American and Washington politics is somewhat comparable to a tidal pond. One must exercise all appropriate caution when attempting to navigate over the dark, murky, treacherous-though shallow-waters that rage below. It is a necessity more often than not to build bridges in order to carry oneself over the danger that lurks below. In building those bridges, however, one must seek diligently for those with the proper expertise in driving one across to the other side in safety and security.
If one is unfamiliar, or moves too swiftly, or makes the wrong move, or exercises the wrong judgment, it does not have to be what would appear at first glance an obviously dangerous misstep. The slightest miscalculation can lead to unmitigated disaster.
Such was the case over the last few days, when Hillary Clinton, hoping for an endorsement from Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts-or at least hoping the Senator would stay neutral-found herself dumped unceremoniously off the side of the bridge that marks the political divide.
It has most assuredly been a most traumatic experience for Senator Clinton, and one is left to ponder the obvious question-will she, in fact can she survive?
What was Senator Kennedy's reasoning behind his action? After all, Senator Clinton would seem to have been a devoted advocate of most of those things the Massachusetts senior Senator cares deeply about. One might even make the case that she has been a faithful and tireless worker deserving of the Senator's appreciation, as well as that of his family.
Indeed, one would assume the two of them should be good friends-though certainly nothing more than that, regardless of what the jackals of the press and the Republican Party might be tempted to insinuate.
Is it possible that Senator Kennedy wanted more from Senator Clinton, and that she disappointed him in some regard? Moreover, is it appropriate to ask, is the Massachusetts Senator, that liberal lion, suffering from some intoxication from the presence of Senator Barak Obama, whom he has so enthusiastically endorsed? If so, what is the basis of this intoxication?
Is the Senator drunk with the promise of an extra power and influence that he feels he can acquire through Obama to a much greater extent than he ever could with the seemingly faithfully partisan Clintons, whom he might possibly feel are too independent, too undependable in some regards?
Is it possible that it is such a misjudgement on Kenedy's part, it could even be construed as an accident of some sort, one that has led him to react in a foolhardy and inappropriate manner?
Senator Kennedy spoke quite eloquently in giving his endorsement of Illinois Senator Obama. Yet, a good lot of what he said doesn't seem to coincide with reality. Perhaps his speechwriter might explain the disparity, but somehow I doubt he could.
Whatever the case, I wonder if this tragedy that has befallen Senator Hillary Clinton might, in fact, doom her political career. Someone should move fast to save her if she is to survive. After all, she languishes for now below the surface of those murky, dark, treacherous-and yet shallow-waters that that make up the tidal pond of Washington politics.
True, she has an air pocket, so to speak, that will serve to keep her going for some time. However, this air won't last forever. It's obvious Senator Kennedy is not going to reverse his actions in time to pull her out to safety.
Even if he does, by the time he gets around to it, it will probably be too late.
7 comments:
Someone should move fast to save her if she is to survive.
Why would anybody want to do that ????
The only thing that can still save Hillary is the Hispanic vote. Hispanics hate blacks and they won't vote for Obama. It will be good news for McCain, if he is running against Obama in November.
That all went right over your head, didn't it, Sonia?
Family squabble.
The Kennedys were 20th century.
The Clintons are 21st century.
The old tubby bastard doesn't want to pass the torch.
Beamish, I think it's deeper than that. I think he has it in his head he can control Obama easier than he can control the Clintons, who are too independent, powerful, and connected in their own right to be intimidated or controlled by him.
An endorsement by Teddy Kennedy has as many or more negative connotations than it does positive ones. It might help him in the primaries, but come back to bite him in the general election.
One might even be tempted to suggest the Clinton's are behind the endorsement.
Obama has the Carnahans of Missouri behind him, who are like country bumpkin version of the Kennedys.
When our dead Governor Mel Carnahan was elected to John Ashcroft's Senate seat, his wife was appointed in his place, where she promptly became a tool of Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy isn't irrelevant in the DNC yet.
Then again, neither is Robert Byrd.
If he backs Obama, you can know for sure there's an anti-Hillary conspiracy in the DNC.
Robert Byrd stated publicly that he dislikes Bill Clinton. In fact, I heard him say this myself. It would not surprise me in the least if he were to endorse Obama. Of course, while he was disparaging Bill in the interview I heard, he spoke kindly about Hillary. This was not too long after she began her first Senate term.
Nevertheless, his open dislike of Bill Clinton might give him serious reservations about him being back in the White House, even as a "first gentleman".
Screw that PC crap. If Hillary wins, then Bill is the First Laddy.
Post a Comment