Considering how Hillary Clinton’s female supporters felt about how their gal was treated by the Obama campaign during the ’08 primaries, it is puzzling to say the least why, of late, the Clintons are pimping for Obama.
First, it was Bill Clinton, who allowed himself to be Obama’s fall guy by taking the blame for the Sestak bribery scandal, at a time when Republicans were clamoring for a special prosecutor to look into the matter. If Obama were found to have offered the bribe to Sestak in exchange for the latter dropping out of the Democratic primary in Pennslyvania, it would be grounds for impeachment.
As John Gerstein and Carol Lee of Politico report:
At the urging of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, former President Bill Clinton spoke to Rep. Joe Sestak about an unpaid position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, the White House confirmed Friday.
A source close to the White House review said Obama aides discussed offering Sestak a position on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, but that was quickly ruled out because a sitting member of Congress cannot hold such a post. However, the source said the offer may have been conveyed to Sestak as an intelligence or defense advisory post similar to that board.
Sestak on Friday confirmed that Clinton had approached him to see if he would take a position, stay in the House of Representatives and sit out the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who had President Barack Obama’s backing. Sestak declined, and beat Specter in the primary last week.
“During the conversation [Clinton] talked about how tough this Democratic primary might be if I got in,” Sestak explained to television cameras and reporters on the steps in front of the House chamber Friday. “And he also said you’ve done well in the House and your military background can really make a mark there. And then brought up that, during a conversation, Rahm Emanuel had brought up about a presidential board or something if I were to stay in the House. And I almost interrupted the president and said ‘Mr. President, I am going to decide to get in this or not only depending upon what’s good for Pennsylvania’s working families, not an offer.’ And he said, ‘I knew you’d say that.’”
The White House confirmed the offer in a two-page memo from White House counsel Bob Bauer, who asserted that the discussions were “fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”
The statements from the White House and Sestak, issued on the Friday before the Memorial Day weekend, seemed designed to cap a week in which questions over the reported Sestak job offer caught fire. Several prominent Democrats called on Sestak and the White House to explain in detail what happened, even as Republicans stepped up their calls for a special prosecutor.
While the accounts from Sestak and the White House were broadly consistent, an earlier prepared statement from Sestak referred to only a single entreaty. The White House version referred to efforts that spanned two months and apparently included at least two possible positions.
Sestak first discussed the job offer publicly in February, without mentioning Clinton’s involvement. The White House’s inquiry into the matter began at around the time and concluded a short time later, a source familiar with the matter said. Officials decided not to release the results at the time because it might disrupt the primary and concluded this week that it would be best to try to put the issue to rest, the source said.
Then, Hillary jumped in to shill for Obama’s “spread the wealth” Marxist agenda.
Last Thursday, May 27, 2010, Hillary told an audience at the Brookings Institution, where she was discussing the Obama Administration’s new national security strategy, that “the rich” in America are not paying “their fair share.” Like every Machiavellian agitator who trafficks in vagueness of language, Hillary defined neither “the rich” nor “fair share”; nor is it at all clear what taxes have to do with U.S. national security strategy.
As reported by Ben Smith of Politico, Hillary Clinton said:
“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms. I’m not speaking for the administration, so I’ll preface that with a very clear caveat.”
Hillary then cited Brazil — a country with one of the world’s highest Gini coefficients — as a role model for America:
“Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they’re growing like crazy,” Clinton said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”
The Gini coefficient, named after Italian statistican Corrado Gini, is a measure of inequality of income or wealth. Brazil’s Gini was 49.3 in 2009; the United States’ was 46.6 in 2008. The graph below vividly shows the disparity between Brazil and the U.S.:
Way to go, Bill and Hillary! When it comes down to it, Demonrats are all the same, covering for each other’s ass.