In Defense of Hillary

My good friend A Red Mind In A Blue State entitles his blog post "HILLARY'S A LIIAARR."

Just got through listening to the Bush-Bash over on MSNBC -- and quite frankly Red Mind was nicer to Hillary than Chris, Keith, Dan Abrams and the rest of the Obama circle-jerkers were.

But the boys at MSNBC are missing the point. And Frank Rich, who all of us over on the left think is "spot on" is dead wrong when he says that the Obama-Clinton fracas leaves an opening for McCain. My friends at The New Republic, and Huffington Post, too.

***

Everything Red Mind says about Hillary in his post today is true.

I'll even go Red Mind one better.

Hillary certainly knew that there was video of the trip to Bosnia that would prove that she was a liar.

Bill Clinton certainly knew that he was questioning Obama's patriotism last Friday, when he said he was looking forward to a general election with two people who "love America".

While Hillary may be able to hide behind "misspeaking, " Bill Clinton has never and will never misspeak. He may lie, but he has never said a thing in public that he did not mean to say.

Likewise, James Carville expressly refused to back down from calling Bill Richardson a "Judas" for betraying the Clintons. Who's Jesus? Carville did not dispute the implication.

What's going on?

First of all, this fight has nothing to do with Red Mind or John McCain.

This is a family feud concerning whether the most liberal party is liberal enough to go into a Presidential election with an African-American candidate. Thereby, skipping past the step where we, like every other corrupt body politic, vote for the President's wife before we vote for the minority candidate.

The Senator and her husband are betting that in the end, we won't want to skip that step.

Over the next 6 weeks they will lie about anything and everything. They will continually misstate their own positions and rewrite history. There is nothing that they will not resort to.

And they will make sure that you know it.

Despite all that, Hillary will win every remaining primary, except perhaps North Carolina, where she will finish within the margin of error.

This will prove that the worst run, most brazen campaign by a white person can beat the best-run campaign by a black person.

Because the liberal party in America is not ready for a black President.

And then the Super-delegates will have a choice.

Do you nominate Obama -- a sure loser -- because even if his young voters go out to vote, they will find that the Republican U.S. Attorneys have left them with no polling places with which to vote, and no power with which to protest the result. Sure you will have brought the young Americans, and the new Americans into the Democratic Party. But to what end? All you've done is assured a McCain victory -- and guaranteeing that you wind up with 4 more years of the country on the same wreckless fruitless path to hell.

Or do you nominate Clinton -- who may lose the election, but knows how to steal it.

Her older white voters are going to goddamn well have polling places, and we're going to get in and out of them quickly too. 10 minutes tops. And the Big Dog and the boys know their way around the sharp corners and the sharp elbows.

If Jeb Bush winds up being the Republican candidate on election day, then maybe the Clintons will have met their evil match. But McCain? Please.

Nominate Clinton, and you probably still get McCain and the continuous corrosion of freedom and prosperity, but you have a puncher's chance that Bill can find a way through. You take the chance that maybe -- just maybe -- you wind up with President Clinton -- 4 years of deadlock --- in the hope that maybe, just maybe the country can catch its breath before it slouches towards the void.