US Presidential Election Odds: Hillary Clinton is getting away with murder

US Politics / Robert Rouse / 18 March 2008 / 1

" class="free_bet_btn" rel="external" onclick="javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview('/G4/inline-freebet');" target="_blank">

There are double standards all over the place in the race for the Democratic nomination, says our man Stateside Robert Rouse...

There appears to be some major double standards being applied to the race for the Democratic nomination for president. According to Clinton supporters, Barack Obama should always be found guilty by reason of association. They have no problems pointing out people like Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko while conveniently leaving out any references to people associated with Hillary. In the long run, this could prove to be a huge mistake. Let's say that by some freak of nature, Hillary manages to talk the super delegates into ignoring the vote totals and delegate count and "selecting" her to be the nominee. Don't think for a minute that the GOP will be afraid of bringing up Hillary's associates, both past and present. When it comes to guilt by association, "Hill" has an ample amount to be worried about.

Hillary supporters - especially the ones who only came to Hillary after being abandoned by John, Chris, Dennis, Joe, Bill, Mike and Tom - like to point first to Tony Rezko when trying to derail Obama. Ooh, great idea for Hillary supporters to point to a real estate scandal. Maybe Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker could join Hillary on the campaign trail and talk about how much the Whitewater scandal taught them about real estate scandals. Isn't that a great idea! Talk about guilt by association. I say that from this point forward, every single time a blogger mentions Rezko that Obama supports simply use a one word response in the comment section - Whitewater.

The Hillary people love it when some someone associated with Obama says something controversial - in fact, it's almost as if the Clinton campaign has someone ready to pounce and cry "foul" every time. "Hey, Samantha Power called Hillary a monster!" What happens? The Obama campaign apologized and Samantha Power is no longer with the campaign.

On January 13, B.E.T. founder, Robert L. Johnson made obvious reference to Obama's admitted drug use during a Clinton rally in South Carolina. After being called on it, he tried to hide it, claiming he was referencing Obama's work as a community organizer. Of course anyone with a lick of sense knew this was something someone wouldn't actually try to ridicule, yet the Clintons backed Johnson. It would be four days before Johnson finally apologized for his outrageous actions. It took Gerry Ferraro over ten days to step down from the campaign.

But I digress, I'm getting away from the point. If Obama is guilty by association, then why isn't Hillary guilty by association with Norman Hsu? Norman who, you say. Norman is one of those gentlemen who makes money off people who are both greedy and easily duped. He engineered pyramid schemes. He also engaged in improper actions with bundled campaign contributions. What did the Clinton campaign say when this was reported by the Wall Street Journal? "Norman Hsu is a long time and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

Oh, did I mention that Hsu had been a Federal fugitive for 15 years?

Here's the skinny - I do not hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the actions of any of her supporters, friends or past acquaintances. How can I? No one has proven she was behind anything nefarious and she should be innocent until proven guilty. Do you think the Clinton supporters would be so generous with Obama? Uh, do cartoon bears poo Rice Crispies? I didn't think so.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

(1)

Don't Patronise Me | 19 March 2008

Couldn't agree more. Clinton gets away with so much owing to her name alone, which I find really frustrating.

Would ANY other candidate still be in the running when he/she could only win the nomination with the support of superdelegates who would have to go AGAINST the popular vote of the masses?

If there is anyone else with that sort of ability I'm yet to think of who. Total joke, but fair play to her at the same time - I know I'd be doing the same thing in her position.