Who’s afraid of Hillary Clinton? Well, WOOF isn’t, obviously, but this seems to make us almost unique. True, we are a self-confessed component of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” first mentioned by Mrs. Clinton during a 1998 interview on the reliably simpatico TODAY program during which she addressed Monica Lewinsky’s accusations regarding her husband, the president. Because her appearance pre-dated the manifestation of the infamous blue dress and the irrefutable DNA it bore, Mrs. Clinton was still in the mode of denouncing Miss Lewinsky as a psychotic stalker whose prominence on the national scene she sneeringly attributed to a shadowy consortium of archly mendacious conservatives. “I mean look at the very people who are involved in this,” she told a slack-jawed Matt Lauer, “They have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it–is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”
The vastness of it all…
So many on the left seized upon and continue to seize upon Mrs. Clinton’s trope (meaning people like Paul Krugman, the liberal economist who espouses the idea of the trillion-dollar-coin solution to the national debt [click here for details], and David Brock, the conservative turned liberal who at one time or another confessed to every imaginable sort of right-wing skullduggery short of personally blowing up the U.S.S. Maine) that it is difficult now to recall –without substantial mnemonic exertion–that the entire idea of a conspiracy bent on framing Bill Clinton as a sexual predator became ipso facto absurd the moment it transpired that he was, in fact, a sexual predator and that Miss Lewinsky was neither psychotic nor a willful instrument of conspiratorial industrialists and oil moguls, but an intern who had sex with Bill Clinton.
In fact, the TODAY interview proceeded in a direction that is almost never recalled nowadays, with Lauer asking, “If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?” CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it. LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation? CLINTON: Well, I think that—if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. But that is not going to be proven true. I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.” Well, she got that part right.
As has been the case repeatedly throughout her public career, Hillary was spectacularly wrong. Indeed, if we were discussing anyone but a Clinton we would write ‘embarrassingly wrong,’ but neither Clinton seems to possess the requisite gene for embarrassment. Still, unless Daddy Warbucks had “Punjab” hypnotize Bill and place him helplessly beneath the zaftig intern’s lurid spell, no conspiracy was necessary in the creation of the Lewinsky scandal—just the president’s insensate sexual impulses and Lewinsky’s lubricious naivete. And yet the image Hillary conjured lives on. And while WOOF is proud to serve in the ranks of this now-legendary cabal, we cannot help thinking that if the right wing harbors vast armies of conspirators bent on national dominance, they must surely constitute the most ineffectual assemblage of bumblers since the heyday of F-Troop, given the unprecedented speed at which the country is careening leftward—which is as much as to say downward.
Of narcissistic looney tunes…
Some have argued that Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to Lauer were so mortifying in retrospect that she herself must have been deceived by her husband’s protestations of innocence in the Lewinsky affair, but WOOF disagrees. With the press firmly in her pocket (and dutifully spiking the entire Lewinsky story until it was exposed by the Internet neophyte, Matt Drudge), and with no advanced warning about the blemished blue dress, Hillary had no reason to suppose that anything would ever be provable, leaving the Clintonistas free to malign Lewinsky, whom Hillary herself referred to as “a narcissistic looney tune”—reminding us yet again that Democrats have difficulty inventing insults that don’t smack of Freudian projection. And now we have Miss Lewinsky’s recently published memoir of the events that led to her national verbification; and we also have, new from Jonathon Allen and Amie Parnes, the book HRC—State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, which bills itself as describing how “Hillary fundamentally transformed the State Department through the force of her celebrity and her unparalleled knowledge of how power works in Washington.” Wow—and created the most consistently disastrous run of American foreign policy in the sorry history of Foggy Bottom—but oh well.
HRC also makes the familiar allegation that there exists an “enemies list” that is attentively kept and nurtured by Bill and Hillary Clinton containing the name of every individual by whom the Clintons ever deemed themselves betrayed or insufficiently supported. Because, obviously, betrayal and its kindred malefactions are the sorts of things that most egotistical politicians have a difficult time dismissing good naturedly, it is not particularly surprising that such lists might be kept. The most famous “enemies list,” (famous mainly because it continues to amplify the narrative of the worldwide socialist totalitarian conspiracy that governs us—and yes, we love saying that) is surely that of the late Richard Nixon, who students of liberal historical texts already recognize as the second most evil human being who ever lived—Joe McCarthy continuing unthreatened in first place for the 57th straight year). That the American establishment was already firmly liberal by the early ‘70s may be perceived in the fact that being named in Nixon’s enemies list was enough to make one’s reputation socially and/or professionally, witness the fact that Dan Rather gained national prominence thereby.
As Rather’s inclusion suggests, a noteworthy point about the Nixon list is that without exception it docketed adversaries from the opposing pole of the political spectrum. (Alert readers may pause here to remark that spectrums do not effectively possess poles, but that’s not important now.) Few today would recognize most of the names Nixon and his amanuensis, Chuck Colson, compiled back in the days of the Watergate Scandal; but John Conyers still rings an irritating bell, we presume, as might Daniel Shore (who found a winter home for his mendacities at NPR until his recent death) and of course the actor Paul Newman, whose dedication to aiming vilification at Richard Nixon took a toll, evidently, on the target’s nerves.
Any analysis of Nixon’s list makes one point clear, and that is that Nixon’s perceived enemies were all denizens of the political left—in other words, people whom RMN perceived as his philosophical opposition. Not so with the Clintons’ so-called hit list, which is quite the opposite. If we are to accept the word of those who claim knowledge of the matter, the list comprises fellow travelers on the political left almost exclusively…Democrats by whom the Clintons feel betrayed, and especially those by whom they feel the most betrayed, namely those who abandoned Hillary in 2008 to climb aboard the Obama bandwagon. Moreover, according to witnesses, the people listed are assigned numbers in accordance with the degree of treachery they supposedly indulged in…a kind of treason index on which the number 1 indicates a baseline of political loyalty that degenerates by degree, tumbling all the way down to level 7, which is reserved for the irredeemably treasonable. The rankings are said to correlate, at least emblematically, with the 7 circles of Hell described in Dante’s Inferno.
The “hit list” as Clinton staffers call it, began in the darkest days of Hillary’s failed bid to secure the Democratic nomination in 2008, following which she directed campaign workers at her main headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, to devote themselves full time to the arduous task of tabulating everyone whom the campaign hated, and specifying how much it hated them. If it seems wondrous that campaign workers would have no duties of a more pressing nature, consider that these workers (specifically long-time Clintonistas Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod) were formally assigned the project only after Mrs. Clinton had given up hope of gaining the nomination following her shock at being deprived of her rightful station by the upstart, the amateur, the political nobody, Obama.
Something obscene had plainly occurred in HillaryLand, beginning with the writhings and ululations of “the Obama girl,” Amber Lee Ettinger going viral on You Tube lip-syncing “I Got a Crush on Obama!” It must have been a dismal realization for the former first lady and erstwhile New York carpetbagger that nobody was out there whomping up an “I Got a Crush on Hillary” video, nor were armies of mush-brained school kids being taught to sing “Mmm, mmm, mmm, Hillary Rodham Clinton!” Nor were super market chains such as Giant rushing to stack their aisles with collectable plates and tee-shirts featuring her beaming face, nor was Pepsi changing its insignia to resemble her campaign insignia—in fact, she hadn’t even been hip enough to have a campaign insignia—not like Obama! There is a delicious irony inherent in the Clintons’ hubris leading them to discomfiture primarily because they underestimated how addlepatedly superficial are the loyalties of the emotive Left—an odd mistake for a pair whose firmest reliance for eight years was placed upon the pop-cultural sizzle of Bill the sax player, Bill the cool dude, Bill the “first Black president,” and yes, even Bill the hip philanderer. But along came the first real Black guy with a shot at the White House, and the whole parade marched off down the wrong street. Hillary was dumped faster than yesterday’s trendy computer app.
The obscenity didn’t stop there. All the elements of the infallibly sycophantic news media that had slobbered devotedly over the Clintons for eight heady years were now transfixed by a new loadstone—and in their fervor to carry the dapper young Marxist across the political finish line, they began committing what might best be described as acts of retrospective journalism. In other words, they were discovering news stories about the suddenly annoying Clintons that had previously eluded them entirely or been deemed the insignificant blatherings of right-wing conspirators like Drudge and FOX News. Some media pundits went so far as to note that the former president was a sexual predator (who knew?) while others discovered he had lied under oath and was notoriously disreputable, while still others began to suspect that both Clintons had probably been racists all along! The final proof that progressive news propagandists had abandoned the Clintons with that splenetic virulence common to sundered love affairs came when Keith Olbermann launched into a ten-minute rampage [click here for video] on his now-blessedly-defunct MSNBC program aimed at delineating every one of Mrs. Clinton’s failings as a campaigner, a politician, and a human being, all liberally sprinkled with interjections of “How dare you, Mrs. Clinton?!” and other damnatory rhetorical excesses of the sort Olbermann customarily reserved for targets to the conspicuous right of say, Ho Chi Minh.
When one expects to be guest of honor at one’s own coronation and winds up ditched on the roadside, one may understandably wax resentful—and Hillary did exactly that, in that massively irascible way that made her temper tantrums legendary amongst her camp followers (even if most of them were by then working for the Obama campaign). Beginning on a massive white board, scribbling away with erasable markers, loyalists Balderston and Elrod undertook the sisyphean task of cataloguing everyone who had crossed, double-crossed, abandoned, denied, or in some other manner offended “HRC” and determining to what extent the offenders had offended. Thus, from the ashes of Hillary’s presidential campaign grew the rudiments of the massive vengeance campaign to follow.
We know you’re probably eager to find out who got seven full points on the Clinton animosity scale, and even if you already know, you probably forgot all the names and need reminding, and besides, we’re more fun than whoever told you to begin with, so here are their names in approximate order of unforgivability, accompanied by the reasons for each listee’s tumble from grace:
John Kerry (who served nearly 3 months in Vietnam before he was against it) was a Senator from Massachusetts and a failed presidential candidate in 2008 when he rumbled in his bizarre, pseudo-stentorian stage bellow that Obama was the guy America needed to “turn a new page in American politics.” President Clinton had campaigned vigorously for Kerry in 2004 (despite recent heart surgery) and was not pleased to hear that a new page had to be turned—although why either Bill or Hillary expected loyalty from the hero of Ho Chi Minh city and author of the “Winter Soldier” deception remains a mystery.
Kerry’s buddy and political Godfather, Teddy “Splash” Kennedy, delivered the second cruelest cut to a bewildered and furious Hillary. “I feel change in the air!” bawled the masher from Massachusetts, who was in the habit of drunkenly calling Obama “Osama”but who managed to pull himself together in late January, 2008, long enough to croak out an endorsement of the young Maoist and follow up with what the Associated Press called “remarks salted with scarcely veiled criticism of Obama’s chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as her husband, the former president.” Thus did “the liberal lion of the Senate” (as our absurdist media enjoyed calling the hero of Chappaquiddick) blot his copy book in the eyes of Bill and Hill. Indeed, with his customary flair for asserting the diametrically erroneous, the Lion boozily prophesied: “With Barack Obama we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay!”
John Edwards, the Senator from North Carolina and preternaturally asinine narcissist who lost as Kerry’s running mate in 2004, represented Hillary’s main competition for the Democrat nomination until the Obama campaign caught fire in 2008. Edwards bowed out of the race in January of ’08, but took an agonizingly long 5 months to offer an endorsement. WOOF knows that in the spring of 2008, Edwards had lunch with Obama, offering him suggestions, advice, and good will. Obama, by contrast, was arrogant, aloof, and snotty (can you imagine?) leaving both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth turned off and angry. WOOF also knows that Hillary caught wind of this event and threw a lunch for the Edwardses, going out of her way to come across as sincere and solicitous. So successful was Hillary at this, that John Edwards confided his disenchantment with Obama and promised her his support. Only Elizabeth Edwards kept the promise, however. As soon as Obama’s triumph took on the trappings of inevitability, John Edwards switched his allegiances with speed he had formerly reserved for chasing ambulances and vociferously endorsed Obama, calling Hillary the embodiment of “old-school establishment politics,” thus ensuring himself a permanent spot on Hillary’s hit list, and a full score of seven!
Next we have Claire McCaskill, whose Missouri Senate seat was won in 2006 with the help of both Clintons. According to The Hill, “hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the primary.” Besides which, some of McCaskill’s run-ins with the Clintons predated the Obama era, including her remark that she wouldn’t want her daughter near Bill, which perfectly sensible observation struck the Clintons as unpardonable. McCaskill, even today, makes known the fact that she fears winding up alone in an elevator with Hillary. But lately, McCaskill has been striving mightily to remove the bull’s eye from her posterior, endorsing Hillary for the presidency with an almost unseemly alacrity, thus prompting the St. Louis Beacon to observe “the move startled some in Missouri, who recall the senator’s critical observations about the Clintons a few years ago that culminated in Hillary Clinton canceling a planned New York fundraiser for McCaskill’s Senate race.” But it needn’t startle you, gentle readers, for you now understand that McCaskill merely seeks to better provision herself for that dreaded and nearly ineluctable elevator ride. (Going down?)
So, all right, you say, all the above-named pols are manifest reprobates and detestable by any rational standard, but how did a nice guy like Bill Richardson earn himself 7 points o the Clinton scale? Well, to begin with, he endorsed Obama instead of Hillary, as you might have guessed. Okay, not really ‘to begin with,’ because to begin with he was best pals with the Clintons and received all the perquisites of pal-hood. President Bill Clinton made Richardson his U.N. Ambassador, and when Richardson wore thin at the U.N., Clinton made him his energy secretary. Bill and Hillary were vital to Richardson winning the gubernatorial race in his home state of New Mexico in 2003. Richardson, in other words, was a political creature of Clintonism—but like a better known creature of Mary Shelley’s invention, Richardson turned on his creator. Like most of the political Left, he caught a full dose of Obama-mania in 2008 and resisted all efforts by the Clintons to get him in Hillary’s corner. These efforts reached a zenith right before the New Mexico primary on Super Tuesday, but to no avail. Richardson endorsed Obama and the Clintons haven’t returned a single phone call since. During a recent book tour, Richardson said of Bill Clinton, “The feud is ongoing and probably permanent. I tried to reach out to him, but he doesn’t care about guys like me. If he wants to continue isolating me, badmouthing me, that’s fine. I’m fine.” Well—we’ll see how “fine” in a moment!
Chris Dodd may be the most reprehensible churl of the lot, and that’s saying something. The man who liked to make “waitress sandwiches” with his drinking buddy Teddy Kennedy, fought for a nuclear freeze while Reagan was busy winning the cold war and teamed up with Barney Frank to create the 2,000 page nightmare that is the Dodd/Frank Act—legislation so horrendously flawed that even most liberals now admit they hate it– stood in well, naturally enough, with Hillary; until he wandered off the reservation. Dodd’s sins, like everyone else’s on the hit list, occurred mainly during the 2008 presidential campaign. It is laughably forgettable that Dodd sought the Democrat nomination that year—nobody cared. During the race, Dodd went out of his way to paint Hillary as a joke, saying at one event in Iowa that “It isn’t enough just to be sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband deal with problems over the years,” and at another, “the idea that, for the last 10 or 15 years, because you’ve been next to events as they’ve unfolded somehow qualifies you to do this job is an exaggeration. That’s not experience. That’s just witnessing experience.” Most of Iowa could have cared less—Dodd polled around 1 percent. But Hillary cared—she cared a lot. And when Dodd’s campaign inevitably collapsed, he committed the ultimate sin: On February 8, 2008, he endorsed Barack Obama for the nation’s highest office. The Clinton’s were, of course, irate. So they put the insipid wretch on their hit list and gave him a well-deserved ranking of 7.
Jay Rockefeller (Senator, W.VA) is the great-grandson of the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and basically another noisome floret on the subversive Rockefeller family tree. Neither as smart nor (consequently) as subversively Machiavellian as David, nor as pugnaciously annoying as Nelson, Jay’s association with the subversive Council on Foreign Relations and his dedication to every aspect of the progressive agenda made him, nevertheless, a favorite of the Clintons until he began griping at Hillary about the details (though certainly not the aims) of her health plan back in the days of Hillary-care. This might have remained a minor irritant but Rockefeller took the fateful step of endorsing Obama in 2008—and crossed the Clintons one time too many.
And what of Bob Casey? Well, he’s really Bob Casey Jr., his daddy having been governor of Pennsylvania, like, forever. But daddy raised up little Bob, sent him to Scranton Prep School and then to College of Holy Cross and then to Columbus School of Law to become a lawyer, of course, and then in 2006 little Bob ran against Rick Santorum for the senate and beat him, proving that Pennsylvania has big cities in which lots of really dim-witted people congregate and, obviously, vote. And Casey beat Santorum with a considerable boost from Hillary Clinton who staged a mammoth fund raiser for him. Moreover, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Hillary donated more of her personal money to Casey’s ‘06 campaign than to any other Democrat’s, and for what? We offer the rhetorical question here because in 2008, Bob Casey’s hair caught fire for the Obster—or it would have, if he had any. He was just as giddy as everyone else to the left of, well, Rick Santorum, (and with the obvious exception of the Clintons), about the dawning epoch of transformative “hope and change.” So carried way was Bob, that he endorsed Obama’s candidacy at a crucial moment approaching the Pennsylvania primary, gushing that Obama would show America “a path of a new kind of politics.” Evidently the people of Pennsylvania disagreed because Hillary actually won the primary, but the Clintons were no less livid, and Bob Casey was awarded a treachery rating of 7.
Vermont Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy also offended during the nominative battle of 2008. At exactly the point that Hillary most desperately sought support from old allies, Leahy showed himself ever the dependable slime ball, announcing publicly that Clinton couldn’t win the nomination and should yield to Obama, adding“We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world — and actually reintroduce America to ourselves, and I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that.” A furious Hillary declared him an instant 7 and instructed Balderston and Elrod to so list him on their white board.
Representative Rob Andrews of New Jersey got caught up in the media’s sudden discovery that the Clintons might really be racists. (Remember when the media discovered the Clintons were racist? It only lasted a few weeks and apparently the Clintons got better because it stopped when Obama got nominated and it never gets mentioned nowadays.) But for a while in 2008 the “gotcha game” was suspended for Republicans and played instead against Bill and Hillary who overnight became incapable of saying anything that wasn’t a coded or overt slur against Blacks. Forgetting that he was speaking about the man whom the press had formerly dubbed “the first Black president,”Andrews dealt himself into the game and expressed pangs of “concern” over Bill’s ostensible race baiting, telling the Newark Star-Ledger that the Clinton campaign had “engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have” during the Democratic primary. “There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me,” Andrews fretted, adding, “Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign … that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing.” Holy cow, the Clinton’s were practically in the Klan—maybe they were in the Klan! And his display of feigned umbrage regarding an issue the Clintons had previously supposed themselves utterly proofed against, assured Andrews pride of place among the top ten traitors on Balderston’s and Elrod’s evolving white-board list.
Chris Van Hollen is a cookie-cutter liberal in the blue-Maryland mold—he could pass for a clone of that imprisoned state’s governor, Martin O’Malley. His sin against the Clintons? Unlike others on the list, Van Hollen’s presence is a tad mysterious. “I’m trying to figure out…as I say, it’s an unsolved mystery and maybe someone will pick up the phone and tell me,” Van Hollen told his comrades at MSNBC. So apparently he knows he’s on the list, but can’t say why. WOOF suspects he knows good and well what he did—but we don’t!
And finally, there is Baron Hill. No, the famous ruined 17th century estate near Beaumaris in Wales is not on the Clintons’ hit list…nothing nearly so magnificent or classic! The Baron Hill of immediate concern was the representative from Indiana’s 9th congressional district. He was labeled a “Blue Dog,” which the reader will recall used to describe relatively conservative Democrats. There were, however, about as many Blue Dogs left after Reid and Pelosi rammed Obamacare through congress as there were Viet Cong after the Tet Offensive. Hill’s problems with Hillary arose the moment he walked up to a microphone on April 30, 2008, and gave vent to the following idiotism: “We have to move past the partisan gridlock. I believe both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to do that and I believe both are formidable candidates. But, I also believe that only one of them truly can. … I have decided to support Senator Obama.” (Oops!)
First let’s simply look at the anecdotal evidence, most of which emanates from gushy Hillary staffers or their lesser numbers, eager to promote Hillary’s reputation as the wrong gal to mess with. In their current book, which we half-heartedly plugged earlier in this screed, Parnes and Allen write that Hillary’s aides like to exchange knowing stage whispers about the fates of folks who messed with their mistress, to wit: “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” and “‘Ted Kennedy,’ [an] aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’ ” To review the evidence for the potency of Hillary Clinton’s disapproval as a destructive force, a dispassionate recounting is necessary. So here it is:
Of the twelve stalwarts of the Left to whom Mrs. Clinton assigned the damnatory ranking of 7, most may be said to have suffered a subsequent discomfiture. John Kerry, once installed in Hillary’s former position at State proceeded to make a fool of himself not only in that quotidian manner he reliable does anyway, but also in one diplomatic debacle after another. After visiting Egypt and conversing with Mohammad Morsi, leader of the Islamic Brotherhood (which replaced the pro-American Mubarak presidency after Hillary and Obama torpedoed our longtime ally, see details here), Kerry boisterously declared Morsi’s hold on power iron-clad, posed for grinning photo ops with the smirking thug, and returned stateside to sun himself on his yacht while Morsi’s own army overthrew him and tossed im in prison.
Within the year Kerry made a further fool out of himself threatening decisive military intervention in Syria and then flip-flopping, promising that any such intervention would be “unbelievably small” whereas in fact it was non-existent. He jetted to the middle east only to be largely ignored by the Palestinians, returned home to whine about Israel becoming “an apartheid state” (which asininity he failed to obfuscate with explosions of feigned indignation—apparently at having been quoted in the first place), hastened to fix matters in the Ukraine whereupon Vladimir Putin made a fool of him and pointed out, rather incontestably, that Kerry was a liar, and paused to exchange insincerities with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai who agreed to announce deadpan that he was no longer holding secret talks with the Taliban after which Kerry left beaming and Karzai went back to holding secret talks with the Taliban. Certainly at this point Kerry has made a sufficiently high-profile buffoon of himself that the damage to him politically is well nigh irreparable. This has also advantaged Hillary insofar as her own disastrous tenure at State looks merely mediocre by comparison. So is John Kerry a victim of Hillary’s hit list? Kerry’s classic inability to perceive himself as the lantern-jawed dunderpate he is, combined with his irrational delusions of personal brilliance, connived to produce every one of his public embarrassments. There is no discernible connection between his failures and the Clintons…but as we shall make clearer below, this hardly detracts from a kind of subliminal impression, especially apparent among Leftists, that Hillary’s focused fury projects a certain assaultive energy of a nearly supernatural type.
By the same token, Teddy Kennedy died of a brain tumor, and logic dictates ruling out any connection to the Clintons. John Edwards is another story—it is a fact that Clintonistas played a large part in leaking the details of his affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter, whose resultant pregnancy was ascribed to an Edwards’s aide, but who actually bore Edwards’s love child (while Edwards’s wife, Elizabeth, was coping with terminal cancer). The Liberal Establishment Media would not, of course, report these matters, leaving them to the National Enquirer…but WOOF knows that a few calculated nudges from Bill and Hillary (long after Edwards appeared a viable presidential nominee) persuaded elements of the liberal media to acknowledge the story’s reality and suddenly it was headline news everywhere. Edwards was next charged with the crime of using one million dollars in political donations to hide his affair, but skated in court. He is no longer a politician, having returned to the practice of law in his former capacity of ambulance chaser. This one is more than plausibly a Hillary coup, because even though the Enquirer had the story on its front page for months, the Liberal Establishment Media would never have touched it without marching orders from the former First Lady’s surrogates.
And Claire McCaskill? She may still be afraid to ride an elevator with Hillary aboard, but no immediately discernible harm has befallen her as a result of her affronts to the Clintons. Her re-election campaign in 2012 looked to be in trouble for a while, and even Mother Jones, whose suspicions regarding Hillary will be discussed below, worried that the Clintons might be conspiring with such satanic personages as Carl Rove to unseat her, and perhaps they were. But it may be recalled that her opponent, Todd Akin, decided to familiarize the media with his views on “legitimate rape” and effectively euthanized himself politically. So far, McCaskill is a survivor, and her recent endorsement of Hillary’s presidential bid (before it is even announced) combined with her recently observable willingness to exalt Mrs. Clinton at every available opportunity, may conduce toward some degree of détente.
Who shot nice guy Billy?
Bill Richardson was clearly targeted for destruction by his former friends, and sources say that Bill Clinton was far angrier than Hillary in his case. Bill had the strongest relationship with the ex-governor, and handled the majority of outreach to him in ’08. Thus it was Bill who felt the sting of Richardson’s abandonment most profoundly. The result was that just as Richardson preened himself for a high-level cabinet position with his new love, Obama, the axe fell. As Politico concisely phrased it, “Over the span of just three months, Bill Richardson has gone from being on the shortlist for secretary of state to late-night punch line, a breathtaking descent that has tarnished his once-sparkling career.” (Guess who!)
Yes, Bill and Hill were in possession of all the manure on their former acolyte, and they weren’t afraid to spread it around, albeit surreptitiously via certain complicit channels in government and media. Naturally, the media showed no interest in Richardson’s misbehaviors until the Clintons pulled the trigger, but suddenly the news exploded with accounts of scandal, including two juicy “pay to play” schemes involving Richardson PACS in New Mexico. Quoth University of New Mexico professor Gabriel Sanchez, approximately on cue,“Every time you turn on the TV or open a newspaper, you see ‘Richardson’ and ‘scandal,’ The public now looks at him much differently. New Mexicans don’t like to constantly see their state being negatively identified in the media.” No kidding! Richardson’s sudden tumble shows you what America would be like if it had journalists!
Richardson is currently scratched from the political arena, and this one is a scalp for the Clintons, who knew about Richardson’s crooked financial dealings because, back when things were going harmoniously and the press was playing loyally dumb, they helped set them up…thus it was a simple matter to make the details available, and encourage the press, like a crooked sheriff, to become suddenly vigilant. To the uninformed voter, the sudden explosion of arbitrary justice and journalistic indignation seemed bizarre—especially since New Mexico’s genial Governor had been previously established by the same media as approximately the world’s nicest guy and straightest shooter. Trying to figure out who blew him out of the water was as puzzling to the average citizen as trying to figure out who shot whom at the climax of Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs—but insiders knew—and they knew it could happen to them if they crossed Hillary Clinton!
As for the contemptible Chris Dodd, the scurvy jackanapes probably never knew what hit him, he never having been the brightest beer in the toolshed. His illegal dealings with AIG and Countrywide’s infamous Angelo Mozilo were suddenly public (Guess who!) Just as suddenly his schemes to wrangle presidential pardons for his crooked pals were exposed in the newspapers. Who knew? And when Dodd spewed the standard stream of lies to defuse the situation, the press exposed them as nonsense whereas previously they had repeated them dutifully. His devious sweetheart deals with banks and loan companies while he was a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee charged with regulating the very folks now revealed as his co-conspirators was front page news. Suddenly it transpired that AIG had contributed more money to Dodd than to any other politician, and amazingly enough, the press also discovered that Dodd’s wife had pulled an enormous salary for three years (which reporters had somehow failed to notice at the time) while serving on the AIG board of directors! Dodd, of course, tumbled in the polls, and withdrew himself from the political arena, prompting the ever-disingenuous Obama to commemorate him as having “worked tirelessly to improve the lives of our children and families, support good jobs for hard-working Americans, and keep our nation strong and prosperous, building a remarkable record of achievement for the people of Connecticut and our country.” Oh, Bamster!
Obviously, Hillary was instrumental in Dodd’s collapse, not because she provoked any of his wrongdoings, but rather because she (or, more precisely, her strategically placed envoys) gave the media orders to suddenly “discover” them. The reader may wonder why, in all of the scandal mongering so abruptly targeting Dodd, his sexual escapades with his mentor Ted Kennedy with whom he enjoyed making “waitress sandwiches”[see unseemly details here, or numerous other places] never found their way into the mainstream press. The answer is further evidence of Clintonian orchestration: We really don’t want to be reminding people of sex scandals, now, do we!
Meanwhile, Jay Rockefeller’s departure from politics remains a genuine mystery—he simply announced his retirement. It is a simple matter to imagine Hillary’s minions playing a role in so odd a countermarch, but WOOF has not turned up an informant, or a single shred of evidence implicating Hillary in the West Virginian’s decision to vacate his senate seat. Your guess, gentle readers, is as good as ours!
Patrick Leahy, who is nowadays ensconced as President pro tempore of the senate, (a frightening third in succession to the presidency should calamity strike–provided one can imagine a greater calamity than the current office holder) appears to have escaped any reprisals whatsoever for his Obama endorsement in 2008. He must be ruled, as of this printing, a complete miss for Hillary’s hit list, but he looks justifiably worried, don’t you think?
Similarly, Senator Bob Casey continues to blather leftist shibboleths, although, to be fair, he prides himself on standing apart from his fellow Democrats as a pro-life Catholic, although, to be fair, he votes for abortion rights about two-thirds of the time, but you’re not supposed to notice. Anyway, no harm appears to have come his way via the curse of Hillary—and there may be a reason for this. During the Benghazi hearings, Casey was so smarmily, scriptedly effusive in his kudos for Hillary Clinton’s many achievements (which he naturally declared too numerous to mention in the time allotted except for three instances so oddly obscure as to imply rehearsal) that one could not help suspecting collusion, and one might, if sufficiently suspicious, further suspect that Casey’s hit-listing was lifted in exchange for the six-and-a-half minute game of paddy-cake he played with the outgoing Secretary (judge for yourself, gentle readers, by clicking here).
Another evident escapee from Hillary’s vengeance seems to be Chris Van Hollen, who continues to serve Maryland’s 8th district in the House of Representatives where he is the proud recipient of ratings of zero from Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), and where he continues to fight for more government and higher taxes to the apparent delight of his constituents. So far, he has experienced no ill effects resulting from his rating a 7 on Hillary’s enemies list. No score for “Her Magnificence” on this one, but hope burns eternal.
Rob Andrews, you’ll recall, was habitually “disturbed” back in 2008 by accusations that racism underlay the Clinton campaign. He spoke then with the firm confidence of a practiced traducer, having been elected by more votes than any previous congressman from New Jersey, but the people’s choice resigned last February in the face of an ethics committee investigation. We know what you’re thinking—Hillary’s leak machine took another scalp, right? But apparently not; or at least, not entirely. The original revelations implicating Andrews appeared in a book by Breitbart News’s Peter Schweizer entitled Extortion. [findable here] Still, there may be a trace of Hillary’s influence descryable in the fact that 60 Minutes pounced on the story, which is markedly uncharacteristic of that dedicatedly left-wing telecast, although WOOF has no evidence of collusion apart from the oddity of the event.
Schweizer’s revelations led to an ethics committee investigation that turned up so much dirt on Andrews he resigned his congressional seat in the middle of his 24th year in the House, leaving almost immediately in order to be gone by the time the full committee findings became public. On his way out the door Andrews paused to assure reporters that he was leaving because he and his wife wanted to pay for their children’s college educations. Nobody asked him why quitting his job would help accomplish this, and President Obama cranked up his teleprompter long enough to pronounce Andrews “an original author of the health law” who “served the people of Southern New Jersey with tenacity and skill.” So is this a kill for Hillary Clinton? Not identifiably. The credit seems to go to Schweizer, and thus by extension to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (how ironic!) although the alacrity with which 60 Minutes publicized Schweizer’s findings remains highly suspicious.
Baron Hill fell when Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the election of 2010. In fact membership in the laughable Blue Dog coalition has declined steadily since, besides which it became embarrassingly obvious that the formerly uppity Blue Dogs were nothing more than Obsequious Curs when the president’s socialist agenda was at stake—and who wants to belong to anything called that? Did clandestine meddling by the Clinton camp contribute to Hill’s political demise? It would be precipitate to dismiss the possibility.
Given all the above, what degree of seriousness should be accorded Hillary’s now nationally publicized hit list? There are various ways to score this, but objectively it must be acknowledged that of the twelve politicians relegated to Hillary’s 7th circle, seven of them are goners for all intents and purposes–five reduced by scandals, one annihilated at the polls, and one dead. That’s a 67% (n=7) kill ratio, taken at face value. And the clock may still be running on the 33% (n=4) who seem thus far untouched. Reviewed skeptically, it would be reasonable to argue that the results to date are not compelling, especially given the apparent absence of Clintonian influence in certain of the results, notably Ted Kennedy’s death from a brain tumor. But Hillary’s wrath cannot, we think, be dismissed so casually. True, so far as anyone knows for sure, the only people Hillary Clinton ever actually succeeded in getting killed are Ambassador Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and, as Mrs. Clinton herself has remarked, “What difference at this point does it make?” Speculation about the mystical potency of Hillary’s hit list remains exactly that—speculation. But as longtime readers are well aware, WOOF excels at speculation, so let us posit an exploratory thought in closing. In a political party wherein appearances are everything, might it not follow that the same would hold true for Hillary’s reputed powers of hex casting?
Here’s an even stranger consideration: It is widely acknowledged that Hillary employed a psychic medium during her White House days to guide her through lengthy conversations with dead people, notably Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt. Yes, we know this is absurd, but it is also true, at least to the extent that Hillary genuinely considered herself in contact with Mrs. R., and according to her husband, is still in contact with her! [view here, for instance.] If you have time to indulge such hobbies, you may also have noted the barrage of Internet palaver to the effect that “Hillary Clinton once participated in Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove” (she supposedly danced naked, which image is too aesthetically distressing to pursue.) And then there are the standard reports that she is everything from an Illuminati witch to (what else?) a reptilian space alien from the planet Archon! If you really want to, you can watch Hillary transforming into an interplanetary reptile [here]—but you should also watch Jenna Bush transforming here, first because it’s fair and balanced that way, and second because Jenna is so much easier to look at—gosh, she’s even a great looking reptile! It is rare that we at WOOF have the opportunity or inclination to cite Mother Jones as a source for anything worthy of consideration, but it was in fact they who broke the story that “For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group…” a fact that the authors found distressing only insofar as the group is purportedly Christian. Reporters Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet went on to reveal that the group, referred to in hushed tones as “The Fellowship,” included all sorts of high ranking military officers, religious personalities and (eek!) conservatives [click here for details].
The Daily Kos actually bothered to confirm this fact, in an apparent moment of dubiety as to just how far they could actually trust Mrs.Clinton. Okay, to paraphrase the immortal words of Thomas Magnum, we know what you’re thinking! You’re wondering if we in the WOOF cave are smoking crack all of a sudden, but no—we are not of the view that Hillary does any of the daft things imputed to her by credulous Internet sources. But WOOF knows that Hillary does in fact suppose herself to receive other-worldly guidance from Eleanor Roosevelt and other historical personages (regrettably never Washington, Adams, or Milton Friedman) and WOOF knows that “The Fellowship” aka “The Family” actually exists, although if Hillary is, as Mother Jones suggests, a crypto-right-wing Christian zealot with mystical ties of comradeship to the likes of Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), she has certainly done a world-class job of concealing their influence! No, Hillary is an unregenerate New-Left (meaning old-school) radical of the ‘60s collegial variety, a convinced socialist, a dyed in the wool secularist in deed and conviction, and a power-driving manipulator whose penchant for prevarication puts Obama to shame. But the imagery of witchcraft is an important aspect of her psychological game—the whispered suggestions of demonic affiliations and supernatural alliances are part and parcel of her intimidation of potential betrayers and challengers.
This may have little impact on the Right, except to stimulate our more excitable constituents to frantic web chatter, but the Left is suitably unnerved. Such intimations of paranormal power are simply added cause for concern among those already alert to the inadvisability of bestirring Hillary’s resentment. Laugh if you like, gentle readers, (in fact, we encourage it!) but we know whereof we speak! For the stable of prospective nominees coming into 2016, for the vast assortment of potential tell-all book authors, and for any surviving democrats who might prefer to emulate Zell Miller, or even Larry McDonald, the message is clear: Don’t mess with Mrs. Clinton! And the subliminal message is equally powerful: Don’t make yourself the target of some sort of medieval Maleficium—after all, who knows what the woman is capable of! Thus, as 2016 approaches, and especially if Hillary’s enemies list is perceived to have claimed another victim or two, the former Senator from New York will find herself in the catbird seat. She will be well positioned to stare down her would-be competitors and, as she gloats over the political carcasses stacked before her, repeat the line uttered by the Apache war chief Sierra Charriba at the beginning of Sam Peckinpah’s classic film, Major Dundee: “Who will they send against me now?”