How vast is the right wing conspiracy?
Posted by Moonage on 13 Mar 2007 | Tagged as: Idiot of the day
Hillary Clinton was laughed almost into submission about a decade ago for blaiming her husband’s problems on "the vast right wing conspiracy". He then fessed up to the entire country and she dropped it for a while.
Well, it’s back.
What’s she talking about?
Former RNC operative James Tobin was convicted of telephone harassment and appealed his conviction. The investigation arose after Democratic organizers’ phones were overwhelmed by annoying hang-up calls hindering their get-out-the-vote efforts.
James Tobin is her "vast" right wing conspiracy.
The phrase sounded stupid in 1996, and it sounds stupid now. It made her look stupid in 1996, and it will make her look stupid now. What is she hoping to gain by dredging up probably the lowest point of her political career?
But now her troops are chiming in as well:
"People think we’re paranoid when we talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but there is a real connection of these groups — the same names keep popping up," said Sullivan. "They are the most disgusting group of political thugs that I have ever seen."
Yeah, I think they’re sounding paranoid. Citing one guy, or a group of "same names", just doesn’t quite support the "vast" or "conspiracy" labels. Not even close. What they are citing as their "Vast conspiracy" is politics as usual. Someone really want to try to convince me, or the country as a whole, that Hillary Clinton has NEVER participated in dirty politics?
If James Tobin IS the "vast right wing conspiracy", Hillary IS the vast left wing conspiracy. Now, which is more dangerous? Which side has seen more members go to prison? Which side has had more casualties?
3 Comments »
on 13 Mar 2007 at 3:19 pm 1.Sheldon said …
The “conspiracy” is as vast as Hillary’s imagination and need to stigmatize all her opponents. In reality, there exists a strong non-partisan case against a second Clinton presidency in America.
on 13 Mar 2007 at 3:32 pm 2.Moonage
said …
I think you’re dead-on. It really kind of surprises me that she would be this naive politically. You’ve got a block of people that don’t want Clinton II, you’ve got a block that don’t want a woman, you’ve got a block that are beholden to a minority candidate, you’ve got blocks that support other Democrat candidates, and, you’ve got a block that can not vote for her in the primary. She chooses to stigmatize the one block that can not vote for, or against, her. I don’t know if she’s going for the sympathy vote here, but that’s not her personna. All in all, I think this is a terrible move giving Monicagate, filegate, and all the dirty laundry of her previous years in the White House new life.
on 13 Mar 2007 at 8:40 pm 3.Stormwarning
said …
If she doesn’t start to focus on issues really soon, my prediction of her not getting the Democratic nomination will be true. Further, if she doesn’t stop running her mouth about the “vast right wing conspiracy,” if she does get the nomination, she won’t have a prayer.
I still don’t think she will be the Presidential nominee. Timne will tell, or prove me wrong.