Clinton under fire

I am amused but saddened by the increasingly negative democratic party infighting. Barack Obama has without doubt suffered a severe set back with the revelation of his association with the Reverend Wright.

Now it has emerged (note my careful use of the passive tense - who was, I wonder, responsible?) that Hillary Clinton was dishonest, cheaply dishonest, about being “under fire” when she visited a war zone. She was not in an real danger at all. This was a publicity seeking holiday jolly upon which she took her daughter.

Who paid for Chelsea’s airfare, I wonder?

Obama has “hit back” by disclosing his tax returns for the last six years, and has challenged Hillary to do the same. Is that going negative, or is it a reasonable request? Negative or not, it’s a brilliant political ploy, and Hillary is wriggling on the hook.

But, consider this. Let the yardstick be honesty. Obama has been associated with a militant black church leader. Whatever you may think of the “A more perfect union speech” you cannot accuse of Obama of trying to lie his way out of it. On the contrary. He addressed the problem head on.

Hillary, on the other hand, “mis-spoke”. A charming neologism for an outright, cynical, headline grabbing lie.

Obama is in trouble for telling the truth. Clinton is in trouble for telling lies.

A handful of British MPs are now fighting in the courts to stop public revelations as to how they, ...er, “mis-spent” their Parliamentary allowances on new kitchens. Now Hillary is being challenged to open up her finances. Should make fascinating reading. Expect a lot more than “new kitchens”, but don’t hold your breath that she will accept the challenge.