Conflict Of Truth

One of the greatest failings of any politician is an inability to tell the truth. The usual reason politicians lie, apart from egotism, is to cover up a conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest abound in political circles today because lobbyists and corporate sponsors bombard politicians with pressures, usually in the form of expensive perks, to run with their pet ideas and money-making schemes.

Hillary Clinton, one of the two Democrats running for their party’s presidential nomination, recently suffered just such a conflict of interest. Yesterday, her chief strategist Mark Penn, resigned. Penn admitted to meeting with Columbian officials to promote a free trade deal with that nation supported by George W Bush and the Republican party. Clinton has always maintained she is against the deal. If she’d said she were not, there is no way she would gain the support of unions, vital to any chance of her winning the nomination.

The question to arise from this debacle is whether there is any way Hillary Clinton could have been unaware of Penn’s conflicting interests?

The answer has to be a resounding, “No.”

Penn was her chief campaign strategist. There is no way his involvement could be kept from her. She not only must have known, but also approved of it.

Last Friday, Bruce Rainer, president of one of America’s biggest unions, “Unite!” said in a press release:[1]

“……that Clinton’s chief strategist would be working hand in hand with the government of Columbia and the Bush Administration while candidate Clinton says she opposes the agreement is truly incredible, even by today’s crazy standards.”

Is it not time Clinton supporters began querying this long trail of inconsistencies that have stalked her campaign over the months; the egotistical lies she has spread to inflate her own abilities and importance?

Or are they so intent on securing a woman’s ascent to the Oval Office that they’ve become blind to her obvious inadequacies?

[1] “Statement of UNITE HERE General President Bruce Raynor”, April 4th, 2008.

Filed under:

6 Replies to “Conflict Of Truth”

  1. Or are they so intent on securing a woman’s ascent to the Oval Office that they’ve become blind to her obvious inadequacies?

    Think you just answered your own question. Sadly I fianlly had to remove someone from my blogroll today, the shrillness finally went too far when they ripped off an entire post of mine wholesale, did not even bother to credit the original source and basically went on a nonsensical rant holding Obama personally responsible for the behavior of every one of his supporters. Gee, I’d hate to see what would happen if Clinton was held to the same standard.

  2. Come on RJ!!!

    None of the candidates is any better than the others….they are all guilty in some way. They all have the support and financial assistance of lobbyists – any who say they don’t are lying. Simple as that.

    I could construct an argument similar to the one you use against HRC against B. Obama, and it would be equally valid. We all wear blinkers – we have to otherwise we’d be left with nothing to hope for in this dirty game, with just the two Democratic candidates allocated to us by MSM from which to choose.

    NYM – there is nothing to match up to the shrillness and venom of Obama supporters. I have been at the sharp end of it too many times. I have withdrawn from Huffington Post and Common Dreams because of it, I will not click onto Daily Kos – it’s a cess-pit. I find Clinton’s supporters retaliate – why wouldn’t they? But Obama’s lot started it. I would have much more respect for him if he attempted to rein ’em in.

  3. On a lighter note

    Senator Clinton was taking Dalai Lama to see the Statue of Liberty.
    During the boat ride the Tibetan leader’s shawl is caught by a breeze and blows away.
    The security detail goes into panic mode – scrambling about in disarray since the shawl has great religious significance.

    Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calmly bows to the Dalai Lama,
    climbs down the ferry’s side,
    walks on water and retrieves the shawl.

    Every one cheers, including the Dalai Lama .

    The headlines the next day across the country scream:

    Hillary Can’t Swim!

  4. NYM & Twilight – I don’t believe ‘supporters’ are the responsibility of the candidates. Rent-a mob can be found anywhere they have a platform for their vociferous violence and hatred. Nothing seems to arouse such strong passions in this country as a presidential election, unless perhaps it’s baseball.

    On Sparrow Chat I’ve always held to the notion that any argument can be offered, however opposing it may be to the post, provided the discussion is not marred by personal insults. Everyone’s views, however bizarre, are accepted here. However, over the years I have found it necessary, like NYM, to blackball two individuals who became personally abusive. Such behavior is unacceptable, and for me at least, distressing. Thankfully I never have to worry about such matters with my regular contributers. 😉

    My appraisal of Hillary Clinton is based on a) what comes from her own mouth, and b) negative events that have dogged her campaign, like this latest fiasco over Mark Penn.

    Obama’s campaign has, to my knowledge, only revealed two negatives: 1) his association with Tony Rezco, and 2) his association with Jeremiah Wright.

    As regards the first, Rezco has been involved with so many politicians it would have been surprising if Obama had not had dealings with the man, particularly as they both came from the Chicago area. The Clinton’s certainly did, as did George W Bush.

    My own personal opinion of Jeremiah Wright is that he is a typical, hellfire & damnation, black preacher, who should learn to say what he believes with a little more delicacy and regard for his fellow human beings, be they black or white. Unfortunately, his sort never do. Americans were upset by his words because they struck a chord of truth this nation would rather not face. Obama hinted at it during the speech he gave, answering those who criticized his association with Wright.

    In my opinion, Obama has run a better and more honest campaign than Clinton. I don’t believe, as Twilight suggests, that an argument against Obama, similar to that used against Clinton in my article, could be constructed. Strip away the myths and innuendo generated around Obama and you are left with very little to criticize. Clinton, by contrast, has been her own worst enemy. Neither do I accept the suggestion that media coverage of the Clinton campaign has been unfairly biased. Obama has given the press little to use against him; Clinton has provided them a field day.

    In conclusion, we all have differing views on who would be best at the job out for tender. Apart from a wish for the world to have a better leader than its last great failure, I hold no allegiance to party or person. I won’t be voting. It’s not my country – but it is my planet. I want the next US president to make a stab at repairing the damage done to the planet and its people over, not the last eight years, but the last half century of American empire building, with all its associated strife and suffering caused to so many in this world. I know John McCain, with his warlike stance, won’t achieve that. I know Hillary Clinton won’t achieve it. After all, her husband who has so ardently campaigned on her behalf, failed miserably.

    Perhaps Barack Obama won’t achieve it either, but I happen to think he’ll make a good attempt.

  5. Penn’s website originally bragged about his union-busting abilities and is Blackwater’s counsel, but Clinton still chose him. In Washington, the only thing that counts is success and I doubt there were any moral considerations and the dump was a ruse. Clinton is floundering so she is looking for a new captain.

    The two party system is in the toilet. It can flush to the right or it can flush to the left. The only hope is third parties and you know how miniscule that chance is.

Comments are closed.