrats need to be furious at Hillary, their rage should be accumulating since she blatantly LIED about being under fire during her trip to Bosina a decade ago, her lies about being against the Iraq War from the very beginning since it's almost impossible to not find comments she made about how she was for the war since the conversation started about Saddam possibly hiding the tools and materials for a WMD program, the comment she made about Robert Kennedy's assassination and how she implied that she should stay in the race because Obama's assassination is inevitable...

Most importantly, though, the longer she stays in the race and continues to fight the nomination process she keeps Obama's focus on her and not on McCain and the actual campaign. Hillary refusing to concede even after she lost the delegates needed proves that she is indeed an arrogant, narcissistic and  calculating even to this day as she tries to maneuver into where Barack has to BEG her to become his running mate. She's putting her own selfish needs and pride before that of the country and her own party. With her behavior she's ensuring a Republican win this November.

Republican's also need to be a little angry because it seems clear to many of us that John McCain and his running mate aren't going to win on their own merit. Hillary Clinton's campaign at this stage (after it's obvious to everyone that she's genuinely lost.)

I can't line up and stand tall for John McCain because of the "McCain-Feingold" - since anyone should be allowed to openly contribute to a campaign of their choice, even organizations and cooperation's - just so long as those who contribute can't cash in later for favors... whether we think that's fair or not. A while back the Supreme Court ruled that Campaign Dollars equates to Freedom Of Speech and I tend to agree.

"McCain-Feingold" isn't even talked about these days. Nor are the other hot topics that are plaguing us right now, many of which I've already mentioned. Too often the subject is about what's going to happen to Hillary, what's she's going to do and what's her next move, and not how to fix the economy and who has the best plan. Hillary's in action and stubbornness is what's making headlines, more so then Obama being the presumptive nominee, the issues or the plans to fix them. Hillary is cheating the country she claims she's trying to help.


Rant Update...

Last night I got a phone call, the first of many who told me that this rant was outdated. Hours after it was posted Hillary released a statement that she will indeed suspending her campaign bid. She's not quitting, as the headlines of other would have you believe... rather she's "suspending" her bid for the Whitehouse while at the same time she's "hanging on" to her delegates.

She'll keep them until the Convention. Who knows what she has planned, or what she'll say when she makes a statement Saturday night when she hosts a special "Thank You" for her supporters this Washington.

The question that remains is this: why is she holding out? What does she want?


As I told Michael Graham on 96.9FM Talk in Boston - I think it's pretty clear what she wants, a cabinet position with-in The Obama Administration provided of course that he actually wins. There's no chance that Hillary could ever be Vice-President as things stand now. But being given "Secretary Of State" or "Chief Of Staff" is with in her grasp. She has something she can give him, her delegates and her support. If Hillary was given a promises of occupying the office she so desires (like "Attorney General" like another caller mentioned,) then she could conceivably put all of the effort she had during her own campaign and put it into his.

Imagine the rally cry from Hillary and Bill - get the next best thing to Hillary in The Oval Office - Hillary as Secretary of State, Chief Of Staff, Attorney General... what ever she wanted she would sell that as cause for her supporters to vote for Barack.

This notion is pretty absurd, I'm sure. She lost. She's one half of one of the most powerful political machines in the 20th Century and her reputation is ruined by the comments she and her husband made during this campaign and many people have seen a side of her that was only rumored to exist. She and Bill made some harsh remarks about Mr. Obama, and it's hard to imagine her putting on a fake smile and saying "just kidding" and put her arms out for a deep embrace.

Is Hillary owed anything after losing? Are any of the others who campaigned owed anything? Is John Edwards or Bill Richardson owed anything? Will Barack Obama offer anything at all to those who were his opponents? Nobody would begrudge him if he slighted them, but now there's a rally cry from some people out there that Hillary is "owed" something.

Hillary's sense of "entitlement" is what alienated more then half the voters during the Democratic Primary season and why she lost. She was the "presumptive" Nominee, you were supposed to vote for her because it was her turn. Barack Omama would be at a serious disadvantage if he did put her on the ticket or promised her a position with-in his administration, while there is a growing choris: "Anyone but Hillary..."


Products From CafePress help keep The Fedora Chronicles On-Line! Check Them Out!