MEATLESS PRESS

Because I am unable to take Bill or Hillary Clinton for an entire hour, even with commercial interruptions, I taped Mrs. Clinton's January interview on MEET THE PRESS. I wanted to see if host Tim Russert was going to be as easy on her as he was during his 20 or so minute interview last year during his meet the candidates segments. The overrated Mr. Russert did not disappoint. Twenty eight minutes into the "interview" I was compelled to stop. I'm not sure if it was Clinton's penchant for filibustering that caused me to gag or that Russert was letting her. Clinton's repeated diatribes generally strayed, long windedly, into areas having nothing to do with the question. And each time Russert tried to get her to a point, she went on with a refusal to be interrogated. It was at that point I had to stop and take a 48 hour break before viewing the second half.

After the grilling Tim Russert gave GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani on ethics, I was convinced that the occasionally reliable Mr. Russert would broach the subject as forcefully with Sen. Clinton. He did not! When asked about Marc Rich's pardon and the familial group association seeking pardons from her husband, the Senator replied, " I didn't know anything about that." Both times her facial expressions belied her answers.

She bases her claims of experience on the fact that her husband discussed important issues with her to get her input, yet she asserts being totally in the dark about the failures and scandals of the administration. Russert's attempt to get her to recant her charge of a "vast right wing conspiracy" in the Lewinsky perjury scandal merely brought forth Mrs. Clinton's now infamous cackle. Russert never bothered to proffer that her husband copped to the charges after leaving office, that Bill paid off Paula Jones, that her husbands attorney, Bill Bennett, had to inform a federal judge that President Clinton's sworn deposition would be recanted, and that the subsequent actions of her husband proves false her claim that he was impeached over a "private, personal matter" as she promoted in her book.

There were no questions from Russert about the Travel Office firings - who paid her losses in the year long cattle futures bonanza - why would Craig Livingstone's mother tell her friends that Mrs. Clinton got her son the job as head of White House security if it were not true - why would a career White House officer state that he saw Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, exit the late Vince Foster's office with files if that were not true?

Sen. Clinton continues to claim that her vote on the Iraq War resolution was for inspectors, not the use of force. After beating around the bush (no pun intended) about her vote, it never occurred to Russert to remind her that Saddam Hussein controlled the weapons inspectors during both Clinton administrations and kicked them out of Iraq when he tired of them.

Her claims of having been fully vetted also ring hollow. That she has withstood the "Republican attack machine" and only she can defeat the GOP in November are the rantings of a candidate yet to answer the really tough questions from the media that she accuses of her opponent.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK - Volume 4

It is clear that the Clintons are going to use the "pimped out" comment as another Hillary Clinton New Hampshire teary moment. For her campaign to call the comment "beneath contempt" is laughable when you consider that the Clintons have denigrated women who were involved with Bill, or spoke out about his predatory nature, as sluts, tramps, stalkers, bimbos and trailer trash.

It is absurd that the Clintons, whose degradation of women is legendary, are offended by David Shuster's comment. Although Shuster's comment is also absurd, considering most adult children campaign for their candidate parents, the negativity of the comment was directed at the Clinton campaign, not Chelsea Clinton. Calling the remark "beneath contempt" is the height of chutzpah coming from the couple who claimed that using the federal treasury and its employees as an escort service was a "private, personal matter."

If MSNBC and correspondent David Shuster is guilty of anything, it is not confronting Bill and Hillary Clinton and the people who support them of this decades long practice of victimizing women which has become a mainstay of every Clinton campaign.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK - Volume 3

I'm reasonably certain that after her endorsement of Sen. Obama for president, Caroline Kennedy will not be getting the "traitor" backlash from women that Oprah allegedly received.

If her post South Carolina action does not show the absolute selfishness of Hillary Clinton to the rest of the country, nothing will. It was disgustingly disrespectful of her to leave So. Carolina after the polls closed and not stick around to thank all of the people who supported her. And does anyone believe that had the tally been closer at closing time that she would have forsaken her So. Carolinian supporters and given her victory speech from Nashville?????

DEAR REV. BUTTS:

(An open letter to the Reverend Calvin Butts of Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem)


Dear Rev. Butts:

To say that I was shocked and disappointed when I opened my Monday newspaper to find that you endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president would be a severe understatement. That I felt compelled to bother to sit down and write to you about your decision for a man in your position is a testament to how disastrous a choice I believe you made.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Republican and shall not be casting a ballot for a Democrat on Primary Day. However, I should also be forthcoming enough to tell you that I would not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton in a general election under any circumstance - no matter who the Republican candidate is.

Apparently, and unfortunately, you have fallen victim to the hype. You believe that the Clintons are an experienced, qualified couple who learn from their mistakes and have the best interests of the country and the black community at heart, even though the evidence to the contrary is astounding. The "two for the price of one" Clintons left the state of Arkansas almost dead last, of all 50 states, in virtually every category used to determine quality of life. They also left a plethora of friends and colleagues in ventures that got many of them indicted and jailed - including their Lt. Gov. And what part of Mrs. Clinton's governing "experience" and qualifications were on tap when Arkansas' Madison Savings & Loan went belly up while she was one of the principal attorneys from the Rose Law Firm that worked on the account? Corruption then followed them to Washington, DC as members of their cabinet were forced to resign and plead guilty to a variety of criminal acts.

All the while more scandals were brewing as Mrs. Clinton was said to be the one responsible for the firing of the admired and well respected career employees who worked in the White House Travel Office. Years before anybody started screaming about the Patriot Act, both Clintons were loath to understand how an unqualified former bar bouncer, who worked on Bill Clinton's presidential campaign, became head of White House Security, and how, or why, he managed to obtain over 900 FBI files of innocent citizens. And after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, President Bill Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City, the damage or the victims - until he could hold a fund raiser.

What is equally troubling to me is the message you are sending to women - the mothers, daughters, and sisters of your congregation and your community. In their infamous "I caused pain in my marriage" interview on 60 MINUTES, the Clintons led America to believe that they had learned, grown and survived together through those mistakes. However, some hard working women in Washington, DC who just wanted to do their jobs and provide for their families and perhaps advance their careers suffered the same fate as the women in Arkansas who spoke out about the boorish behavior of Bill Clinton. At the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their surrogates, those women were demeaned and debased as stalkers, bimbos, tramps and trailer trash. It seems that present day candidate Clinton, who asserts her "35 years of experience" working on women's issues, has no problem publicly humiliating and victimizing other women who courageously come forth to report being violated. So Reverend, the question becomes how do you help a parishioner faced with a similar problem who seeks your council when you have endorsed, for the highest office in the land, a woman who has helped raise the degradation of women to an art form on behalf of her philandering husband?

While out promoting her book, Mrs. Clinton insisted that the impeachment of her husband was over a "private, personal matter." Putting aside the obvious counts of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, how is it a "private, personal matter" for Betty Currie to procure women to satisfy Mr. Clinton's lust while getting paid by the public? And how private and personal was it for Miss Monica Lewinsky to provide sexual favors and show up at the front of various rope lines while being paid to be working at the Pentagon? The government should not be in the business of pimping and requiring the public to pay for services rendered. After leaving office, Bill Clinton has subsequently admitted to the offenses for which he was impeached when he accepted the suspension of his law license and agreed to the payment of fines.

Ironically, as a Christian man of the cloth, you don't seem the least bit offended that Hillary Clinton stated that voting for Sen. Obama "requires a leap of faith" - as though faith is a bad thing. Faith is one of the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence. A successful outcome to the Civil War, the end of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the entire civil rights revolution were fortified with faith. Their selfishness, mendacity and poor judgment constitute a terrible 35 year track record of the Clinton's "experience." And that you can examine the Clinton's past and still find them worthy of acceptability to the country and community is more troubling to me, than David Geffen found troubling, the ease with which they lie. By your endorsement, Rev. Butts, it appears that the Clintons made the right choice, for them, to use New York as the steppingstone to their higher ambitions.

God bless you. And in the words of your Abyssinian predecessor, KEEP THE FAITH, BABY!

Yours truly,
C. Hill

HERE'S WHAT I THINK - Volume 2

When Bill Clinton said "This whole thing is a fairy tale," there is a general consensus that believes his explanation that he was only talking about Sen. Obama's position on the Iraq War. I think that depends upon what the definition of "This whole thing is," is!

BLOODSPORT

Politics is a bloodsport. And Bill and Hillary Clinton are its leading vampires. They can be ruthless, relentless and clever - but vampiric nonetheless. They can go from teary to whiny to fang protruding in the blink of an eye. Their competition is never political opposition, merely enemies and potential victims. To paraphrase former Clinton supporter and present Barack Obama supporter, Hollywood mogul David Geffen, the ease of their mendacity is troubling. Yet the media has always been genuinely shocked and awed by each mendacious assertion they have uttered over the past 15 years. The Clinton response to Mr. Geffen's charge was to blame Senator Obama. Sadly, the press indulged the unfair, unwarranted and dishonest attack by making it between Obama and the Clintons instead of Geffen and the Clintons.

The Clintons feign anger and disappointment that Senator Obama has not received the media scrutiny that Mrs. Clinton has. If she has been truly scrutinized, that would be Bill Clinton's real fairy tale. She has repeatedly laid claim to her "35 years of experience." At what - being married to Mr. Clinton! She is never adequately challenged when her decades of "experience" becomes the mantle that makes her "ready" to be president. Let us examine some of her experiences. The state of Arkansas finished one of the worst four of the fifty states in virtually every quality of life category such as jobs, economy, education and crime under Bill Clinton's gubernatorial leadership. What role did Mrs. Clinton's "experience" as first lady of Arkansas contribute to those horrendous outcomes? While first lady of the state and partner in the Rose Law Firm her legal expertise and experience is open to question as Madison Savings & Loan went belly up with Mrs. Clinton as one of its legal principals who worked on the account. Her "experience" with the Whitewater real estate investment saw more than a dozen convictions for various and sundry felonies. Thus, her experience with judgment becomes likewise questionable.

And it was that experienced, questionable judgment that followed them to the White House. The firing of the career employees of the Travel Office in an exposed attempt at patronage, the forced resignations, investigations and indictments of cabinet officials and other federal appointees and the president's own involvement in a conspiracy to fix a federal case. He has subsequently admitted before a special prosecutor that he did indeed commit the offenses for which he was impeached when accepting the suspension of his law license. To this day, the "experienced" Clintons are loath to understand how a former bar bouncer who worked on the 1992 presidential campaign "qualified" to become head of White House security or who actually sanctioned his ascendance. Even more bizarre, or absurd - take your pick, their former bar bouncer was responsible for the attainment of over 900 FBI files of innocent citizens for an allegedly unknown purpose. At least unknown to the experienced Clintons. A career White House employee insisted that he saw Mrs. Clinton's White House Chief of Staff carry files out of the White House Council's office after the death of Vince Foster. Her staff member denied removing any files, however the missing, subpenaed files, last seen in Foster's office, somehow were discovered in Mrs. Clinton's White House residence. And otherwise respectable women who lodged complaints about Bill Clinton's behavior, past and present, were denounced as stalkers, bimbos and trailer trash.

In 1993, the Clintons first year in the White House, six people were murdered and hundreds were injured when a truck bomb exploded in the garage of the World Trade Center in New York. It was subsequent to that attack that our knowledge of the aims of Al Qaeda became known. The Clinton response to their declaration of war against America was to decimate the military. And after Al Qaeda repeatedly murdered Americans and the native citizens at overseas locations, the Clinton regime waged no aggressive response although he repeatedly promised to "hunt them down and make them pay" each time he eulogized the flag-draped coffins that came home.

Mrs. Clinton's 35 years of experience includes the ridiculous notion that it was "a private, personal matter" when a government employee, receiving a public paycheck, provided "personal favors" for the president during working hours. And her thirty five years of experience informs us that it would "require a leap of faith" to vote for Senator Obama - as though faith is a bad thing. The Declaration of Independence is based on faith. Faith successfully propelled us through the Civil War, slavery, Jim Crow laws and a civil rights revolution. Thirty five years of "experience" is not a positive sign of ready leadership when those years have been riddled with mendacity, poor judgment and the abandonment of faith. And it is the long experience with those particular character traits that should make it difficult to inspire confidence from the electorate.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK - Volume 1

Just as Bill Clinton publicly praises Mike Bloomberg and says how impressed he is with the New York mayor, the din of the possibility of a 3rd party candidate entering the 2008 presidential contest becomes louder and more emergent. Coincidence? I think not!

With Hillary Rodham Clinton's negatives at nearly 50% and the equivalent number of voters polled who vow they would never vote for her, winning a two person presidential race on the phony claim of being the most experienced and most qualified suddenly appears to be an attempt at skiing uphill. And after more than a year of planning, organizing and "listening," Mrs. Clinton has been hard pressed to change the numbers on those negative equations. Thus, what we may be witnessing is the "attack of the 43% solution." I think this is a Clinton/Bloomberg alliance designed to put Mrs. Clinton in the White House even with the majority of Americans voting against her - 1992 redux, if you will.

Here's the question - after more than a year of presidential campaigning, why did Mike Bloomberg wait until the eve of the presidential primaries and caucuses to express his dissatisfaction with the present crop of candidates??????