Friday, February 26, 2016

When Hillary Clinton Called Obama a Liar For Calling Himself a Law Professor.

A lot of people have called Hillary Clinton two faced, dishonest, untrustworthy and thinks that like Obama she will say anything to anyone at anytime to get the political backing she needs  to get what she wants or to avoid telling any truth that will hurt her politically.

Her entire campaign so far as been a Magical Obama Tour praising Obama and his largely failed policies in return for Obama and the Obama controlled DNC trying to do everything they can to rig the nomination for her. Like padding her delegatetotals with   superdelegate  "declarations" that have no official standing or value except as a show piece.

And she has been showing it in South Carolina pandering for African American votes in a state where the African American population is double the national average and a state that, with all the political establishment supporting her, would end her candidacy if she lost. And would put it on life support if she won only by single digits.

It has been Clinton's mission to show fealty to the first black president in return for Obama's influence in rounding up the African American vote in the south. 

A few weeks ago at the end of January  Hillary Clinton made a bit of news when she  said in answer to a question at a rally that she'd consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court saying that she thought it was a great idea and that he'd be great because "he was a law professor. He has all the credentials".

Except that's not what she said back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Back then, Clinton essentially called Obama a liar for claiming to be a constitutional law professor and any claim at being a law professor was false.

This is what the Clinton campaign said on March 27, 2008:

"Senator Obama has often referred to himself as a Constitutional Law professor out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between  a professor who has tenure and an instructor who does not you'll find that there is --you'll get quite an emotional response."

Then in August of 2008 Hillary Clinton released a campaign statement that referred to a column written by Lynn Sweet of the  Chicago Sun-Times who also wrote that Obama's claim of being a constitutional law professor was false. This is the quote from Sweet's piece the Clinton campaign released.

"Several direct mail pieces issued by Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer on leave at the school. There is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter".

Clinton's talk of nominating Obama to the Supreme Court and justifying it with how "great" he'd be by saying " he is a law professor.He has all the credentials"  when she called him a liar for making that same claim and questioned his credentials might lead some African Americans, as well as everyone else, to question Clinton's honesty.

If nothing else it proves that Clinton is willing to be dishonesty, the kind of two faced politician that people have accused her of being in the past.

 In contrast to Sanders whose credibility she is always trying to question without success, Clinton is showing why she has a hard time being believed.  Which just re-enforces what the majority of people have said they think in the first place,  that she can't be trusted. Clinton herself said she knows she "has work to do" on the trust issue. This doesnt do her any good.

It's also an insult to the intelligence of African Americans since given her attacks on Obama and his law credentials in 2008, it sounds like a bribe for votes. 

Parenthetically it also makes the release of  all of the transcripts of her speeches even more essential --as the New York Times  editorial  demanded and as Carl Bernstein said she must,  to see what she really said in those speeches to Wall Street and the health insurance industry, not what she claims publicly. She is the one who has to prove there is nothing damaging there.  No one is going to take her word for it. 

Clinton is also having problems now with the Black Lives Matter group, two of whom paid $500 to get into a private Clinton fundraiser the other night to confront her with a speech she made in 1996 referring to African American male criminals as " super predators who need to be made to heel".

Like it or not, criminals or not, violent or not and no one is defending violent criminals, "being made to heel" is a term used in  relation to training dogs. And has never been used with regards to violent white killers. Even serial killers. 

This, from Hillary Clinton who has tried to turn African Americans against Sanders by her and her robotic surrogatges accusing Sanders of not being "loyal" to Obama (as if anyone ought to be considering Obamas repeated sell outs to big business and Republicans) and surrogates who  made fools of themselves trying to claim that Sanders was "late" to the civil rights cause.

At the fundraiser Clinton can be heard telling the black activists, "if you would stop talking you'd see I'd be coming over to your side". No doubt she would. 

Which is why  it's essential that Clinton release the transcripts of her speeches so that people can see for themselves exactly what she told those Wall Street bankers behind closed doors for the $21 million she was paid for those speeches and who else Clinton might think needs to be made to heel.

For  Hillary Clinton, when she wants African American votes, Obama is a law professor who has all the credentials to be a Supreme Court justice. When she was running against him in 2008  Obama was a liar for claiming to be a constitutional law professor or any other kind of law professor. 

No wonder she refuses to release the  transcripts of all those speeches unless "Republicans also  agree to do it" as if the Republican process for nominating their candidate is any of her business or is any concern to Democrats choosing a nominee. It shows how disengenuous she can be.

It's enough to make someone want to open a window. Sanders is trying to and the Democrats need it even if Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz keep trying to close it.

If this is the kind of judgment, honesty and integrity Clinton would bring to the presidency and Supreme Court nominations which is clear the next president will select, the best response to Clinton talking about Obama and his credentials depending on what suits her at the moment and more political  hypocrisy  and stonewalling would be, give 'em hell Bernie. And hope he does. 

No comments: