Michael Collins: BUSH – CLINTON 2008

Monday, 31 March 2008, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

BUSH – CLINTON 2008

Ambition Gone Wild or the New "New World Order"
Poised in the Wings?

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The 2008 presidential primary has been a close race. It should be over by now except for the shouting. There is "virtually no chance" that Hillary Clinton can claim the delegates needed for nomination. We should be witnessing Barack Obama's triumphal march to the Democratic convention in August.

But much like Michael Myers in Halloween, Hillary Clinton has picked herself up off the canvas every time she seemed down for the count. She lost Iowa, reanimated her campaign by winning New Hampshire, but then failed in 9 of the next 23 official state contests. At the same time, spectacular turnout increases showed that the Obama movement was pulling Democrats to the primaries in record numbers.

Clinton's Ohio win was negated losing the delegate race in Texas while splitting the popular vote. Before these two contests, Hillary needed to win 60% to 75% of remaining delegates. She failed to meet that goal in both Texas and Ohio. The word went out – there is no way you can win. Only a scorched earth campaign offered any hope for Hillary.

Yet Hillary will not stop despite the virtually insurmountable odds, the recent high profile endorsements for Obama, and her overwhelming rejection by 61% of the voters in both Mississippi and Wyoming just after the Ohio win.

The vulgarity of her campaign created rare agreement by some in the mainstream and alternate media. Clinton's tactics are particularly vicious and her charges and sound bites appear to be an "intelligent design" for the Committee to Elect John McCain President.

Two Vipers at Obama's Throat

The nastiness started when the Clinton campaign chair in New Hampshire wondered why the media wasn't focusing on alleged drug use by Obama in his youth. Clinton was forced to fire the operative and then suffer through the humiliation of a public apology to Obama.

There were other cheap shots by Clinton's campaign, all of which seemed within the realm of the typical nasty campaign. Then these weapons of mass distraction were launched.

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002." Sen. Hillary Clinton Mar. 3. Is she endorsing McCain? Better yet, is it possible to interpret this statement as anything other than as a McCain endorsement?

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Bill Clinton, Mar. 21 North Carolina

The former president riffed on the Rev. Wright controversy. What was the former president's reference for "all this other stuff"? Obama? Clinton's cheap shot had a clear target; Obama's patriotism. The reference to "our politics" is interesting. How many fingers would it take to count the members of that club?

At the moment he became a viable contender, Obama had two vipers at his throat. Their message was simple: he's less qualified to lead than McCain and he doesn't love his country.

Why is Hillary doing this if she can't win the nomination? What's husband Bill up to?

There are two theories that capture the imagination.

Entitlement

The first is a conventional explanation that claims Clinton knows that she's lost the nomination. By continuing to tear down Obama, Hillary helps assure a McCain victory and all that implies (the "100 years war" policy). She's then positioned to take the nomination and the White House in 2012.

This casts Hillary as totally indifferent to the struggles and suffering that a McCain presidency would bring to citizens. His sole purpose so far has been to advocate for an imperial United States occupying strategic oil depots in the Middle East in perpetuity.

When asked about the economy, he said, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” That's hardly the level of skill required if the chief executive is to successfully navigate the economic storms faced by 300,000,000 citizens.

If this theory is correct, Hillary Clinton would have us endure four more years of Bush policies just to serve her ego driven ambition.

Rule by Proxy

The alternate theory is that Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush have formed some sort of political alliance or clan. In this scenario, Hillary is at the service of these two schemers, a critical functionary in their post-presidential quest for power and influence.

Is this possible? How could these two have the unmitigated ambition and skills necessary to pull off a master plan that invokes nearly every conspiracy theory over the past few decades? Where's the evidence?

There's no need for a conspiracy theory. In fact, if true, this can't be the type of shadow conspiracy associated with behind the scenes manipulation because it is all so very public.

Husband Bill was adopted, as it were, by the elder Bush given the status of his two political heirs? This combination would serve the purpose of perpetual power for the backers of both ex presidents. United, the two would be a living symbol of continuity by the "center" and an assurance to the incumbent ruling class that policies in dire need of change will stay the same.

The raw ambition theory is easier to believe. After all the time she's done, Hillary may have thought, "Screw him! It's my turn." It's the rawest form of entitlement mixed with the unrealistic persistence of an embittered loser.

If the Clinton campaign were a brute force scheme combining the Bush and Clinton political factions to preserve established wealth, why would they be this obvious?

Clinton proposes Greenspan lead
foreclosure group
By Jeff Mason
Reuters
Monday, March 24, 2008; 9:30 AM
WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

Also see: The Money Party (5): "Us versus Them"

© Scoop Media