“Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here”

The entire compiled group that is the Clintonistas, from Hillary Clinton herself to her most wild-eyed and vicious of supporters have chosen a path.  She cannot compete with Obama on charisma, and her platform is not notably different from his in such a way that she can run on, especially to the Democratic base who would in general be more appreciative of Obama’s less hawkish tendencies.  From here there are still paths to choose from, paths that could have led to the nomination and done so on amicable terms.

But the Clintonista cabal has chosen a different path, and seem to be quite cheerful as they tramp their way down it.  The only problem is, I think they may have missed the sign reading, “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here”.

I’m going to be shifting focus here over the next few weeks.  I will not descend into sheer baseless attacks, I have not reached that place yet, but it seems clear to me that the media, paralyzed by charges of anti-Clinton bias, has seen fit to not vet a candidate that insists she’s vetted despite evidence to the contrary.  That must be rectified.

I don’t expect Obama to go particularly harsh on the attack; this may anger some of his supporters, and for others it may provide some relief, but the fact still remains that if he does not go on the attack, and the media does not call the Clintonistas out on the carpet for rank hypocrisy, then someone must do it.

But I’m also going to spend the next few weeks focusing on policy as well.  I’ve grown weary of the withering all talk attacks so we’re also, over the next few weeks, going to hold a magnifying glass to the policy differences between the remaining two Democratic candidates.

For all intents and purposes, though, the Clinton campaign and the campaign’s supporters have been throwing the kitchen sink for some time now, and the reverberating message that not only Obama supporters but Democrats in general must send back is that they do so at their own peril.  Indeed, that peril must be visited upon them.

And so we begin with a relatively new blog, and a recent addition to the CFLF blogroll; Bostondreams’ The TM Experience.  For the most part, BD focuses on the commenters at Taylor Marsh’s blog, but he takes a quick detour to warn the Clintonistas that they may want to rethink how hard they press the Tony Rezko issue.  Indeed, there are pitfalls in pursuing the trial going on right now, as well as Obama’s housing deal.  The trial bit is on the surface pretty minor, but the Obama’s benign housing deal could return to the spotlight a Clinton housing deal that is seated much further in a gray area and reinforces a question that is sure to get louder as this campaign moves along.

Back in January, a photo of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton smiling as they flanked Tony Rezko raised a few questions that there might be a Rezko-Clinton link, though those questions died out as the picture was most likely the typical picture one takes at a fundraiser.  It happens all the time, you grip and grin so much that you don’t really even know who you’re standing next to sometimes.

But here’s the curious thing; Tony Rezko is not the only one on trial right now.  No, he’s a co-defendent sharing the spotlight with five other alleged influence peddlers, Margie Burns has the breakdown:

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Or put another way, of the six people on trial, one donated money to Obama (who would eventually donate that money to charity), while half donated to the Clintonistas.  These donations were not all returned or donated to charity as is to be expected considering that the Clinton campaign held onto the the Norman Hsu donations until it was too painful to do otherwise.  As far as I’m aware, some of the money bundled by Hsu was not returned or donated.

As I have stated in the past, there seems to be far more smoke than fire when it comes to Rezko, and I’m not saying that there might be questions that need be asked.  But I find it dismaying to say the least that the likes of democratic bloggers like No Quarter and Talk Left have done what is essentially unbecoming of a liberal and a Democrat and have sought to convict Obama in the court of public opinion with no direct proof of wrongdoing, and flimsy evidence at best.  This becomes a slap in the face when one takes into consideration that for the most part Hillary Clinton was supported by the liberal media when she had to weather bad news regarding Hsu.

This matter is made only worse that the Clintons have dipped their fingers into other bowls in the same trial.

But it is not enough for these folks to sit and rubberneck the Rezko trial, pointing their fingers and guffawing dumbly, oh no, we also have to hear endlessly about Obama’s housing deal, which wasn’t even much of a deal at all.  In fact, he paid a fair price, and I’ve already shown how this whole house purchasing situation was really a non-issue.  Now, if Rezko had bought the house for Obama, or bought the lot next to it and allowed the Obamas to use it, or perhaps provided a stiff collateral donation to keep the Obama’s from having to divulge financial and tax information, that might be something.  Instead, Rezko bought a side-lot that allowed Obama to buy the house due to the owner’s desire to have both properties close on the same day.  A favor?  Possibly, but not necessarily that big of a favor given that apparently the side-lot already had bids on it.

Just like the Rezko trial, there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama’s behalf, but remember, they chose a path.  They chose this path seemingly ignorant of the controversy that surrounds the Clinton home in Chappaqua.  TPM cafe has a condensed version of the situation.

While still in office, the Clintons went to buy their home in New York, a move that ultimately set up Hillary Clinton’s bid for the US Senate.  The only problem was that they were steeped in legal fees in excess of five million dollars while their apparent assets only reached up to about one and a half million dollars.  NYT provides more details that are particularly interesting.

The first is that the cost of the House was approximately three times what a president should be able to afford.  Second, is the nature of Terry McAuliffe’s $1.35 million dollar collateral, and whether it could be considered a gift or not, and finally there is the fact that engineering the purchase in such a matter prevented either party to “bear their financial souls”.

No disclosure.

This raises questions.  I’m sure the Clintons could easily explain how they should be able to afford a house three times what their income should allow.  I mean, maybe he had the money going into the buy, or maybe Hillary was moonlighting.  But it would still be kind of nice to know where the money came from.  More interesting to me is whether McAuliffe’s collateral contribution could be construed as a gift.

If so, this goes way beyond the limit that a sitting President is allowed to receive as far as gifts are concerned.  Further, unlike the Obama-Rezko house deal, this stinks quite a bit more given that the Clintons likely would not have been able to purchase the house without the collateral.

Or they might have depending on what was in their financial records, and this becomes the last question that resonates today.  The key aspect of McAuliffe’s collateral donation is that it allowed the Clintons to purchase the house without engaging in full financial disclosure.  Not only did this save them from taxes, but it also saved them from divulging tax records and where they were getting the money to pay for the house in the first place.

So what exactly is it that the Clintons are so desperate to hide that they came awfully close to improper payment to a Federal official in order to keep it discreet?  We don’t know, but if I were to use the Larry Johnson/Taylor Marsh/Jerome Armstrong scale of journalistic integrity, I would HAVE to assume it was something really bad… like maybe selling babies on the black market.

I’m not that bad.  I won’t go there.  Where I will go is here; first, asking Hillary to divulge her tax records is not a Ken Starr tactic, it is a much needed call for transparency particularly in a situation that appears on the surface to be suspicious.  Secondly, you would be a fool to take Hillary at her word that she is a vetted candidate, and attacks of this ilk against Obama are not only hypocritical, but inviting of similar attacks against Clinton. 

Given what we do know of the Clintons, those are likely to hit much much harder.

7 Responses to ““Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here””

  1. Spam… or not spam… that is the question.

  2. Zzzzzz says:

    Spam or no spam, you had best believe that Clinton’s slimy prints are all over it, and that fact checking was never involved in its authorship.

  3. Cernig says:

    Spam. We’ve got exactly the same comment from an Elaine at Newshoggers – and it’s about to go the way of all spam.

    Good post, Kyle.

    Regards, C

  4. Thank you C, both for the compliment, and for the heads up.

    I hate deleting marginal spam, but if someone else is getting the Ron Paul treatment with a specific post, well, there’s only one thing to do with it, isn’t there?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Friday Blogroll Call: The Late Edition » Comments from Left Field - [...] Comments mick on Getting Suckered by Our Own GuysKyle E. Moore on 3 A.M.Kyle E. Moore on "Abandon All…
  2. Ferraro Relinquishes Post In Clinton Campaign » Comments from Left Field - [...] am reminded of my warning to the Clintonistas that they should be particularly careful of what kind of attacks…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook