Friday, March 28, 2008

Political Snypa: Intimidation, Under Fire

Hillary Sniper Under Fire

I am troubled.

I'm all for either Hillary or Obama over Maddog McCain, but the back-and-forth insanity of negative campaigning and which Democratic candidate is less desirable is starting to grate on my nerves. In my opinion, attacks on Clinton and Obama by the right wing and each other have been blown out of proportion.

And then this happened:
In a March 17 speech, Clinton said, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

That account was still posted on her campaign Web site yesterday.
Clinton told CNN last week, "There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."
WTF? I'm not by any means trying to push an agenda, but I find this disheartening. There is a HUGE fucking difference between the-

Story: Under sniper fire and at the risk of my own an my daughter's life, we ran from the plane, ducked down, and hurried into the armored vehicles.

and the Reality: We waltzed off the plane, sans body armor, with motherfucking Sinbad, and listened to a little girl recite a poem.

I cannot reconcile the two. I cannot believe that is mis-remembering - two separate times misremembering and misremembering again when she authorized that it go up on the website. I do believe when she talks about sleep deprivation clouding her judgment, it was not her memory that was clouded, but the thought process that would have censored her and said in her head "Um, don't you think they have video of this? Do you really think you can get away with this story?"

And then this happened:
20 "top fundraisers" for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday "upbraided" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suggesting last week that Democratic superdelegates "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season." The AP reports that in a letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters "said superdelegates 'must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'"

The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"
The theories abound on the right about the crazy strong-arm, knife-fight tactics the Clintons will use to - under any circumstances - secure the nomination. I would like to believe the best candidate, the majority candidate (or Al Gore) will win the nomination. Then her supporters decide to play political meathooks and knock Pelosi around a little bit.

And Hillary Clinton distances herself from the letter while allowing the threat to remain attached to her name.

For this week, I'm a little down on Hillary. And when it's starting to become clear that Obama is like Teflon on the pastor issue (foreshadowing future Teflon...ism), disillusionment of my "support both until the convention" idealism is slowly being revealed like the gummy center of a Blow Pop.

But, for the record, even if the selection rapes the process all to hell, while I'll be angry and rant swear to abundance, either Democratic candidate is better for our country than John McCain. Unless, of course, you fancy a row with Iran?

No comments: