Wapo puts out a piece saying Hillary Clinton should relish the battle for the 2008 elections. I would have to disagree.
Hillary Rodham Clinton faces a maddening challenge. Many of the people who like and admire her, who believe she has good values and would make an excellent president, are not sure they are for her because they don't think she can win.
Many of these same people, as one prominent Democrat told me, actually feel guilty that they harbor these doubts, partly because the specter that haunts Clinton has little to do with anything she has said or done herself.
That is a dangerous line of thinking. Much scandal is associated with Hillary and what she has done and said herself.
In preparation for her unchallenged role as America’s Scandal Queen, Hillary navigated the shoals of Arkansas politics for 12 years as the then-governor's wife – years that included scandals of her own, among them:
• The Castle Grande real estate scam.
• Her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the endlessly controversial-cum-criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House.
That doesn't even include the scandals that she was involved in via Bill.
Then we have Hillary when testifying before congress Hillary Clinton claimed she either didn't know, didn't remember or something similar a total of 250 times.
Now that did have to do with her husband BUT:
(Keeping in mind that Hillary – in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement – told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.)
Hillary has baggage, that is a fact and whether she can overcome said baggage is a debate for another time.
Now, Sister Toldjah points out that Barack Obama has baggage of his own via the New York Post.
We truly need candidates running for presidential elections that do not have "questionable" deals and potential scandals waiting right around the corner. What we need, on either side of the ailse is an "honest" candidate. Now, I know many people think that by simple virtue of being a politician, that negates being honest, but I do not agree with that. There has to be a candidate that does not have questionable deals or intentions. There has to be an honest person in the bunch. Doesn't there?
Others discussing this:
Townhall.
Althouse.
Hot Air.
Protein Wisdom.
Right Wing Guy.
