I distinctly remember that a few blogs ago I declared myself to be quite uninterested in the current political scene which I also declared has started too early and is getting to be overwhelming, even for current-events freaks like I am. I now must retract that statement. What do the politicos say when they change their minds? I made a mistake? I did something foolish?
Like a giant vacuum cleaner (the upcoming political caucuses and primaries) I am getting sucked into the vortex of the churning politics of early runs at the Presidential nomination in both parties and cannot seem to extract myself from reading daily news items about the candidates, about the happenings along the campaign trails in Iowa, New Hampshire, Washington and other places to which the candidates are flying frequently, thus raising the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by traveling on huge jet-fuel – consuming airliners and private planes. (Wow, a political statement about global disintegration without even trying too hard!) Actually I have not taken much note of candidates making strong statements on that issue…yet….they too are busy attacking each other’s 1. Experience 2. Qualifications 3. past votes on controversial issues 4. whining about the personal attacks on themselves, 5. planting questions at press briefings and public forums …. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
The candidate that troubles me the most is Hillary Clinton. There is a huge spate of written speculations about her becoming the President. One essay I read recently was written by John Hawkins in Townhall.com. His essay was titled "Does Marrying Bill Clinton Qualify Someone To Be President?" His thoughts ran to the possibility that this could also qualify wives of CEO’s of big companies to take their husband’s places if they should resign, die, get fired, etc. Could it have qualified Monica Lewinsky to be the President if Bill had shucked Hillary and married Monica back in 1998 or 1999? Maybe Laura Bush would make a good President since she, too, has spent almost 8 years in the Whitehouse, married to a President. That is a statement Hillary has made on the campaign trail….that a qualification for being President is that she was in the Whitehouse for 8 years already… at Bill’s side (not all the time, obviously; She was not in the Oval Office closet when he was schmoozing with Monica). She even broke a few lamps tossing them at her unfaithful husband and did her fair share of antagonizing the White House staff and the Secret Service with her violent temper and imperialistic manners. She may, indeed, be qualified, on those grounds alone. Oh that scares me badly!!! I thought of Rosalynn Carter and Barbara Bush…smart women in their own rights….they were married to Presidents too and lived in the Whitehouse…..but only for 4 years each, so perhaps that eliminates them from becoming President. Oh well, they are still nice ladies and have many attributes to be admired.
The one thing that has totally made me go over the edge, scare-wise, are several essays and opinion pieces I have read regarding the people (advisors) with whom Hillary is surrounding herself. I think that speaks volumes about any candidate. Unfortunately, Hillary has selected the "old guard" from Bill’s WhiteHouse days and some of them are not the most savory characters we have seen. Missing among the old guard are George Stephanopoulos and DeeDee Meyers plus a few others whose names I cannot dredge up at the moment…but both George and DeeDee have not recently said things about Hillary’s personality and modus operandum that is flattering to Ms. Clinton, so they are definitely out of the picture as advisors. Some she has chosen should give us pause when we think about who she is choosing to advise her on crucial national issues. For starters, she has brought on board Paul Begala, Sid Blumenthal, and James Carville, who have all proven themselves to be ruthless, mean-spirited and willing to do most anything (lie? cheat?) in order to protect and defend their President. These three had big parts in preventing Bill from being ridden out of DC on the rails on at least one occasion (his impeachment). The advisor that really scares the living daylights out of me, however, is none of the above. It is Hillary’s choice of Samuel (Sandy) Berger as one of her key national security advisors.
Berger is part of a "triumverate" which includes Madeliene Albright and Richard Holbrooke, who were key advisors to William Jefferson Clinton in his years as President. Hillary has chosen the same advisors as Bill had, which tells me something else about her….she is either extremely dependent on her husband’s political know-how or she is a clone of Bill, politically speaking. I always thought that Hillary was far more liberal but perhaps in order to get elected she must play the role of slightly conservative Democrat as Bill did so well back in the 2 terms in the 1990′s.
Sandy Berger differs from the other clutch of Hillary’s advisors in that he committed a major crime by stealing and destroying materials from the National Archives and is the very first National Security Advisor to any President to do so. I am now going to give a direct quote from an article by Ronald A. Cass published on "Real Clear Politics".
"For those who missed the story, Berger was President Clinton’s designated representative to the 9/11 Commission investigating the intelligence gathering and analysis preceding terrorist attacks that took the lives of 3,000 innocents on American soil, by far the worst such attack in our history. As President Clinton’s representative, Berger was granted access to specially classified material in the National Archive relating to the handling of information respecting the threat from Al Quaida and the Clinton administration’s response in preparation for testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Berger willfully removed the classified material, hiding documents first in his pants and then under a construction trailer, destroyed them and lied to officials investigating the theft. We’ll never know just what information Berger destroyed. The only people who know aren’t likely to talk—after all they wanted the information destroyed. The 9/11 Commission did not know of Berger’s theft and destruction of classified documents when he testified in front of them, trumpeting his former boss’s handling of terroristic threats and faulting President Bush for failing to do enough to prevent attacks."
Further on in his article Cass says this about Hillary Clinton’s choice of Sandy Berger as a key advisor to her campaign (and possibly to her Presidency if she is elected) :
"Hilllary Clinton’s inclusion of Sandy Berger in her circle of advisors demonstrates that, notwithstanding her law license, she really doesn’t care about the law. She doesn’t care whether someone violates the law if they’re on her team, if the violation in some way helps the Clintons. Hilllary’s indifference to criminal- wrong doings suggests that she sees herself as above the law when it is an impediment to something she wants." (unquote)
Sandy Berger never was given the punishment he deserved for what he did. He got off with a lame apology, a fine, and the loss of his own law license. But he was willing to fall on the sword for Bill Clinton and take the consequences for being the only National Security Advisor in American history to steal and destroy classifed material from the National Archives. Now I wonder if his inclusion on Hillary’s inside circle of advisors is a way to keep him "shut up" and to keep him from revealing, at some time future, what he actually stole and destroyed. That would not be beneficial for a possible Hillary presidency. However my greatest fear is that information like this will not matter at all in a Presidential election in which Hillary might win. With the possible election of a dominatingly Democratic House and Senate, we could see our nation turned into a near-Socialist, Police State the likes of which we cannot even imagine.