In the delirious-sheeple afterglow of Barack Obama's 'historic' election victory in 2008, a strange thing happened that December: he appointed his critical -openly hostile- and recently defeated primary opponent Hillary Clinton to the head the State Department...
Was it based upon her qualifications?
Doubtful, considering that Shrillary had no foreign policy experience to speak of. Other presidents lacking diplomatic exposure have traditionally brought someone who themselves had such a background to the vital State Department position- alas, somehow Obama didn't feel the need.
But perhaps the most unsettling concern for many observers was the fact that Clinton's judgement is warped by her blinding ambition to gain power and control- causing her to be manipulative -even Machiavellian- in her dealings with others.
Was this really the best person we could find to represent the United States of America to the world?
Was it based upon her qualifications?
Doubtful, considering that Shrillary had no foreign policy experience to speak of. Other presidents lacking diplomatic exposure have traditionally brought someone who themselves had such a background to the vital State Department position- alas, somehow Obama didn't feel the need.
But perhaps the most unsettling concern for many observers was the fact that Clinton's judgement is warped by her blinding ambition to gain power and control- causing her to be manipulative -even Machiavellian- in her dealings with others.
Was this really the best person we could find to represent the United States of America to the world?
So then it was their friendship that brought her onboard Team Obama? Deep interpersonal respect? Ha ha ha- not exactly.
In addition to other puzzling cabinet choices from a guy pledging "change" -i. e. old-guard party aparatchiks like Joe Biden and (corrupt) primary challengers like Bill Richardson- the only explanation for these postings would be fulfilling political deals that got him nominated... as well as the calculated co-opting of Democratic rivals that 'could pose a challenge in 2012' when Obama's numbers are in the toilet (and lo-and-behold here we are, over a year early).
When you're talking about an unprincipled political punk like Obama who had all three other Democratic Party challengers thrown off the ballot in his very first Illinois State Senate race... a man who displays a history of serial political opportunism... the deduction that Hillary was chosen to cap her political ambition/potential seems obvious.
The appointment of Hillary Clinton to State was likely a political bargain struck at the convention- Obama wasn't about to let qualifications or ethical considerations get in the way of such a win-win deal that could hand him the ultimate prize on a platter.
Given the opportunity, it was a Team-Obama priority to control and contain Hillary, Richardson... even Biden. And if he hadn't suffered a most inopportune bimbo-n-bambino eruption,
Silky Pony would have been appointed to a serious position in the Obama Administration, too... he was certainly angling for it.
Given the opportunity, it was a Team-Obama priority to control and contain Hillary, Richardson... even Biden. And if he hadn't suffered a most inopportune bimbo-n-bambino eruption,
Silky Pony would have been appointed to a serious position in the Obama Administration, too... he was certainly angling for it.
So should it surprise anyone then if Hillary Clinton were to do a Bobby Kennedy...?
RFK was of course President Johnson's AG -inherited from JFK- and when LBJ's popularity started to slip, Kennedy turned and ran for President against him in the 1968 primaries. You don't hear it as much as you used to, but anyone saying the Democrats wouldn't run a serious primary challenge against Obama in 2012 doesn't know what they're talking about.
And you can never really count the Clintons out- they appear to have few interests outside of ego-gratification, power, and money (+ oh yeah sex)... and were almost certainly working on a post-Obama "plan B" from the minute the Bolshevik Boy Wonder was sworn in. There's no real loyalty between the two camps -nor love lost- and everybody knows it.
Although they are careful what they say, the calculating, insatiably power-hungry Clintons could simply be waiting for the exact right moment to expoit Dear Leader's accumulated defeats. It would be hard to imagine them not holding a grudge too, longing for revenge after the denial of a presidency they thought they owned.
Hillary ain't going down with the USS Obamanation, I'd almost bet on it- serving Chairman O to the bitter end is not the way the Clintons plan to end their self-absorbed legacy. And as for other Democrats who were caught surprised by the meteoric rise of Obama -then just went with the flow- there's a lot of shallow support out there that could evaporate as quickly as it appeared.
Barack Obama's deep-seated personality flaws and misguided decision-making are the kinds of things that political opponents tend to take notice -and full advantage- of. You can be sure that the Clintons have been soaking it all up right from the start- and have also schemed accordingly. Could explain all the aggressive early Obama's fundraising, eh- he's already looking over his shoulder.