By Jim Simpson
Much has been made in recent days of Barack Obama’s associations with really questionable people, for example former Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama’s racist, agitator “pastor” Jeremiah Wright, who in addition to his charming hate speech, apparently supports the terrorist group, Hamas.
But this is truly baffling. If the national media is so foursquare behind Obama’s candidacy, as they seem to have been up to now, and are genuinely concerned with Obama’s radical roots, why on earth didn’t they long ago expose Hillary Clinton’s much deeper, lifelong commitment to, and involvement in, virulently anti-American, radical leftist groups? Why aren’t they doing it now?
For that matter, why did they dredge up the information on Obama at all? Everyone knows that advancement in today’s Democrat party requires making the rounds in leftist circles, paying homage to prominent leftists and cultivating the active support of movement radicals like Ayers. It's a rite of passage. These days, if you aren't a radical leftist, you aren't really a Democrat, as all those "moderate" Democrats elected in the 2006 cycle have since discovered.
Radical communist chic has been "mainstreamed." Politicians like Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, to name but a few, all attend cocktail parties with the Bill Ayers of the world. They all think Danny Ortega’s communist Sandinistas are swell guys. They all think we can “do business” with Hamas, Syria and Iran. They all still think the North Vietnamese communists liberated South Vietnam! They all think America is the bad guy!
And for the most part, our national news media heartily agrees with them!
To be criticized for carousing with terrorists is just silly! NBC’s Brian Williams even suggested our own founding fathers were terrorists. Michael Moore called Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq “Minutemen!” So what’s the big deal? The title of a Chicago Sun-Times article on the subject says it all: "Obama's Ayers Connections Never Bugged Anyone." They don't care. They really don't!
So, if it’s not their concern about Obama's terrorist connections that has the media raking him over the coals – and I assure you it is not – then what is it? The scrutiny Obama is receiving has nothing to do with his radical roots, but rather the leftist media's recognition that an Obama candidacy, floating tenuously as it is, on nothing more than flowery rhetoric (hot air, in other words), could well sink Democrats' chances to regain the Presidency.
Despite his recent win in North Carolina, and yet more death knells for Clinton's candidacy, I will go out on a limb and repeat: the fact is Hillary is and always has been the more electable Democrat. Maybe the media is finally realizing this. An even more cynical view however, is that the media artificially inflated Obama’s candidacy specifically to make for a heated race, thereby giving all Democrat candidates a lot of free publicity. Whatever the case, one can argue that this race has generated an unprecedented amount of press.
And while it appears the Democrats are tearing themselves apart now, leftists know something many of us overlook: the public generally has a very short memory.
I like Rush Limbaugh, but this time, I am afraid Rush may be all wrong. His “Operation Chaos” and other Republicans’ efforts to single out Obama are playing into the hands of the Democrats’ endgame. I believe the endgame is and always has been a Clinton candidacy with Obama as V.P.
Are you laughing? Hear me out first.
This idea has been repeatedly floated by the Clinton camp. And while Obama haughtily spurns such overtures, do you really doubt he would pass up the opportunity if he realized his prospects were otherwise doomed? Obama, like Clinton, is a leftist Democrat, which means practically everything he does and says is pure posturing.
Bait and switch; that is the essence of the leftist political tactic. Bill Clinton was a master, but they all do it. In order to woo conservative Pennsylvania voters, Hillary Clinton recently even went so far as to claim she supports the Second Amendment! What kind of idiots does she think we are? Pretty big ones, apparently.
And with justification, for today Hillary Clinton is considered, even among Republicans, as the more moderate candidate! This is truly Orwellian. The entire notion is preposterous, yet because she made the one calculated move of supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom in the beginning, she is now hailed as a "Reagan Democrat!" Democrats change like chameleons to suit their immediate needs, and usually the mass media works overtime to cover for them.
So I ask you, would Obama have thrown Rev. Wright under the bus if the media never mentioned him? Would he have pretended not to know William Ayers if the connection had not been revealed? Obama, like Clinton, will turn on a dime if his political fortunes are at stake – and make it sound just as convincing as all the other contradictory statements he has made. So why would you believe he is serious in spurning Hillary while being skeptical of his refutation of Rev. Wright?
A Clinton/Obama presidency would bring an abrupt end to all the internecine fighting, heal all wounds and create a ticket all democrats could enthusiastically support. The media meanwhile would go head over heels in their fawning for this "dream ticket" and quickly forget Obama's inconvenient, radical "past." After all, they never cared about it in the first place!
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be difficult to beat. But their victory would be certain if they somehow enticed a third party candidate to enter the race and split the Republican ticket, as Bill Clinton did with Ross Perot, twice. Remember: TWICE! And they may just have gotten their deliverance from an unlikely source: Conservative Georgia Republican Bob Barr has recently announced his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket. While he will probably not pull a lot of votes, the election promises to be tight for McCain in the best of circumstances. Bob Barr may yet become what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000. Another possibility is the candidacy of a deep-pocket liberal like Michael Bloomberg, a subject I discussed in an earlier column.
A third-party-candidacy repeat of 1992, with a Hillary/Obama “dream ticket” has always been my nightmare, and I am afraid I am watching it unfold, praying nightly that I am wrong.
I know this entire theory sounds pretty outlandish, but the duplicity and Machiavellian calculations of todays' Democrat Party cannot be exaggerated. Furthermore, Hillary is so deeply entrenched in the radical leftist movement that has captured the Democrat Party that pretty much anything is possible.
While Obama is a radical leftist with many communist and other unsavory connections, Hillary is clearly the more dangerous of the two. She has been deeply involved with subversive movements since college, and knows all the major players. Her election would spell an unprecedented disaster for this country, a disaster from which we may never recover.
Part II of this column will explore Hillary's radical connections in depth.
A partial list of good reading: AIM Report: Hillary Clinton's Biggest Cover-Ups
Discover The Networks: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Peter Paul Lawsuit – Hillary’s Senate Campaign Fraud
Peter Paul Clinton Video
Safire on Clinton Lies
Zeifman Exposes Hillary Duplicity in Nixon Impeachment
Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House budget analyst and economist, who worked under Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. His articles have been published in the Washington Times, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune, Military Magazine and others.
Monday, May 05, 2008
By Jim Simpson
Posted by Jim Simpson at 1:16 PM