• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I have been saying for months that I do not think Hillary R. Clinton will in fact enter the U.S. Senate race in New York. I still think that. When the deadline for filing papers arrives, Hillary will be a no-show. This alleged Senate race and the over-covered “Listening/Carpetbagger Tour” is (in my opinion) a sham.

I had been reluctant to tell WorldNetDaily readers what I have been telling my radio audience, until someone reminded me of my box score. I was one of the first talking about the implausible anomalies surrounding Vince Foster. I was one of the first to expose Senator Diane Feinstein’s duplicity in the Desert Wilderness Protection Act. I was ahead of the curve on Filegate, Zippergate, and Chinagate. Matt Drudge was the only one to beat me on Monica. My column on the odd death of James McDougal sparked others to follow up. Last year, I introduced WND readers to Y2K and Echelon’s spy network (both of which have turned into boutique industries).

So scoff if you will, but it seems I have been right a lot more than I have been wrong … so far. Consider the following:

  1. Having now established her “exploratory committee,” Hillary can legally (not that has bothered her in the past) raise campaign money.

  2. However, she is legally permitted to bank that money for “any political” purpose. She does not have to spend the money on a N.Y. Senate race, and she does not have to share the money with whoever ends up being the “real” Democrat to battle Rudy Giuliani.

  3. My W.A.G. is this: that subsequent to raising millions of dollars (it’s easier to do as the wife of a sitting president than whatever the fates hold for the odd couple in the new millennium), Madam C will bow to the will of her political advisors and “prepare” for a subsequent U.S. Senate race in Illinois (where she might actually win).

  4. During the window of time between her eventually acknowledging the reality check of New York, and her “real” objective in Illinois, expect HRC to be appointed to some officious sounding United Nothing Task Force. That will permit her the luxury of maintaining a steady flow of photo ops, and continue to remain active in “public service” using OPM (other people’s money).

  5. Of course, as Dennis Miller says, “That’s just opinion … I could be wrong” — but I don’t think so.

There is a very real anti-Hillary movement erupting nationally. So what? This is a regional race in New York State. Well, kinda. Defenders of deep-pocket campaign contributors have long held that giving money is a First Amendment right. Even courts agree. Critics of those rulings can now realize some payback — and yes, it is a Hillary.

If there was not a “vast right wing conspiracy” prior to Hillary’s harping rant, she may have single-handedly been the catalyst to create the fictional bogeyman she so reviled.

The New York Times recently noted, ” … her expected bid for public office has inspired fierce opposition and a flow of checks from conservatives in far-flung places like Alabama and New Hampshire.” They could have also added San Francisco.

Last week I was listening to my radio colleagues on KSFO in San Francisco, Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan. A caller posed some questions about New York State residency laws. He asked, “If you only have to be a resident of the state for one day before the election to be a U.S. senator, what are the voter residency requirements?” You could hear light bulbs going off from Monterey to Tahoe — the combined intake of air virtually cleared all the fog off the Golden Gate Bridge. “Hey, what if we got a few hundred thousand KSFO listeners to all register to vote in New York? We could use one address, and maybe qualify for state funded assistance. … ” From that point on the conversation vacillated between brilliant and silly. Was that exchange just a snippet of spontaneous talk radio, or a spark on a gasoline soaked rag?

This crusade is decidedly “anti-Hillary” and not necessarily “pro-Rudy.” In fact, Craig Shirley has helped organize “Conservatives for Effective Leadership.” It is a Political Action Committee with a goal of raising $10 million to pay for ads against Hillary in New York next year. Shirley says, “It’s less motivated by the Republican we want to win; it’s motivated by preventing her to be elected to the United States Senate.

The chairman of the Alabama GOP, Winton Blount III, asked 10,000 donors for donations of $50 or $100, saying, “It’s going to take more than a village to defeat Hillary Clinton.” However, in the wake of all the “pillory Hillary” posturing and fund raising, the more significant impediments to her really taking on ‘this’ race are real and serious:

  1. Hillary, if she ran, would be compelled to answer questions she has spent a decade avoiding.

    • Of course she will not be under oath and can lie.

    • She can “try” to blame the VRWC for the questions and refuse to respond. However, that gambit might work in the beltway, but it ain’t gonna play in Flatbush, Brooklyn, or the Bronx.

  2. The mainstream media have conspired with the Clintons (recall 60-minutes honcho Don Hewitt masterful editing finesse in ’92). The mainstream media has taken it easy on Hillary for a variety of weak reasons, which tend to personify sophistry:

    • To protect the “dignity” of the first lady.

    • Pity, because of the egregious and insulting behavior of her rogue husband.

    • The fiction that she is the smartest lawyer in the country, despite her penchant for doing and saying remarkably stupid things.

  3. Ken Starr may have cut a deal with the devil, tucked tail and run, but others remain to peel scabs off the woman who would be king:

    • Larry Klayman, at Judicial Watch, is not going sweetly into the night. Several of Judical Watch’s lawsuits involve Hillary, and unlike the New York press, Larry will get to ask his questions with Lady Macbeth under oath.

    • New York talk radio and those diffident denizens of the airways like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bob Grant, Don Imus; and now they have Matt Drudge and the master of subtle understatement, Howard Stern …

    • Rudy Giuliani and/or his campaign attack dogs “may” just require HRC to address a long list of explosive issues:

      • Arrogance
      • Hypocrisy
      • Abuse of power under color of authority
      • Denial Co-dependence
      • Cattle futures
      • Selective memory loss
      • “And by the way how DID those billing records turn up?”
      • Castle Grande
      • Vince Foster
      • Sexuality
      • Public/private schooling
      • Fidelity National
      • health care task force secrecy
      • Convenience
      • Arrogance
      • Hypocrisy
      • Abuse of power under the color of authority.

Yeah, I know I used those last three twice. You got a problem with that?
Send your complaints to my New York address.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.