Hillary, Bill & Barack: Serial Adjustors
As I read Charles Krauthammer’s column in yesterday’s Washington Post about Barack Obama, at times, i thought I was reading about the Clintons. For some of the Illinois Senator’s qualities, his sense of being annointed and his attempts to revise his past, are similar to those of Mrs. Clinton and her husband.
Just as Obama is now cutting off his former pastor when but barely six weeks ago, he claimed he could not disown him reminds, (Bill) Clinton cut off his close friend Lani Guinier whom he tapped for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 1993. As soon as it became public that she favored racial quotas and her nomination became controversial, he claimed he had never read her writings and withdrew it.
Just as Bill abandoned his friend when he became politically expedient to do so, so does Obama abandon his longtime pastor when that latter displays his views “live on national TV at the National Press Club.” Both back away from an associate only when when the public becomes aware of that associate’s controversial views.
In describing why the Democratic frontrunner’s association with Wright is relevant, Krauthammer uses an expression, highlighted by yours truly below, which could well describe the public statements of former President Bill Clinton and his wife:
This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a “new politics,” rising above the old Washington ways of expediency.
While Hillary doesn’t claim to offer a new kind of politics as does her opponent, she does have the habit of changing stories about her past, notably her misrepresentations of her experience in Bosnia and her claim that she always opposed NAFTA (when White House records show quite the opposite).
No wonder she doesn’t want to let the public have full access to the records of her experience, now under lock and key at her husband’s library. Just as is the list of donors to that Arkansas institution.
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
There’s more about the Obamas that remind me of the Clintons.
When Obama made his first sham speech trying to divert attention from what his paster said and instead blamed America and his grandmother for everything. all we heard from the press is how we were going to have an adult conversaion about race.
so when the news asks Michelle Obama about the good pastor:
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Michelle, do you feel that the Reverend Wright betrayed your husband?
MICHELLE OBAMA: I think Barack has spoken so clearly and eloquently about this.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: But do you personally feel that the Reverend Wright…
MICHELLE OBAMA: You know what I think Meredith? I think we gotta move forward. You know, this conversation doesn’t help my kids. You know, it doesn’t help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we’re going to better fund education.
This is the same sort of evasion the Clintons were so good at. John Mccain is a breath of fresh air compared to these idiots
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2008 @ 5:22 pm - May 3, 2008
[...] theemeraldofthevalley wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn describing why the Democratic frontrunner’s association with Wright is relevant, Krauthammer uses an expression, highlighted by yours truly below, which could well describe the public statements of former President Bill Clinton and … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Pingback by test » Blog Archive » Hillary, Bill & Barack: Serial Adjustors — May 3, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - May 3, 2008
I don’t get it. I thought liberals were all about racial quotas. Why would they pretend that they aren’t?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 4, 2008 @ 3:53 am - May 4, 2008
Oh, to be able to possess Meredith’s mind just long enough to make her make this statement:
“You’re right, this conversation doesn’t help your kids; it’s going to take quite a few years of professional therapy to undo the damage you did by exposing them to that hatemongering racist demagogue that you and your husband supported so completely before he became embarrassing to your husband’s naked political ambition.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm - May 5, 2008
#4…Amen!
Dan, just a short comment about your reference to Hillary and NAFTA. David Gergen, who served in the Clinton White House, has repeatedly said on the air during the primary season that inside the Whie House Hillary DID oppose NAFTA. Since Gergen’s commentary on CNN tends to tilt in favor of Obama there’s no reason to think he’s lying to cover for Hillary.
Another pundit (I can’t remember which one) said that Hillary only spoke publicly in support of NAFTA to be a good trouper in Bill Clinton’s campaign to win support for the legislation but before the president made the final decision for NAFTA she argued within the inner circle against it.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 5, 2008 @ 3:09 pm - May 5, 2008