America in the Balance

BILL CLINTON SAYS THAT HIILLARY WON’T BE “SWIFT BOATED” —HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS, IT’S REALLY GOING TO GET DIRTY
by
Ken Eliasberg

I still remember that scene on the White House lawn the day Bill Clinton was impeached. As usual with the Clintons, it was political theatre.
Bill, always the actor (flexing his mandibles to effect a more masculine look—a role with which he always had trouble), advised us all that the politics of personal destruction had to come to an end. And I remember thinking that this guy is really too much—what an incredible phony!! No one practiced—and will always practice—the politics of personal destruction more consistently, more despicably, and more viciously than the Clintons. They gave new meaning to the term dirty politics. How did they get away with it? Two factors: (1) an incredibly effective team that was organized, efficient, and ready to do whatever hatchet job was needed to be done and then to provide cover for the Clintons, and (2) a mainstream media that was, and is, so far in the tank for the Democrats, in general, and the Clintons, in particular, that the public really never got (or gets) the true story. If Bill Clinton were a Republican, he would have been removed from office by the Senate, but, fortunately for Bill (and now Hillary), he is a Democrat, and that Party will circle the wagons around any dirtbag, particularly one as charming as Bill Clinton.

In late June, 2007 Bill, after telling us about how qualified Hillary is, and that she will not be “swift boated,” made this loving concession to their soap opera marriage, “When I met her more than 35 years ago, I thought Hillary had the best combination of mind and heart I’d ever seen—and I still do.” Undoubtedly this explains his serial adultery throughout the course of their 32-year marriage—he just can’t stand too much of a good thing! I really love the Clintons; as I have often observed (ad nauseum, one might say, but you ain’t seen nothing yet—wait till 2008, when the election season heats up), the Clintons don’t just insult your intelligence—they assume you don’t have any. They want you to believe that their marriage is a sort of country-western romance, with a few speed bumps on the highway of their love affair. Let’s see, we had an Administration that opened with Jennifer Flowers, closed with Monica Lewinsky, and gave us some indecent exposure (Paula Jones), a bit of groping (Kathleen Willey), and a little rape just to spice it up (Juanita Broaderick). And, from all reports, lots and lots of other little wanderings from the beaten path of good ol Bill’s marital vows. But then again, who can blame him; if you had a spouse like Hillary the harridan, I think fidelity would not come easy.

However, that said, she is indeed no Tammy Wynette“ she makes Tammy look like a full fledged feminist in battle armor. There ain’t no amount of philandering that this love struck phony won’t put up with. Why? Simple, she has to! Does anyone with half a brain think we’d be talking about Hillary Clinton for President if there were no Bill. He’s the steak and the sizzle; she’s the wake and the fizzle. She has the temperament of a shrew, the integrity of an Al Capone on speed, and the judgment of someone who just flunked out of a grade school special ed. class. And, we’ll explore all these charges in great detail when we are closer to the election (suffice it to say for present purposes, she is the most over-rated politician in my lifetime.).

I bring it up here, not to get into the soap opera aspects of this marriage, nor to examine its more interesting psychodrama qualities (i.e. why did Billie marry Nurse Ratchett?), but because of Clinton’s other observation re the forthcoming election, i.e. Hillary will not be Swift Boated.
This is both the more interesting and the more relevant comment for present purposes. Why? Because it is a solid clue as to the tone and tenor of the 2008 election. What is he really saying? He’s telling us that we can expect the dirtiest and most vicious election in our history. Why? Because that’s the way the Clintons play the game; they will go to any length to stifle any criticism of Hillary (as they did with Bill), no matter how legitimate. So, hold on to your hats—they will attempt to knee-cap any critic, no matter how honest and accurate the nature of his criticism.

Actually, the Clinton’s little parody of the Sopranos is a lot closer to their truth than either the soap opera version of their marriage or their alleged concern for ethics that they are now trying to sell to the public, (and which a complicit Democrat Party and a mainstream media are all too willing to buy or just completely overlook). Bill Clinton’s tawdry sex life, however, was the least of the harm that he visited on our great nation; he is, quite simply, in addition to being possessed of and by an adolescent libido on steroids, a man devoid of character, courage, or even content. In fact, Bill Clinton was, and is, not a man at all. That said, there is nothing quite so disgustingly touching as Bill Clinton playing the doting husband—I mean, really, do you think anyone believes that crap; how stupid do you think the American public is??? To ask that question is to answer it—if you’re a Democrat you believe that the American public is COMPLETELY STUPID, and, with the media in tow, they will buy anything, no matter how preposterous, that the Clintons try to sell !!!

By the way, the Clinton’s sex life (or lack of it; he’s not home enough to leave much room for much intimacy; not only that, his extra-marital wanderings have probably left him too tired to have much energy left over for Hillary—poor woman!) is really of no interest to me. Their sex life was thrust on us, if you will, as the result of Bill’s nonstop philandering; I would much rather have been deprived of this bit of unpleasantness, but there it was. (and the cover up made public discussion unavoidable). What interests me are two things that it reveals (1) that their marriage is, and probably always has been, a sham, and that the Dems really don’t give a damn (they’d defend him, no matter what he did, or what he didn’t do when he should have done something, and (2) the complete double standard that is operative in the sexual area (or any other area, for that matter) when it comes to passing judgment on a Dem or a Republican. If a Republican steps over the sexual line, he is either a lecher or a complete creep (e.g. Bob Packwood and Mark Foley). If a Dem steps over the line it is either a sign of his verility or not important (the Kennedy men, Johnson & Clinton et al, on the one hand, or Jerry Studds (an interesting appellation for a homosexual pedophile) and Barney Frank on the other. The Republicans were forced (typically, by other Republicans) out of office; the Dems were re-elected without too much fuss (Studds, after being censured, was re-elected 6 times and Frank, is still there). More about double standards later.