The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician: Hillary Clinton

by eileen fleming

On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton betrayed we the people of America in her prostituting and pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.

Senator Clinton claimed, "Both Israelis and Americans know so well, a democracy is far more than just holding elections. Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."

Jeff Halper, American Israeli, a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has consistently affirmed that, "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control." [Chapter 2, Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory]

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees in Article 13 that:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel encourages any Jew without any pre-existing historical tie to the land to migrate under the Law of Return and all receive immediate citizenship and all rights and privileges including state-financed language and Jewish history immersion, free and subsidized housing, job placement and welfare assistance while seeking employment, medical, dental and other benefits.

Israel abetted by USA blind allegiance has blatantly refused to uphold UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the Right of Return-or compensation to the indigenous population which was forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. Clinton is unmoved by the facts on the ground that the indigenous peoples of that land have been denied human rights and dignity and that they are illegally dominated and oppressed with the aid of USA's "$1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually." [Page 24, Understanding the Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Dr. Phyllis Bennis. www.tari.org ]

Clinton continued to satisfy the ignoble lusts of AIPAC as she continued to deny the truth, " Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel 's greatest threats: namely, Iran . Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel , but to the entire Middle East and beyond... U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

On Feb. 10, 2007 , Dr. Phyllis Bennis, a secular Jew, journalist, prolific author, Mid East analyst and Co-founder and Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation stated, " Iran has signed the NPT, which allows them the right to have nuclear power and to enrich uranium. The 185 non-nuclear states have agreed to give up the right to have nuclear weapons and the five nuclear powers that signed the NPT agreed to get rid of their nuclear weapons... Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but America is! The USA has been in violation ever since the day they signed it. The USA is acting like a rogue state. The rhetoric out of Washington , the arresting of Iranian diplomats in Iraq , are deliberate provocations hoping that the Iranians will take the bait and respond." http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgibin/bl ogs/voices.php/2007/02/13/the_way_truth_ hope_and_solidarity_agains

At her AIPAC fundraiser, Clinton continued her pimping and denial of the facts on the ground, "We also know that the dangers posed to Israel have been compounded by the rise to power of Hamas, an avowed terrorist group that has assumed the reigns of the government in the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah, the terrorist group that is represented in the Lebanese government. I have long said that Hamas must not be recognized until it renounces violence and terror and recognizes Israel 's right to exist...Hamas terror campaigns have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians and its leaders have refused to disarm, to reject violence, or even to recognize the right of Israel to exist. We must insist that Hamas and indeed all Palestinian parties renounce terror and recognize Israel "

Not only did the Palestinian Authority agree in 1988 to recognize Israel and reaffirmed this in 1993 during the Oslo Accords, Israel instead, persisted in its unabated relentless seizure of Palestinian land and resources.

On November 15, 2005 , Senator Hillary Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha'aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it "is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."

Senator Clinton,-as most of Congress- have NOT ventured to the other side of The Wall to view the economic and psychological effects of The Wall, which has been deemed illegal and must come down by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. [I addressed this in detail in http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/b logs/voices.php/2006/12/23/p13169#more13 169

After reading Senator Clinton's inaccurate, insensitive and pandering remarks in Ha'aretz, I immediately contacted her through her website, but my email bounced back, for I am no longer a New York constituent. This really got my Irish up, for unlike Senator Clinton, I was born and bred in New York and I am more New York than Hillary will ever be.

Not being one to ever give up, I then snail mailed Hillary a respectful letter expressing my distress over her obvious pandering and blatant denial of humanitarian and International Law and informed her of the many gaps and lack of 'security' along The illegal Wall that I knew about from my visits to Israel Palestine in June 2005 and in January, March and November 2006. Every taxi driver, would be 'terrorist' and I knew the way into Jerusalem from Bethlehem without going through security checkpoints and The Terminal.

The only response I received from Senator Clinton was to be put on the DNC's mailing list soliciting funds.

Clinton has continued to fuel the fire of my Irish ire during her hustling of AIPAC votes: "I was deeply saddened and outraged by the suicide bombing in Eilat this week. Some are saying that Eilat was bombed because Israeli's efforts at self-defense through its security fence have been so successful. But Eilat is a tragic reminder of the threats that Israel faces everyday and underscores the importance of our continued support for Israel 's right to protect and defend her people. The highest priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens and that is why, as I have said, I've been a strong supporter of Israel 's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have spoken out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel 's right to build that fence of security."

If The Wall were actually built on Israeli land, Clinton could get a pass on her procuring of Jewish votes, but a map of The Wall super-imposed upon Palestinian aquifers clearly illuminates that The Wall is all about grabbing land and resources from the indigenous peoples of that land.

Reported in the august, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

In Jeff Halper's April 2005 edition of Obstacles to Peace, A Re-Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, he wrote, "Missing from Israel's security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists...and that "security" requires Israel control over the entire country...rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation." [Page 1]

During one of my four interviews with Jeff, he told me this joke:

"The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America 's 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!"

They certainly have one vocal demimondaine and craving consummate pandering Senator who is currently lusting for the American Presidency.

-###-
PUBLISHED FIRST:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/b logs/voices.php/2007/02/15/p14515#more14 515

February 15, 2007 © Copyright Feb. 14, 2007 Eileen Fleming. Permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media if this credit is attached and the title remains unchanged. WAWA@WeAreWideAwake.org

MUCH MORE ON WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Like so many bloggers, you are terribly misdirected and terribly naive.  The mainstream media is effusive in its praise for Senator Obama not because he possesses many fine qualities, but rather because they desperately want him to be a wedge candidate.  

They would certainly prefer him to be the Democratic candidate, because he will be most assuredly redefined and devoured by the Right and its minions.  Whereas Senator Clinton has been so often excoriated, like her husband before her,
that all the venom has already been brought forth.

The Right fears her brilliant political instincts, the well-funded machine she has commandeered and her army of volunteers.  They fear most her husband's instincts, regarding whom Toni Morrison properly dubbed "the first black President."  Bill Clinton is every inch of him a monumentally popular figure among African-Americans in particular.  

I would argue that Bill Clinton's longtime endearment to that community, and long demonstrated track record on their behalf, trumps anything that the wonderful but still greener-than-green novice Senator Obama can currently muster.  

And I believe he remains a bigger star in Selma and elsewhere among those African-Americans than does the very untested Senator Obama.

It is also foolish to pretend that Bill would not be an ineluctable part of his wife's presidential administration.  They were a "twofer" ticket when on the ballot in Arkansas, when running nationally, and even while Senator Clinton represents New York state.

I would submit that a clear majority of Americans yearn for a return to the Clinton years, whatever are their reservations regarding Senator Clinton.  Whereas with Senator Obama, any history of similar governance remains unknown.

I much admire Senator Obama, but like so many others who believe that Senator Clinton (with indeed her husband as an integral part of her White House) will make a superb President, we know that she will be supremely tough, both as a candidate, and through all the ensuing vitriol that will follow from the Right.

Senator Obama has been much stroked, even babied from the established press, who have long detested the Clintons.

You are terribly wrong when you assume that Senator Clinton is the enemy.  To the contrary, those of us wildly desperate for the return of a Democratic administration much fear what the establishment will inevitably do to Senator Obama, or for that matter former Senator Edwards, both nowhere near the campaign heavyweights that are the Clintons.

What many of us believe is that by fueling the passions of Senators Obama and Edwards supporters like yourselves, they are using you, to follow them to their certain fall.  

The establishment has now already gathered around former Mayor Giuliani, whose campaign is based on the same false security issues that was President Bush 43's call to reelection in 2004.  

Those "security issues" were lethal not merely as they resulted in the quagmire of Iraq (whose "surge in forces" the former NYC Mayor fully supports) but as they drained our treasury and made our nation vulnerable on any number of fronts.

The former Mayor worships at the altar of former President Reagan, whose administation historians with the hindsight of history will understand as also one of the worst in our history.  The Reagan administration presaged every bone-headed move by the Right subsequently, and almost (were it not for the Clinton administration) permanently isolated us from our many former allies.

Where you err, most profoundly, is in the belief that Senator Obama has any hope of escaping annihilation by established forces.

Whereas we who are veterans of the many RIght-wing wars against the Clintons (ever and always a political tandem) know that they are uniquely up to the task of taking them on.  

It will take more than the anti-Clinton hate of Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, much of the remaining established media, Right-wing think tanks, skewered pollsters and even phony election counting to prevent a return to a Clinton White House.

It will take, perhaps, fueling the hatred of anti-Clinton forces like yourselves.

The Clintons "should" be in Selma.  Bill Clinton walked across the bridge with Martin Luther King's wife seven years ago, and today he is being honored for his work in Civil Rights.  Or does anyone here actually believe that because Obama is black he should be the only candidate in Selma today?

Get over yourselves people!!!

Of course Hillary should be in Selma.

They should see what the future George Bush, better known as Hillary Clinton has to say.

If Hillary had not married Bill Clinton, you wouldn't even know her name.

First and foremost, we who believe in the candidacy of Senator Clinton believe every bit as passionately in her as do supporters of any of her rivals.  I would submit that her lead, holding quite nicely, is anything but soft.

It is a measure of the level of the invective against her that so many bloggers are ignorant both of her very progressive past (when Senator Obama was not long out of diapers), as well as of the incalculable role she has played in each and every one of her husband's campaigns.  

Not to recognize the significance of Senator Clinton on her husband's political success is to be painfully ignorant of modern American politics.  And today, former President Bill Clinton is internationally recognized as the leading political star.

Senator Obama is a brilliant, accomplished, and extraordinary speaker.  But it is just as much true that Senator Clinton's speech, on its points (if not in its delivery) was every bit as effective.

The difference between our passions for the various candidates lies in our own understanding of which of those candidates can best go the distance.

Those advocating Senator Obama believe that his opposition to Iraq's incursion early on (although he was not then in a Senate position to be voting one way or another; thus it is moot to argue with any certainty how he would have actually voted) and his oratory will carry him to the White House.  

But I maintain that such persons are oblivious to the machinations of the established order.

The anti-Clinton press was not "their press"; it was then, and is now, "the" press.  That elite, which subsequently returned to power the old order by way of the scion of the 41st President Bush, has never accepted the rise of the Clintons.

And it is that same elite which now trumpets the candidacy of Senator Obama.  He will be redfined--indeed devoured--by the same group now singing his praises.

Senator Edwards is also a splendid candidate, quite strong in his convictions.  But again, he is a lightweight when considered against the machine which not only has made an industry of savaging the Clintons, but which has through the worst of subterfuge stolen the past two presidential elections.

The Clintons, through the evisceration of their ceaseless investigations from Ken Starr and his acolytes, and as survivors of decades of political wars (concerning which Senator Obama is a true neophyte) have a keener understanding of the political process than anyone else in the current political scene.

This is a fact, not a judgment.

It is also quite condescending to African-Americans to believe that simply because Senator Obama is half African-American, and indeed possesses supreme oratory skills, that he is somehow expected to be the candidate to which they will rally.

It is no more certain that African-Americans will necessarily in mass rally toward Senator Obama on those terms than they wouuld rally to a presidential candidacy of General Powell or Secretary of State Rice.

Having a long, proven track record on Civil Rights for all Americans, which both Clintons do in spades, is every bit as impressive a calling card.

In politics, one quickly realizes one's opposition by the nature of their words.  In each and every one of my posts, I do not fail to recognize the fine attributes of Senator Clinton's Democratic rivals.

The same courtesy cannot be said of many bloggers in opposition to Senator Clinton.  They utilize ridiculous hyperbole, slander her against the facts of her long political record, even admonish her supporters, attempting to diminish the power of their advocacy for her.

Perhaps this is born of frustration, as Senator Clinton is moving forward quite forcefully on any number of fronts--in terms of her yet fine polling, funding ability, and securing an army of volunteers.

What the rival bloggers need to understand, however, is that their simple invective, ceaselessly ridiculing and tearing down Senator Clinton, will not properly translate into the successful candidacy of any of the others in the Democratic presidential field.

So, "Earth to all those poisonously anti-Senator Clinton bloggers":  Remember always, the Clinton tandem has dealt with your kind, many, many times before.  It is why they remain masters of the political process on levels so many others who would seek to run have only a pedestrian clue.

Whoa...easy partner, you're about to hyperventilate; take a deep breath...there now, don't you feel better.
As far as I know, all candidates are just that, candidates. Each makes a case for why they would be best for the job. But none should go unchallenged including both your candidate, HRC, and mine, Obama. Ultimately, there will only be one Democratic nominee but for now there are many from which to choose.
Personally,
I prefer the promise of an Obama presidency to the known quality of a Clinton one.
I prefer a candidate who does not rely on focus groups to determine what position to take on issues.
I prefer a candidate who speaks like a human being and doesn't parse every word they speak.
I prefer a progressive candidate to a tie-dyed Republican.

If all of the above makes me a poisonously anti-Senator Clinton blog, so be it.