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:
“……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?
Filed under: Political prevarication