Clark Candidacy All About the Clintons
September 29, 2003
One thing here before we move on to other things. We were talking here in the break at the top of the hour about - who was the last call from Chicago? What was her name? Yeah, Tracy from Chicago. It is an interesting thing to ponder. If you look at the history of Bill Clinton, people who have been in his orb, who are still alive, if they say one thing about this guy that's negative, he washes his hands of them. Look at Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos used to be just as tight as anybody can be with the Clinton organization, but he's gone, and there's hardly any friendship. Old friend Lani Guinier, they hung her out to dry when she was nominated for that civil rights post at the justice department. And then there are countless examples of people.
If you look at Clark, Clark has done things that, given the behavior of others, would relegate him to ignored, cast-out status. In the first place, Clinton had to fire Clark from NATO because he was too big a publicity hound. At least that's the story. There's probably something more substantive than that that was behind Clinton actually dismissing Clark from NATO. And here's Clark who was running around praising all these Republicans, including the current Bush, including the current Bush's administration. And here's Clark out ripping the Clinton foreign policy, and yet it is the Clinton machine that has anointed Clark and has pushed him into this race and has gotten him his so-called lead, although he's not the front-runner. This is another thing we talked about Friday. He's being reported as the front-runner by the press but he's not front-running in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina. In neither of those states is Wesley Clark the front-runner. Howard Dean is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think in South Carolina, too. And yet Clark's called the front-runner. So we're trying to figure out how has this guy stayed in the Clinton orb when people who have done far less than Clark have been thrown out, who have been discarded, who have been cast aside. Clark is still there, apparently under the good auspices of the Chappaqua machine.
Now, there's one thing we know about Clinton, folks, and if you haven't learned it yet, learn it now, learn it, love it, and live it, and that is that there is not one thing that Bill and Hillary, Bill or Hillary, there's not one thing they do that isn't first and last about them. This Clark candidacy is not about Clark. This Clark candidacy is about the Clintons. Now, figuring out how, that's why I say, if he's there serving a purpose for the Clintons, what is it? Well, it's not hard to figure out. We know what the Clintons want. They want a run at the White House without an incumbent Republican in the office. That bodes 2008. Bush cannot run again in 2008. Bush is going to run in 2004. They're not going to mess with trying to beat an incumbent president this time around it appears, anyway. But they certainly don't want anybody else in the Democratic side actually beating Bush. That ruins every plan they've got. And who did it look like was getting some momentum? Old Nikita Dean was, and a lot of it. And not just with the press, but with real extremist kook Democrat primary voters.
Now, all of the sudden, here comes, what is it, day 12 now of the Wesley Clark campaign, and all of the sudden he's the front-runner and the press is going gaga, and it appears that the Dean juggernaut has been slowed. At least that's the impression the press wants to create, that the Dean momentum has been slowed. We know that, therefore, Clark is there first and foremost to slow down anybody else from winning this thing. Now, do the Clintons really want this guy to win? Do the Clintons really want Wesley Clark to end up not only getting the nomination, but beating Bush in 2004? No! Now, it's been advanced, the theory has been advanced, "Yes, he does, Rush. So Hillary can be on the ticket as a veep." Why? You don't understand the Clintons like I do if you think the vice presidency is attractive. They think they can have that anytime they want it. The vice presidency is no different than trash collector, folks, as far as they're concerned, and make no mistake about that.
Look at this the other way around. Why do the Democrats continue to put up with Clinton, when if any of them would just take the time to do an honest assessment of what Clinton's triumphal presence has meant for the Democrat Party since 1993, they'd throw him out. They'd get rid of him, if they did an honest assessment. This once-dominant party used to own it all. They don't now, and the only thing different is the arrival on the scene of Bill Clinton. They hold onto him for two reasons. They think he's a brilliant politician because he ran rings around Newt, and because he's an auspicious fund-raiser, you know, money being the mother's milk of politics, they're afraid to get rid of him on that basis. Plus they're under the illusion that the vast majority of the population still swoons over Clinton, still loves him, but that's just Democrats. It's not the country at large. Clinton is more popular with socialist populations in Europe than he is in this country. I mean, most of Clinton's paid speeches are not even in this country now, folks, if you've ever stopped to take note.
So it is curious, but it really isn't. I mean when you stop and analyze, everything's about him, everything they do is about them, so this Clark candidacy is not about Clark. The question is, does Clark know it? I mean, he is a sock puppet, but does he know it? And you might say, "But, Rush, he's a smart man, whatever you think of his politics, Rush, you've got to say he’s smart." I know that's the assumption you would make, four-star general, Rhodes scholar and all that, but still, you know there are some things I guess some people are oblivious to. And the Clintons, given the aura that they possess, if they have become your sponsors, it might be easy to overlook what the reality is, because there are some who would crave to be on the Clinton team. Everybody wants to be on the winning team, and the Democrats have a distorted version and view of what winning and the winning team is. So, I don't know. When you get down to the bottom of this, I just can't see Wesley Clark as being somebody the Clintons actually want to win. I know he's not, because the last thing they wanted is for anybody to win in 2004, on the Democratic side. |
