I note David’s post [1]on the Hillary Clinton comment on the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy [2]. I note also, a good amount of traffic on the web about it.
Unlike some of the traffic that I’ve been seeing, I’m actually willing to give Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not there was any malice involved with the comment. I mean, look, I could be wrong, but the situation seemed less a genuine threat and far more a simple loose brain connection. I recognize that this is a little unusual, that I’m giving Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on much of anything, but there it is; in my assessment, the woman simply screwed up.
I think her trouble is, her reputation; She’s got far too much history for most folks to see this as anything but a threat.
What is interesting to me, is the number of Democrats who are no longer willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as regards that reputation. Where is the vehement protest, the charges of a vast right wing conspiracy smearing a woman and a Democrat, from the usual suspectsthat we got for so many years, every time the subject came up? Why is it that these usual suspects are screaming now, when we been screaming about the woman since the 
[3]90s, while dealing with their defense of her? There’s no argument, here…. The Democrats over last several years have been very defensive of Mrs. Clinton and her reputation, claiming it to be undeserved. Every time I bring up Vince Foster within the context of Mrs. Clinton, it’s a surefire bet that I’m going to get feedback from Democrats offended that I even brought up the relationship. Which is why they were able to ignore a dead Vince Foster holding a gun in his hand that wouldn’t fire, and accept that Foster committed suicide, for example.
When The Clintons were in the White House and for years afterward, theirs was a reputation the Democrats would seldom acknowledge, much less base a response on. With this incident, they seem to be arguing that they’ve known all along the woman’s had a reputation, and is clearly dangerous.
So the question becomes, at that point; Why do they now take for granted a reputation that they defended against less than a year… hell, as short a time as three months… ago?
The answer to these questions seems fairly simple; The Democrats saw judging Mrs Clinton on her reputation as a threat to Democrat Party power, back in the 90’s, and these days they see Mrs Clinton’s reputation as a threat to Democrat party power. They’re willing to acknowledge, now, the reputation they so loudly denied back in the day.
I am forced to conclude that these Democrats knew full well what Mrs. Clinton and her politics represented all through the 90s. They also suspected Mrs. Clinton and her involvement in the deaths of so many people as we pointed out, all through the 90s. It wasn’t that they didn’t believe the rest of us when we told them. They knew we were right. They knew the Clintons were dangerous. Yet, they defended her. Why? Because they held the Democrat party power to be of greater value than the lives that got lost. In the end, that’s the only explanation for their difference in attitude between then and now. It’s clear to my mind that the source of corruption is not the Clintons, but the Democrats themselves, who hold party power above all else.
And I’ve gotta tell ya… John McCain, warts and all, is looking better all the time.