Ed-Line News: An Occasional Tongue-In-Cheeky Political Satire Column by Ed Rampell
During the Democratic primary season much is being made as to who is, and who is not, progressive. $hill-ary Clintoneybaloney takes great umbrage at the suggestion by her electoral opponent, St. Bernard, and others, that she is a “moderate” and not a true progressive. $hill-ary considers it to be a dirty trick for St. Bernard plus lefty and objective observers to, you know, quote her words and cite her record. One expects any minute for $hill-ary to snarl that she’s the victim of “a vast leftwing conspiracy.”
Of course, as the empress of expediency, Clintoneybaloney is trying to tack left to trick Democratic and independent voters into nominating her. Some of $hill-ary’s lefty detractors have done excellent jobs exposing her centrist to downright reactionary votes and stances. See filmmaker Michael Moore’s analysis here. And media maven Jeff Cohen’s here.
If $hill-ary gets away with branding herself as a progressive, what’s next? Rahm Emanuel will declare he is an anarcho-syndicalist?
Anyway, $hill-ary has been such a centrist-to-conservative political hack that she carries so much rightwing baggage they couldn’t list them all. So lest we forget, here are a couple of other oldies but goodies from the opportunist-in-chief, who gave the thumbs up to Bush’s catastrophic Iraq attack:
As a U.S. Senator this great “champion” of human rights co-sponsored a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag in 2005. $hill-ary voted in 2007 in favor of a proposed resolution that called for the Senate to “strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism” of anyone in the U.S. military. So much for that little thing called the First Amendment.
Recommended for You
Senator Clintoneybaloney also voted for the PATRIOT Act. According to John Pilger in The New Rulers of the World:
“In academic literature and the media, Bill Clinton was described as ‘center left,’ a denial of the historical record. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased, an aggressive missile ‘defense’ system known as ‘Star Wars 2’ was instigated, the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved, biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court, a worldwide ban on landmines and proposals to curb money laundering. Contrary to myth, which blames his successor, the Clinton administration effectively destroyed the movement to combat global warming. In addition, Haiti was invaded; the blockade of Cuba was reinforced; Iraq, Yugoslavia and Sudan were attacked.”
Also, note that $hill-ary claimed in the February 4 debate that her speaking fees never influenced her voting record or views. HOWEVER, she received the bulk of her millions for jabbering to Wall Streeters, et al, AFTER she had already left the Senate and in the period before she ran for prez. These financial masters of the universe are heralded as biz whiz kids, so why would they “invest” so much $ in $hill-ary (who poormouthed her economic status upon leaving the O!bomb-ma admin as being “broke”) if they didn't expect to get a high return on their investments? Like more Robert “Take-the-Money-and-Run” Rubin and Larry “Derivatives” Summers types embedded in another Clintonybaloney admin?
$hill-ary also said during a February 3 Town Hall that she took up to $675,000 for Goldman Sachs speeches because “that’s what they offered.” Well, first of all, she didn't have to take their blood money and if she did pocket the loot, what prevented her from donating it to Planned Parenthood or the Children’s Defense Fund or the National Organization for Women, et al? But she didn’t, did she? (Her cosmic rationalization is almost as pathetic as her previous claim during a November debate that she took so much $ from Wall Street because of, you know, 9/11 - the worst attempt to justify a public official’s dubious behavior in the name of patriotism since New Gingrich’s effort during the 2008 prez campaign to rationalize his adultery because, gosh darn it, he was just working too hard for his country. Boohoo!)
If $hill-ary gets away with branding herself as a progressive, what’s next? Rahm Emanuel will declare he is an anarcho-syndicalist? All this begs the question: What is a “progressive” in 2016, anyway? This is something people on the Left should vigorously debate. In the meantime, here’s a working political definition of “progressive”: To the Left of liberal, to the right of radical. And if $hill-ary Clintoneybaloney wasn’t a female and this nation so long overdue to have a woman president, nobody with a scintilla of consciousness would ever consider this corporate centrist hack to be remotely progressive.