DeMediacratic Nation: Clinton, the Left and Adherence to the Agenda

From MSNBC

“Clinton picked up the endorsement of the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers in Washington today.” (yesterday) This is a good example of people supporting those that keep them busy with work, considering all the donations that must get sent through the mail to her. That and their, semi-partial-kind of in a way-quasi governmental employment status.

With the remark to General David Petraeus at Tuesday afternoon’s hearing by candidate for President, Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," one has to wonder why the possibility or activity of suspending disbelief is something new to a Clinton.

In a nation torn by its presence in Iraq is it really the right time to so pit one side against another, especially by someone that has managed, as her husband has to suspend the disbelief of so many? When activists, clueless mind you, put President Bush down as a Fascist (this includes those of us that agree with our presence in Iraq and take the threats to our nation seriously and God forbid consider outside, rather than inside the government) their rhetoric is fully supported by the spewing of this candidate and other Leftist Democrats in her party that fail to appreciate that not all wounds can be healed.

Senator Clinton is stuck in her formative college days and appears to have no desire to depart it; especially since it works so well for the coffers. She has yearned for the office she is running toward for most, if not all of her adult life; might there be a chance she will do whatever it takes to see that dream through? This is more than can be said for the present commander in chief, yet he is some cog or leader in some imagined ultra secret coup to control the country. Bush, at the same time, back in his college days likely didn’t concern himself with so selfless a career.

Today, “disappointed Democrats map a withdrawal strategy” for Iraq as “Obama Offers Most Extensive Plan Yet for Winding Down War,” and has drawn “criticism from the left of his party for being too timid and from Republicans as being irresponsible.” Goodness, what could be more Left of those running for president than the Democrat candidates themselves at a time that does not yet require a scramble to the “center?”

One does not “wind down a war” that like most wars has a life of its own that requires reaction and adjustment as much as it does constantly fluid tactics. The Left looks to wind down to defeat or an “end (same difference),” while the inhabitants on the other side of the aisle look to ways toward success in the long war. Both sides actively pursue success; however success is viewed entirely differently, which should not require further explanation since we’ve been here since almost day one.

Back to the shining example of an almost lustful desire for the highest office in the land; Senator Clinton. Yesterday, The Times reported that “Mrs.” Clinton is facing what is described as her biggest fear or vulnerability; “Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged;” appearing what one is, is not something the candidate cares to appear. “Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money.” Poor staffing selection or a cover for the micromanagement the senator is known for?

Ever since the falling of the other Hsu, the press has treaded the scandal of financing gingerly due to its chosen ones role in it; we get the stories but not the continuous in your face, please don’t forget motivation that follows the guide on of reportage on Republican scandals. Myrna Blyth wonders this morning, why “didn’t Hillary’s fundraising staff ever bother to call to thank the nice Paw family of 41 Shelbourne Avenue, Daly City, California for the almost $45,000 they donated to her presidential campaign? The Paws, big givers, have contributed over $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. Hillary has been so willing this summer, often with Bill in tow, to make house calls on fundraisers at the Vineyard or in East Hampton. Why didn’t she want to drop in to share a cup of tea and a wonton or two with such generous West Coast supporters? Maybe if she or one of her staffers had paid that courtesy call, they might have been surprised the open-handed Paws, all six of them, lived in a tiny, 1280-square-foot bungalow painted an unfortunate though appropriate shade of green.” Why indeed?

The candidates “china syndrome” is one in a laundry list of questionable activities and ties. Big money in politics is unfortunately a “necessary” evil in this day and age and it’s not nothing; but the bigger questions might be the judgment of those that toe the line of Leftist agendas that have no rosier a past than any other obsessively adhered to unquestioning dogma.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -