September 27, 2006
Clinton Narcissism Killing the DemocratsBy Noel Sheppard
A funny thing happened on the way to the midterm elections: everybody started talking about Bill Clinton. Television networks, newspapers, present and former DNC chairmen, Speaker of the House wannabes, left—wing shills, you name it. For almost a solid month, the former president filled the airwaves like a new strain of influenza in the dead of winter.
What haven't the Democrats and their media minions been talking about since summer ended? Surprisingly, the only issue that can lead them to victory six weeks from now — Iraq.
Doesn't seem like a very wise campaign strategy, does it?
It's My Party, I Can Lie if I Want To
It goes without saying that the most self—absorbed and narcissistic politicians ever to walk the face of this planet are Hillary and Billary Clinton, a couple that has done a better job of conning Americans than any other since Bonnie and Clyde. Yet, in all the years these two have propped themselves up as the most intelligent and important individuals ever to grace the political stage, no finer example of their self—infatuation without regard for Party has transpired than this September.
In fact, it is quite possible that their selfish and egotistical concern for his legacy and her political future is impeding any chance the Democrats have of taking over one or both chambers of Congress in November.
This pursuit of self over Party exploded the week before Labor Day when the Clintons and their useful idiot cadre decided to launch a disinformation campaign against an upcoming docudrama about events leading up to the attacks on 9/11. In reality, few Americans had likely heard about this miniseries before the Clintonistas began the firestorm. Given the beginning of the football season, viewing interest probably would have been low.
Instead, as this program depicted Clinton and his band of merry men missing a number of opportunities to catch Osama bin Laden, Hillary and Billary enlisted their troops to leave no stone unturned to discredit it. This included sending well—publicized letters to the CEO of Disney threatening him with all manner of fire and brimstone if he didn't cancel its airing. As a result, millions tuned in to see what all the fuss was about.
Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over a Barrel
If one is to be truly objective, there is no question that there were parts of this miniseries that took literary license for dramatic effect too far. In fact, there are conceivably many historical errors in this presentation raising questions as to why it was so produced. After all, the subject matter was shocking enough without adding more spice to the jambalaya.
However, there was just as much license taken with the history of the Bush presidency as the Clinton years. In fact, one could easily make the case that the fictionalizations in the months prior to 9/11 were much more damaging to the current president than any depicted in the eight years of the former one. Yet, despite the numerous inaccuracies, there was nary a complaint from the White House.
But, that's beside the point. With the midterm elections only two months away at that time, if Hillary and Billary were good Democrats, they would have ignored these fallacies, kept their eye on the ball, and focused on what was in the best interest of their Party: keeping the electorate fixated on what was going on in Iraq. Period. After all, the only chance the Democrats have this November is if enough Americans feel totally disenchanted with the war, and see this as their primary concern as they cast their ballots.
Regardless of the shifting tides that have been occurring in the past few months reducing the advantage Democrats enjoyed in the spring, there still is a solid opportunity for the left to win at least one Congressional chamber in November. Anything that interferes with this goal should be avoided by Democrats like an interview with Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.
Sadly, that's not the way the Clintons see the world, for they are the Democratic Party. As far as they are concerned, nobody else matters. And, as a result of their determination to prevent this docudrama from being aired, the eyes of America moved away from what was going on in Iraq, and squarely on the war on terrorism where Democrats consistently poll more poorly than Republicans.
Roll Another One, Just Like the Other One
To a large extent, the Clintonistas' weeklong effort to discredit or cancel this television program was akin to a football team opting to kick off after winning the coin toss prior to a sudden—death overtime.
Having voluntarily relinquished control of the ball, the Clintons then incompetently allowed their opponents a huge kickoff return with this pathetic performance by Billary on Fox News Sunday. As a result, America was once again talking about Bill Clinton, Osama bin Laden, the war on terrorism, and not Iraq.
For days, the airwaves were filled with discussions surrounding this interview. DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement on Monday:
Dean seems to be forgetting that Billary isn't running for anything in November, and the Clinton legacy isn't going to be on the minds of voters in six weeks. Frankly, the chairman of the DNC focusing any attention on the media's portrayal of a president that hasn't been in office for six years is emblematic of the state of disarray in this party.
The same inexplicable affliction struck former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, who told MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Tuesday that Fox News's Chris Wallace 'is a tool of the Republican Party.' Equally hard to believe, Democrat talking heads James Carville and Paul Begala went on the Today show Tuesday to discuss — what else — Bill Clinton. The word Iraq never came up.
Like a faithful wife—for—appearances—sake, the junior senator from New York was also talking about former president Bill Clinton. And, the Drudge Report claimed that Nancy Pelosi was about to make a strong statement about Fox News's treatment of her poor, beleaguered hero—in—chief.
This raises an important question: Have these people all lost their minds?
There's an election in about six weeks, and Bill Clinton isn't running. How can what he did or didn't do with regard to Osama bin Laden and terrorism in the prior decade mean anything to voters today?
Party on, Bill; Party on, Hill
Regardless of the answer, the Clintons are laughing all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or so they hope. Hillary is a shoo—in for re—election in November. What does she care if distracting the public from the only issue the Democrats can actually win on results in another bad election year for her Party? She'll win in a landslide, and all this revisionist history will make her look stronger as a future commander—in—chief. If Billary's legacy is softness on bin Laden and the terror threat, her 2008 run will suffer.
As for Billary, regardless of how foolish he must have felt when this interview was taped, he's clearly loving all this attention and imagining how it will improve posterity's view of him.
So, in the end, the Clintons must be looking at this entire month as a huge win for their team.
However, if voters are thinking about anything other than Iraq when they go to the polls on November 7, the Democrats will once again lose, and the Republicans might have Hillary and Billary to thank.
Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute. Noel welcomes feedback.