On Trusting Hillary Clinton with Power
In his masterpiece treatise on political systems, The Republic, Plato observed that it is precisely those who desire power the most who should be trusted with power the least. A cursory glance at history confirms the wisdom of this sentiment. The years are littered with egomaniacs that would stop at nothing to gain power, desperate to wield it in pursuit of their subjective vision of a better world.
The single largest failing of democracy is that it makes it all too easy for such dangerous people to win office and gain power over the individual members of society. This fact was the major reason that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 resulted in a Republic rather than a volatile democracy. Republics have intrinsic protections against such abuse of power. Still, the Founders cautioned their progeny, be most wary of those who overtly desire power.
Which is why we should be wary of Hillary Clinton. Many thoughtful, objective people who have studied the various candidates, of both major parties, have concluded that there is something very unsettling about a potential return of the Clintons to the White House. To some it’s the prospect of twenty-four years of the same two Yale-educated families in executive power, qualifying the United States for oligarchy status. To others it’s the prospect of reliving the dreary series of seedy tales of the Clinton years, from Whitewater to Travelgate to Fostergate to Cattlegate to Lewinsky. Even worse than reliving those tired scandals would be the new ones that would inevitably follow her inauguration.
It is not merely the substantial baggage of the Clinton I presidency that Hillary carries, it is her own, well-documented difficulty telling the truth. Her lies are so legendary that they approach the definition of cliché, and there are so many that it is impossible to list them all. From the illegal (missing subpoenaed Whitewater files hidden in her home) to the mundane (claiming to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary), she has demonstrated an outright contempt for the truth. Here’s one that fell by the wayside but will surely come up again: the New York Post reported in 2000 that a former Clinton staffer named Paul Fray claims that Hillary once called him a “f-cking Jew bastard” in front of his wife and another staffer named Neill McDonald. Sounds outrageous and hard to believe, and of course Hillary denies that it took place. Yet Fray passed a polygraph exam, administered by a state-licensed polygrapher, and both Mary Fray and McDonald verified that it happened. The Republicans probably already have campaign ads locked away in a vault somewhere.
Perhaps even worse than her dishonesty is her waffling about where she stands on any issue. She voted for the very war she now attempts to beat Republicans about the head with in an effort to find favor with the Democrat base. She has promised to bring the troops home, yet has said that she would leave an undetermined number in Iraq. She advocated for $5,000 federal gifts to each baby born in the United States, then disavowed the idea the very next day. She opposed a constitutional ban on flag burning, and then co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which would have sentenced flag-burners to a year in jail. She took the floor of the Senate to condemn torture as an acceptable means of gaining information, and then told the editorial board of the New York Daily News that there are some circumstances in which she believes it is warranted. Within the space of five minutes on a nationally televised debate she advocated Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses and then denied that she thought it was a good idea. Politicians are not generally known for their honesty and consistency, but even in these jaded, cynical times Hillary’s willingness to tell people whatever they wish to hear is stunning. If she is asked, “What do you believe?” her answer might as well be, “What do you want me to believe?”
Then, too, there is undoubtedly something very mafia-like and power-hungry about the Clinton machine. It churn outs eerily similar letters to our newspapers. It plants questions in supposedly spontaneous candidate forums. It moves to stifle the very dialogue and debate so healthy for the electoral process. Every move is carefully calculated for maximum visibility and political benefit. One cannot help but think they are not so much witnessing a campaign as much as a tremendous operation in fraud and deceit, designed not to educate the voting public but instead to engineer a grab for power.
Thankfully, there are signs that the people are beginning to take note of Hillary’s desperate desire for power, and her willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve it. Barack Obama is rapidly closing the gap in polls both nationally and here in New Hampshire, and has already taken the lead in Iowa. According to a November 19th ABC News poll, when Iowa Democrats were asked which candidate is most honest and trustworthy, Obama led Hillary by a 2-1 margin. A November 20th CNN/WMUR poll asked the same question of New Hampshire Democrats, with Obama leading Clinton 27% to 13%.
With just a month to go before the first primary, the Democratic race taking shape is not so much about policy and ideas as much as it is about one central question: who do we entrust with the most powerful office in the nation? One need not be a Republican to believe it should not be a certain lying power-hungry ivy-league lawyer from Chicago. She wants the Oval Office so badly she will stop at nothing to get it. Which, as Plato would say, is exactly why she should not have it.
Selected Sources:
http://www.wmur.com/politics/14651842/detail.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/16/hillary.book.response.02/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKTpwLxMmpk
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/07wed2.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/28/2007-09-28_hillary_flipflop_on_torture_inspired_aft.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3212
http://nascentdotage.blogspot.com/2007/09/if-you-like-big-brother-youll-love.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html
Keith Murphy
27 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
Amen. It seems the Bush playbook and the Clinton playbook have a similar chapter on the value of honesty...it says convince the people to trust you with partisan garbage and get them to ignore the specifics.
There are a lot of people bending over backwards to trust Hillary Clinton merely because she never commits to anything (in modern political english that means she is "electable"). Meanwhile, you have honest, courageous individuals like Obama, Kucinich, and a whole slew of others bending over backwards to serve the American people with their unadulterated opinions.
If we elect Clinton it will mean four more years of the worst attribute of George W. Bush...dishonesty.
The exact reason you point out why American citizens should never trust Hillary is the exact reasonm she is the Liberal Democrat choice.
Proof positive.
The idea that we should only elect as president a person who is not interested in the job strikes me as very strange. Every one of the 15 or so candidates running desires power, or they wouldn't be running. This isn't that hard to figure out.
I do not blame Hillary for wanting the job. I blame her for wanting it so badly that she will sacrifice her integrity to obtain it. She has showed a willingness to lie and a tendency to waffle on the issues. Further, she has gone so far as to attempt to dodge the process by a variety of campaign tricks, including applying backroom pressure to GQ magazine to drop a negatively-toned article.
This is not a matter of policy. I do not support many of Barack Obama's ideas and policies, for we have very different ideas on the proper role and scope of government. However, his admission of drug use as a young man was very honest, and I believe he means what he says, unlike the other "power-hungry ivy-league lawyer from Chicago."
As I'm not a Democrat, this choice isn't mine to make. I'm watching it from the sidelines, as my primary vote is an easy choice. I just hope my Democrat friends and family see past the hype of "inevitability" and support a candidate, whether Obama or Richardson or Biden, who actually has integrity. I think that is one of the main qualities missing from the White House these days, and I hope very much that a candidate with integrity - from either party - wins the office this time around.
I don't pretend to be able to see into the souls of others and devine their thoughts and aspirations. Still, I am pretty sure that all of the people running for president genuinely want the job, are working very hard to win, and will cut a few corners and shade the truth a bit if that's what it takes. With just a few minutes of thought anyone could come up with examples where every one of the candidates has said or done something that is not 100% kosher.I think Ms. Clinton is probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to integrity. By my estimation, she has more integrity than Giulliani and Romney, and less than Paul and Kucinich.
Ms. Clinton, who is not my choice in any case, simply has been under a much more intense microscope for far longer than the others, and there are legions of people who are happy to scream that she is a criminal based on very flimsy evidence.
Some of the evidence you present about her is ridiculous. Similar letters to the editor appear from her supporters? Trying to get a negative article spiked? Have you ever been involved in a political campaign?
Nor I do pretend to be able to see into people's souls. However, you can tell a lot about a person's character by their words and actions. And I see little redeeming about Ms. Clinton's character. I would agree that most candidates, at some point or another, have worded an answer a certain way so as to be most politically palatable. However, Hillary far and away, at least in this election cycle and in my opinion, is the most disingenous of a bad bunch.
I agree that Giuliani and Romney also lack integrity, but I think it's a stretch to say that they are worse than Hillary. I think she has the bottom tier all to herself. Huckabee is also near the bottom, in my opinion, even worse than Giuliani. Of all the candidates, only Ron Paul seems to possess a perfect sort of integrity, and luckily I have the option of voting for him. If I were a D, I'd have changed my voter registration to vote for him. Now that it's too late for that, I'd probably still write him in.
Yes, I've run several campaigns as a paid professional, working to elect democrat slates to the Maryland General Assembly. I never stacked a Q&A session with pre-arranged questions and advertised it as totally spontaneous. I never told journalists that if they printed a negative word about my candidates they would never have access to them or their spouse again. Hillary's move to block the GQ article, threatening to withhold an upcoming interview with Bill, was incredibly arrogant, and hardly the move I would want of someone who wishes to run the federal executive branch. So much for open, accessible government. Yes, I suggested to supporters that they should write LTEs in support of the candidates. I did not, however, put words in their mouth. Recent LTEs seem to be so similar so as to be written by the same person. That, however, is the least disturbing of a long trend, obvious to me as a casual observer, of attempting to coronate Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee.
I'm happy to see my Democrat friends waking up to the fact that this is not yet the case. Perhaps they will address the situation. Perhaps not. Many Republicans I know are screaming for the Ds to nominate Hillary due to her sky-high negatives.
I guess we'll see on January 8th.
An organized LTE campaign with candidate-approved talking points? What would Plato think? I am shocked beyond belief that this could happen in our great Republic!
I am not surprised that you never told journalists not to print a negative story. As a member of the NH General Assembly, if I told a journalist what he was to print and threatened to stop talking to him, he would simply laugh at me. Probably would be the same in Maryland. My guess is it works a little differently in the major leagues, though.
We will have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of Mr. Giulliani and Romney. As for Dr. Paul, he strikes me as the Republican Kucinich- hopelessly idealistic but even nuttier. And about as electable.
As I said in my last response, the nearly-identical letters flooding the newspapers is merely the least disturbing of a long list of creepy campaign manuevers such as planting questioners in forums advertised as spontaneous and leaning on the press to squash negative but completely truthful articles.
Mr. Emm, do you want a president who works behind the scenes to intimidate reporters into not running truthful stories? This is a fair and honest question.
We will indeed agree to disagree on the relative merits of the candidates. Having met many candidates, I will say that I am truly looking forward to, for the first time in my life, voting for a presidential candidate who is completely truthful and open about where he stands on every single issue. Ron Paul is one of a kind, with rare understanding of the Constitution, of history, of economics, and of the issues facing us today as a people. I am honored to cast a vote for him. I only wish every election day I had this sort of privilege, instead, more often than not, holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.
Perhaps that's what my next blog will be about.
I do not want a president who does what you say. Who would? I recognize that this is how the workld in fact works, and I am not so naive as to think that Ms. Clinton is uniquely evil.
Dr. Paul is indeed one of a kind. His idiosyncratic views on isolationism, the gold standard, and the Federal Reserve make me fervently hope that he stays one of a kind. The last thing we need right now is another pie-in-the-sky knucklehead like W to take us on an adventure because he misunderstands how the world works.
Lucky for you I've been skiing!
I'm not going to ignore this little hackneyed diatribe.
I'm involved in Hillary Clintons campaign that you describe as Mafia Like and Power Hungry.
That is personally insulting especially from someone who writes articles like this.
You are heaping on the same lies, half truths and innuendo that the right wing has always aimed at the Clintons. Yeah, sure Hillary Clinton is an anti semite. What utter crap!
I really suggest that you Read David Brocks "Blinded by The Right" before you write any more Arkansas Project inspired lit for the folks who still lap it up.
It would be nice if you faced yourself the way David Brock has.
(Welcome to the last month of the NH Primary)
I wonder if any Democratic president will get the same attention from the slime machine as Hillary and Bill have received. It strikes me that this is simply the M.O. for a certain part of today's Republican Party. Rather than argue about her policies, the have to demonize her and use this as a way to dismiss what she is saying. Unfortunately, it has been sucessful, as evidenced by what happened to John McCain in 2000, Max Cleland ij 2002, and John Kerry in 2004.
My guess is that no matter who wins our nomination, we are going to get a steady stream of crap about how that are crypto-islamo-fascists (if its Obama) or fifth columnist illegal immigrants (if its Richardson). Spreading unfounded rumors via talk radio, blogs, and e-mail campaigns has simply become the way a portion of the right now debates public policy.
Right on.
If anything keeps me grinding out articles for free year after year it is the opportunity to respond quickly to the tactics you describe.
Not surprisingly, Keith has also conveniently dissembled the factual history that lead to the Constitutional Convention.
Between 1776 and the Convention "individual freedom" led to legislatures that were totally innefective -- in particular they made it legal to ignore private debt. Owe some one money? No problem just legally forvgive all debt!!
Yes--there is such a thing as too much freedom and our history proves my point. (Read the Federalist Papers)
A coherent central goverment was nothing less than a necessity.
Without it the American Experiment was doomed to failure.
Welcome back from the hills. I knew I could count on you to chime in sooner or later.
If my comments seem hackneyed, i.e. overused, perhaps it is for the same reason that the phrase "George Bush is not a good president" is hackneyed: it's true.
I'm sorry to hear of your unfortunate choice of a presidential candidate. There are plenty of Democrat candidates out there that have far more integrity than Hillary. I wonder, why didn't you choose to support one of them, instead?
My purpose in writing the blog wasn't to insult you, Chaz. It was to share my observations on what I genuinely view as a very dangerous, disingenous candidate. And don't get self-righteous on me. The point of blogging is to share things like this, and I'm sure you've written a negative thing or two about candidates in the past. At least I am generally non-partisan; I constantly criticize Republicans like Huckabee and Romney for lacking principle, and I've said many good things about Obama for having integrity even though I personally disagree with his politics.
My comments aren't "half-truths and innuendo," they're impressions based on facts. And it wasn't me who called Hillary anti-semitic. That would be Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1996. He happens to be Jewish, and he has publicly accused Hillary of making anti-semitic comments to him personally. I didn't even bring that up in my blog, nor did I delve into the infamous Hollywood Stan Lee fundraisers.
Call it crap if you want, but I'm not making this stuff up, and I don't repeat assertions without doing at least some research and ensuring there's some basis for it. For example, two of Clinton's operatives have been exposed as having written emails accusing Obama as being a militant muslim intent on taking over America. That's a statement without any basis in fact.
To recap:
Hillary said she was named after a man who climbed Mt. Everest six years after she was born. (FACT)
Hillary denies calling someone a "f-cking Jew bastard," but two other campaign workers say they witnessed it, and the person she was speaking to passed a polygraph. (FACT)
Barack Obama is a militant muslim. (NOT A FACT)
See the difference?
I don't need to face myself the way that David Brock has, because unlike liberal to conservative to liberal again David Brock I know who I am and I like myself. Brock's book was awful, which is why most of the reviewers panned it. For example...
Timothy Noah of Slate wrote:
The hopeful liberal narrative about David Brock, peddled by Hertzberg, Rich, Tomasky, and Brock himself, is that the conservative movement made Brock a distorter and a liar, and that the distortions and lies were all in the service of that movement. But Blinded by the Right offers plenty of evidence that for Brock, lying has been a lifelong habit. During his freshman year at Berkeley, when Brock was still a Naderite liberal, he lied to a man named Andrew, who would become his lover, about the fact that he was adopted. Andrew didn't learn the truth until after he and Brock had lived together many years. While campaigning to be editor in chief of the Daily Cal at Berkeley, Brock was "caught in an embarrassing lie" about an editor he didn't like. He told the Daily Cal's outgoing editor in chief that the university's vice chancellor had phoned to complain about a story that the enemy editor had presumably mangled. It wasn't true, and Brock got caught. By this time Brock had drifted right, but he offers no evidence that this particular conflict had any ideological content. Years later, Brock leaked his American Spectator piece about Troopergate to CNN, contrary to orders from his editors, who were enforcing an embargo on it. "When confronted, I came up with a clearly implausible lie," Brock confesses. Surely lying to one's comrades wasn't part of the conservative movement's playbook. The further one gets into Brock's book, the more one starts to suspect that Brock wasn't a liar for any larger cause, but simply … a liar.
I read Brock's book, and I agreed with this review completely.
Since I'm apparently a part of the "Republican Slime Machine," does that mean I can expect my membership card for the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?"
So I'm really supposed to just not notice Hillary's inability to take a strong position on any issue? Her inability to tell the truth consistently? Her lack of principle?
Is it possible for a Republican to criticize a Democrat candidate - even while praising another for his integrity - without being labelled a part of the "slime machine?"
For the record, the people spreading the lies about Obama being a "crypto-islamo-fascist" aren't Republicans. That would, so far at least, seem to be some paid Clinton staff members operating outside of their approved scope.
My comments and observations about Hillary aren't "unfounded rumors." They are verified accounts, backed up by witnesses and actual video. I don't pass on unfounded rumors (a la Obama accusations) because I believe that to do so harms my own integrity, and I place high value on that.
I do not disagree with your general sentiment that the reason the Constitution was needed was that the Articles of Confederation did not allow for enough coordination between the states. However, please note that nothing in my blog contradicts this statement. You have accused me of saying something that I did not say. Do you often resort to straw man arguments?
The federal government was set up as a republic - not a democracy - because the founders noted that democracies tend to devolve into a tyranny of the majority, whereas republics limit the power of the state and protect the rights of the individual citizens. I assume you don't have a problem with this in terms of the freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Or is this a case of "having too much freedom?" Absolving private debts via legislation is not freedom, as you propose, Chaz. It is interference in the common law right to contract. It is the antithesis of freedom, rather like the recent proposals by Clinton and Edwards to freeze mortgage rates.
In other words, your two favorite candidates are proposing to do exactly what you've just criticized state legislatures for doing in the 1780s.
I welcome some sort of debate on Constitutional history, Chaz. It's one of my favorite topics.
Let me clarify why I take the mafia comment seriously. You aren't just insulting Hillary Clinton you are insulting all the people working on her candidacy whether they are volunteers like me or paid staff.
I wouldn't be involved in a seedy campaing.
I have been privy to enough on the inside of this campaing to state categorically that everything I've seen has been professional and exemplary. I know a lot of the staff from other campaings and these are wonderful, honest people.
The incident of question planting was blown way out of proportion. It is not part of a plot to control live events. I've written plenty about the absurdity of even trying to do that.
Dick Morris was a jerk by the way. The Clintons mistake was having anything to do with him in the first place.
I have seen nothing sinister and this campaing
As for David Brock. He may or may not be a pathological lier but the incidents in his book are highly substantiated.
We'll have to wait until after the election to get into the Constitution and the Role of Government. I enjoy debates like that too, but its too close to GOTV for both of us.
Just for the record--You are an interesting voice here and I'm not angry.
One of these days I'll stop in for a chat at Murphy's.
I certainly meant no offense to the hardworking grassroots volunteers of the Clinton campaign. It is the candidate herself, and the highest level paid campaign operatives, that my comments are directed, as it is her and they that set policy and direction. Everyone, in both parties and in all campaigns, genuinely believes they are working for the best candidate in the race, and are doing so in good faith. The Clinton campaign is no exception.
I no more mean that the Clinton campaign is a sort of vast mafia-like conspiracy than, say, David Brock means that there is some sort of right-wing media propaganda machine. ummm.... Or, that Mr. Emm means that there is a huge Republican slime machine. ummmmm... you get my point. Perhaps rhetoric all around has been a little over the top.
Please stop in at some point. It would be good to share a bite and have what I'm sure would be a very challenging conversation. I place tremendous value on civil discourse such as this. I've always thought this sort of friendly political banter should happen more often.
Besides, though we are on different sides of the fence politically, we obviously have some common interests to discuss. I've heard great things about your skiing ability! Perhaps we could talk about our favorite mountains and runs.
Your on.
Interestingly I had a conversation with another instructor on Saturday. We see each other every year and somehow figured out we are active politically. Turns out he's a Massachusetts libertarian who is supporting Ron Paul.
I ski to get away from politics and everything else, but we stopped to chew it over.
I was able to explain my relationship with Matt and other Libs I've gotten to know. He asked me if I would take a look at some political things he has written and of course I said yes.
It was nice to have some idea where he is coming from. A few years ago I would have been speechless.
Where do you ski? I can't say where I ski here, because I'm an employee.
give me a call someday--231-7562. I have some complimentary passes.
You're on.
Interestingly I had a conversation with another instructor on Saturday. We see each other every year and somehow figured out we are active politically. Turns out he's a Massachusetts libertarian who is supporting Ron Paul.
I ski to get away from politics and everything else, but we stopped to chew it over.
I was able to explain my relationship with Matt and other Libs I've gotten to know. He asked me if I would take a look at some political things he has written and of course I said yes.
It was nice to have some idea where he is coming from. A few years ago I would have been speechless.
Where do you ski? I can't say where I ski here, because I'm an employee.
give me a call someday--231-7562. I have some complimentary passes.