Friday, April 25, 2008

WSJ: The Democrats have a new magician. It's Obama.

Daniel Henninger at The Wall Street Journal pronounces the end of the Clinton campaign with this:

For modern Democrats, winning the White House always requires some sort of magic to get near 50%. For the Clintons, that bag is empty. The Democrats have a new magician. It's Obama.

He noted that:

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma. [...]

The 2008 nomination was hers. There was no competition. She was a lock to run for the roses against the Republican nominee. Republicans must have had this conversation a hundred times back then: "It's Hillary. She's got it. Get over it."

Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see?

The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing.

But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.

Yes, that's been noted elsewhere. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal, Hillary's difficulty with Norman Hsu, the reliance on the Tan family, Bill's 60th birthday gala which has been noted before, her list of donors with legal difficulties and dubious backgrounds.

Amazing that the mainstream hasn't gotten around to doing their "vetting" on that point until now. Just waking up to the idea that Hillary really isn't fully vetted yet? Well, it seems the Wall Street Journal has finally gotten there.

UPDATE: I didn't even mention the story about Bill Clinton, Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan or Bill's involvement with Ron Burkle and Dubai World or his involvement in Acoona or Senator Clinton's involvement in the 2000 Hollywood fundraising bash. That fundraising effort resulted in Andrew Grossman admitting wrongdoing and a private settlement with the FEC (for more info, enter case # 5225 at this FEC  link) and a civil lawsuit which is proceeding in California* in which she will have to testify, most likely shortly before the November election.  According to that article, the trial date is supposed to be set in a hearing today in California.

There's more background in this youtube clip from ABC's 20/20 program and if you don't think this will come out in the general election mudslinging fest, you're sadly mistaken. The wingnut sites that I unfortunately viewed in the process of researching that particular story make it extremely clear that they can't wait for her to be the nominee.  They feel they have so much dirt to unload on her.


* I apologize for linking to WorldNetDaily but evidently no other media organization is following the various hearings and motions in this civil suit.


Post a Comment

<< Home