Does Hillary Clinton want to hurt Barack Obama's chances to win the general elections?
Totally ganked from Nezua's blogNew York Newsday published an interesting article about Hillary Clinton this past weekend. In An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis Glenn Thrush points to what seems to be the Senator "formative" experience as a defense lawyer or, as she likes to describe herself, a fighter.
In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."
However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.
Yes. Hillary Clinton's first experience as a defense attorney was to represent a 41 year-old man who was accused of raping a 12-year old girl with the aid of her 15 year-old boyfriend. The way she went about winning a reduced sentence for her client was to question not only the reliability of the victim's testimony. Nope. The article suggests she may have even fabricated allegations against the 12 year-old victim (that she wanted to have sex with older men) in order to do shatter the victim's credibility.
This article is important for one reason. After a whole weekend in which the Senator went on a tirade questioning the credibility of Barack Obama it is clear now that the Senator is hell bent in doing exactly what the did 30 years ago to the 12 year-old rape victim : To destroy the credibility of Obama at all cost, especially before tonight's debate.
The New York Times claims is part of a 5 point strategy that has been laid out to kill Obama's momentum :
1. This past weekend she went on an angry yet media seeking "Shame on you" tirade against Obama for flyers that appeared in Ohio highlighting her support for NAFTA and the economic flaws of her health care plan.
2. She then proceeded to mock and ridicule Obama's theme of "Change" as something that would only appeal to delusional people.
3. She incredibly goes on to compare Obama with Bush.
4. Then there was the infamous non-denial from the campaign about their involvement with a photograph of Barack Obama in traditional Somali garb used to fan the fires of his crypto-islamism.
5. All this to 'hammer in' that Hillary is the most experience, most reliable, most electable.
In order words, to win, discredit the black guy's electability. Some say even if it damages his chances to win in November.
After all, if Obama doesn't win in November, Billary has a chance in 2012 after 4 years of their friend John McCain being in office. On the other hand, if Obama does win 2016 if not 2020 would be their next shot for the presidency.
Yet at what cost? Republicans know exactly the cost of this Clinton war :
It is pretty depressing to see the degree to which the Clinton and Obama factions compete with one another to see who can trash NAFTA the most. But never mind that for now. What is important is that the Democrats' internecine warfare is continuing apace and that there will likely not be a withdrawal from the campaign by the Clinton people unless Ohio and Texas turn out to be disasters for her. And even if they do turn out that way, those who saw a TV clip of Hillary Clinton heatedly denouncing Barack Obama might be forgiven for thinking that she might stay in no matter what to sabotage and undermine a candidate she plainly has contempt for and believes to be beneath her.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Politics | Racism | Sabotage | White Woman Privilege | 2008 Presidential Elections | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Primaries
Ah ... the nasty business of lawyers ...
Submitted by liza on 28 February 2008 - 8:43am.
What was interesting about the Newsday article is that, if you go back to that case and move forward through her history, you can find a pattern of no holds bar, scorch earth "litigating" (and I mean that in the "I am a fighter" sense, not literally).
Yet, given the victim's reaction 30+ years later, I have a hard time believing that Hillary didn't have a choice in the matter. The victim was basically a baby and she chose to destroy that child's life for the sake of a lawyerly win.
To me, that speaks volumes as to the character of the woman.
I'm tempted to give Hillary
I'm tempted to give Hillary a pass on the rape case, if only because she was doing her job. It's fucked up, but whether you're a defense lawyer or a prosecutor, being a lawyer is nasty, nasty business. In Hillary's case, she was acting as a court appointed attorney, and being a public defender is a thankless but really important job.
I suppose though, that she just could have refused the case. She knew before she took it that doing so would mean she'd have to question the credibility of a 12-year old rape victim, so I guess in some sense she made the decision to insert herself into that nasty business.