Will Hillary Make It To 2008?
While most political pundits are wrapped around the axle trying to predict whether Hillary Rodham-Clinton will run for President in 2008, there is the very real and growing possibility that she will have an uphill battle to even retain her Senate seat in 2006, and may even have to fight harder than that to stay out of prison.
Politically, Rodham-Clinton is facing the uncomfortable prospect of running against Rudy Giuliani, arguably the most popular politician in America today. New York Governor George Pataki is reportedly pressuring Giuliani to run against Rodham-Clinton when she comes up for re-election, and is apparently behind a new group called StopHerNow.com, which intends to use the internet to rally opposition to Hillary's political aspirations, and collect donations from across the country to defeat her. The Republican Party knows that if Rodham-Clinton is defeated in 2006, her chances of successfully coming back two years later and seeking the presidency are greatly diminished, maybe obliterated. While she does have star-power among her supporters, and could therefore collect huge amounts of campaign cash in any event, she would most likely be facing other high-profile Democrats for the nomination, without the springboard of current office. A few years out of power can be a lifetime in politics. Just look at her husband.
On the other hand, Giuliani continues to appear gold-plated, even after the Bernard Kerik fiasco. While Hillary is divisive and unpopular outside of the East and West Coasts, Giuliani is a folk hero. Because of the events of 9/11, he carries a persona that Hillary cannot hope to emulate. Even conservative Republicans, like George Bush, who are uncomfortable with his support of abortion rights and gun control, find Giuliani an attractive candidate. With enough national financial support to offset Rodham-Clinton's Hollywood money and shamelessly fawning mainstream media, many Republicans believe Giuliani could handily beat her in that state.
More ominous, however, is the latest brewing Clinton scandal, which has the very real potential to send Queen Hillary to the clink. The particulars this time involve a 2000 Gala fundraiser for Rodham-Clinton's Senate campaign. According to a four count indictment issued on January 10 by a Federal Grand Jury in Los Angeles, campaign manager David Rosen is accused of failing to report most of the $1.2 million spent on the event in an effort to hide campaign cash from the Federal Elections Committee. Peter Paul, the man who funded the event, has testified that his "in-kind" contribution was part of a $17 million bid to entice Bill Clinton to work for Paul's companies after he left office, and as part of a scheme to secure a presidential pardon through DNC Chairman Ed Rendell in exchange for the money.
Rosen's indictment is the culmination of a Judicial Watch civil lawsuit against the Clinton's on behalf of Paul, who has produced documents indicating that both Rosen and Rodham-Clinton were involved in the fraud, and that Hillary was well aware of the under-reporting of campaign expenditures to the FEC. According to Judicial Watch, Rodham-Clinton was personally involved in financial negotiations for Paul in an attempt to lower the costs of the event. Another Clinton operative, Aaron Tonken, who was also involved with the fundraiser in question, has apparently testified in support of Paul's assertions. Tonken is the author of a recently released book entitled "King of Cons", in which he claims that he handed out illegal campaign contributions to various politicians on behalf of the Clinton's during the final months of Bill Clinton's last term.
Of course, the synchophantic media has rushed to the support of Hillary. Today, the New York Times devoted many columns of space in an effort to disparage Peter Paul, describing him as a "smooth operator with myriad connections", a "troubled character" and a "well connected figure with a checkered past". While these descriptions could very well apply to Rodham-Clinton herself, the Times has begun the standard procedure when confronting Clinton accusers: dismiss, denigrate, and destroy.
Hillary's supporters believe she will win her 2006 Senate re-election, and have two years to aggressively campaign for president. However, if Rosen, like Paul, implicates Rodham-Clinton in the fraud, as he very well might in the weeks ahead, as part of a plea-agreement to lessen the severity of his own punishment, she might be spending those two years (or more) in a federal penitentiary.
Republicans will continue to hope for a Giuliani run against Clinton in 2006. Democrats should hope that Hillary is not behind bars before then.
Politically, Rodham-Clinton is facing the uncomfortable prospect of running against Rudy Giuliani, arguably the most popular politician in America today. New York Governor George Pataki is reportedly pressuring Giuliani to run against Rodham-Clinton when she comes up for re-election, and is apparently behind a new group called StopHerNow.com, which intends to use the internet to rally opposition to Hillary's political aspirations, and collect donations from across the country to defeat her. The Republican Party knows that if Rodham-Clinton is defeated in 2006, her chances of successfully coming back two years later and seeking the presidency are greatly diminished, maybe obliterated. While she does have star-power among her supporters, and could therefore collect huge amounts of campaign cash in any event, she would most likely be facing other high-profile Democrats for the nomination, without the springboard of current office. A few years out of power can be a lifetime in politics. Just look at her husband.
On the other hand, Giuliani continues to appear gold-plated, even after the Bernard Kerik fiasco. While Hillary is divisive and unpopular outside of the East and West Coasts, Giuliani is a folk hero. Because of the events of 9/11, he carries a persona that Hillary cannot hope to emulate. Even conservative Republicans, like George Bush, who are uncomfortable with his support of abortion rights and gun control, find Giuliani an attractive candidate. With enough national financial support to offset Rodham-Clinton's Hollywood money and shamelessly fawning mainstream media, many Republicans believe Giuliani could handily beat her in that state.
More ominous, however, is the latest brewing Clinton scandal, which has the very real potential to send Queen Hillary to the clink. The particulars this time involve a 2000 Gala fundraiser for Rodham-Clinton's Senate campaign. According to a four count indictment issued on January 10 by a Federal Grand Jury in Los Angeles, campaign manager David Rosen is accused of failing to report most of the $1.2 million spent on the event in an effort to hide campaign cash from the Federal Elections Committee. Peter Paul, the man who funded the event, has testified that his "in-kind" contribution was part of a $17 million bid to entice Bill Clinton to work for Paul's companies after he left office, and as part of a scheme to secure a presidential pardon through DNC Chairman Ed Rendell in exchange for the money.
Rosen's indictment is the culmination of a Judicial Watch civil lawsuit against the Clinton's on behalf of Paul, who has produced documents indicating that both Rosen and Rodham-Clinton were involved in the fraud, and that Hillary was well aware of the under-reporting of campaign expenditures to the FEC. According to Judicial Watch, Rodham-Clinton was personally involved in financial negotiations for Paul in an attempt to lower the costs of the event. Another Clinton operative, Aaron Tonken, who was also involved with the fundraiser in question, has apparently testified in support of Paul's assertions. Tonken is the author of a recently released book entitled "King of Cons", in which he claims that he handed out illegal campaign contributions to various politicians on behalf of the Clinton's during the final months of Bill Clinton's last term.
Of course, the synchophantic media has rushed to the support of Hillary. Today, the New York Times devoted many columns of space in an effort to disparage Peter Paul, describing him as a "smooth operator with myriad connections", a "troubled character" and a "well connected figure with a checkered past". While these descriptions could very well apply to Rodham-Clinton herself, the Times has begun the standard procedure when confronting Clinton accusers: dismiss, denigrate, and destroy.
Hillary's supporters believe she will win her 2006 Senate re-election, and have two years to aggressively campaign for president. However, if Rosen, like Paul, implicates Rodham-Clinton in the fraud, as he very well might in the weeks ahead, as part of a plea-agreement to lessen the severity of his own punishment, she might be spending those two years (or more) in a federal penitentiary.
Republicans will continue to hope for a Giuliani run against Clinton in 2006. Democrats should hope that Hillary is not behind bars before then.
posted by Mark Outland at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home