Torricelli on Hillary

It comes as no surprise to me that Bob Torricelli would endorse Hillary Clinton for President. Mr. Torricelli, or the "Torch", as he came to be known for his style of slash and burn politics, was the standard bearer of the Bergen County Democratic machine until his self inflicted political demise. "Pride cometh before the fall" a shipmate once told me.

So as not to be obtuse let me first address Mr. T's endorsement on it's merits: HC should be the the Democratic nominee because we can not afford to lose, HC has the best shot at winning, ergo if HC is not the nominee we could lose "again". Besides beginning his argument from a position of weakness, I should do A or else B could happen, this rational does not even stand up to statistical analysis. Given this criteria John Edwards would be the logical nominee according to the latest match up polling;

"It can be accurately claimed that few sub'tive issues separate the Dem candidates." This soliloquy sounds painfully familiar, smells like a talking point fresh Mark Penn's posterior and has the pernicious effect of lulling the reader into a false sense of security when nothing could be farther from the truth. There are dramatic differences between the candidates and people should take the time to find them out. Just to name a few, HC voted for the "Authorization To Use Force In Iraq" and now claims she didn't think it was a vote for war;

Assuming HC were to win the national election and that is a BIG assumption givern her unfavorable ratings let's take a sober look at "Day One." (Plenty of catchy one liners here usually limited to two syllables) it is pretty clear she would have a little less than half the country against her. The right wing will rally against her campaign; Republican voters will flock to the polls and assuming she wins, will leave us with roughly the same division of power in the Congress as we have now. Respected elected pols around the counrty suspect we could even lose seats;

Name me one lingering social problem HC has addressed during her tenure as a US Senator; not the student loan scandal, not global warming, not social security reform, not campaign finance not one. HC is what I call the "Me Too" candidate. Whatever sounds good in the debates she says "Me Too";

Mr. Torricelli's last rational is perhaps the most revealing. Like moths to a flame the Torches of this world will always gravitate to the perception of power. HC will be good for NJ because she will harbor some geographic loyalty and thus feel our pain. A friend once told me it is fantasy to believe that a person who does not share your life experiences would somehow champion your cause.

I would be remiss were I to leave out Mr. Toricelli's damning of the alternative candidates with faint praise. It's not that Barak Obama might actually have a message that resonates with people. No, what was it; his church upbringing made him a good orator. Frederick Douglass once said the funny thing about being an orator is that unlike a good doctor or a good painter, nobody wants to be known as a good speaker. The fact that Mr. Torricelli, after his ignominious fall from grace, did not undergo a similar conversion as that of John Edwards I think speks more about Bob Torricelli than it does about John Edwards.

Best regards to all.

I agree that Hillary is the best candidate the dems have. I disagree that Torch still finds Edwards a credable candidate. Mr. Edwards is a good man and would have easily defeated Bush if he had won the nomination in 2004, but his presidential bid is over. I have a feeling that he was playing for an ambassador or cabinet post since his loss in Iowa. I also disagree that finding out about our candidates is pointless, the Dems need to take power back in the White House, but we need to check out our candidates.

The notion of "qualification" is an interesting turn of logic when speaking of Hillary Clinton's credentials to assume the presidency.

Her so called, "35 years of experience" is repeated over and over again, yet she never refers to a single event or accomplishment during that alleged 35-year resume.

Why is that?

If serving 8 years as First Lady and another 12 years as First Lady of Arkansas are the qualifications to be commander-in-chief and leader of the free world, so be it.

If being First Lady is a true qualification for the presidency, I guess Eleanor Roosevelt should have run for the presidency. But she didn't.

Speaking of Roosevelt, was Harry Shipp Truman "qualified" to be the president in 1945? He was a county judge from Missouri and referred to as the "senator from Pendergast" (a reference to political boss Tom Pendergast, Truman's mentor and sponsor for the US Senate) as the administration looked upon his as a lightweight not qualified to be president!

Does the resume really make the man?

Hillary Clinton has no record of her own. She has zero foreign policy experience. Her record is Bill Clinton's record and her only policy initative was her failed healthplan debacle that cost Democrats both the houses of congress in 1994.

The real question is does Hillary Clinton have the "presidential character" to succeed? Does her personality fit the traits of presidential leadership as offered by James McGregor Burns in his book, The Presidential Character?

I'm tired of hearing about this 35 year record that can't point to a single accomplishment. Barack Obama inspires Americans. He is the first Black man to appeal to White America. That in itself is a major step in American politics. He is a leader by his actions and deeds.

He is fighting for the soul of a party that has been run by the Clinton's since 1992. Now they want 8 more years. Does a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty help America or the Democratic Party?

I don't think so.

More importantl, who would want to be Hillary's vice-presidential running-mate when everyone knows Bill will be the co-president?

This in many ways undermines the Constitution and the whole notion of term limited presidencies.

Did anyone question Lincoln's "qualifications" in 1864? He lost every campaign he was ever in until he ran for president. How about JFK? Was he the most qualified Democrat in 1960?

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have successfully manipulated "qualification" and "experience" as her entitlement to the presidency.

The question now becomes does the Democratic party follow? This manipulation has shielded her from the real issue which is can she win in border states like Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia or Virginia?

The answer is no and we're looking at a rerun of the 1988 Dukakis race in which a candidate with no foreign policy experience in a time of war we'll be truly exposed as not qualified to serve.

How much "experience" does just being married to the president give Hillary?  This line of reasoning means that Monica has "some" experience to be president? 

CHANGE does not mean Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/  Change means OBAMA for President.  A breath of fresh air and hope.

Ex-Senator Torricelli,  

I really wonder how many folks are likely to give any credence at all to your endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  

You might think the Clinton camp would be a little less that enthusiastic over a “thumbs up” from you!  During this campaign season, they have been repeatedly beset by questions about highly irregular financial dealings related to their fund raising, most notably arising out of the Norman Hsu scandal, and also, the Hollywood boost for her Senate run in New York, the Peter Paul video posted on YouTube. 

Lets face it, Bob -- questionable campaign-related financial dealings surely prompted your downfall!

Plus, over the years you have frequently come up on the wrong side of other incidents involving improper or at least questionable financial dealings.

For example, take ENRON.  Remember that way back in early 2002 the NY Times reported you had to apologize for your role in helping to quash an SEC reform -- as they reported, it was a "proposed rule that would have barred accounting firms from performing auditing and consulting work for the same client, as Andersen did for Enron." 

Here's exactly how the NY Times described it:

Several senators sitting on the Governmental Affairs Committee, like Senator Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, pressured the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2000 to abandon a proposed rule that would have barred accounting firms from performing auditing and consulting work for the same client, as Andersen did for Enron. He was one of 13 senators who intervened to quash the plan.

Yet Mr. Torricelli offered one of the day's only mea culpas. Addressing Arthur Levitt Jr., the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission who had pushed for the rule and testified today, Mr. Torricelli said: ''We were wrong. You were right.''

But even after you left Congress in disgrace arising out of ethics inquiries regarding your relationship to David Chang, questions in still further matters have surfaced -- with evidence that you have never really addressed personally. 

For example, I don't remember you personally addressing reports that you met with the Iraqi ambassador several times in the late 1990's, matters that gave rise to allegations, first reported in the Financial Times, that you may well have been involved on the wrong side in the Oil For Food Scandal. 

Here is the link to the NY Times article on that matter from late May of 2006.  They said in part:

The investigation into Mr. Torricelli was first reported by The Financial Times. The newspaper reported that in the 1990's, Mr. Torricelli met several times with Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Nizar Hamdoun. At those meetings, according to the newspaper, Mr. Torricelli, a Democrat who was then a House member, allegedly urged Iraq to help a campaign donor, David Chang, and Mr. Chang's company, Bright & Bright Corporation, get oil-for-food contracts.

In 2002, the Senate Ethics Committee "severely admonished" Mr. Torricelli for accepting improper gifts from Mr. Chang, and the senator decided not to seek re-election. Two years earlier, Mr. Chang pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and funneling $53,700 in illegal donations to Mr. Torricelli's 1996 Senate campaign.

In fact, some might even say that would now give you motivation to shoot your mouth off about Iraq -- as you clearly have in this post -- in a very dishonest way about the American role there. 

Hey, I know.  Here's an idea for a column:  "Torricelli On His Role in the Oil for Food Scandal."  Since it also involved the known crook who you were personally involved with and taking gifts from, it would give you an opportunity to outline your mea culpa to the American public for improperly taking all those gifts from him, and for your role, whatever it was, in the Oil For Food Scandal matter, too!   A double whammy, Bob! 

And for possible inspiration, here's a little quotation from page 145 of your book "Quotations For Public Speakers." 

"Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere."

"To accept a favor is to sell one's freedom."

               --Publilius Syrus

by Trochilus

When Abraham Lincoln ran for President of the United States, his total political experience was limited to a single term in the U.S. Congress, and a handful of terms in the state legislature in Illinois. He ran for U.S. Senate and was defeated.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=654236&category=OPINION&newsdate=1/11/2008

I do have to agree the Torch's assertion "It’s actually quite simple. America"

However, Hillary Clinton is not the answer.

Unless the question is "What's the best way to get McCain elected President?"

Torch on Hillary...would Bill approve?

 I guess it depends what the definition of 'on' is!

I made the mistake of voting for Torricelli when he ran for Senate. He was an abysmal failure. This crook decided not to run for reelection after being implicated in a bribery and campaign finance scandal involving David Chang, an imprisoned Chinese businessman. And he also is a rabid anti-hunter and has questionable business ties. How exactly does this douchebag's opinion going to sway me to vote for Hillary? I'm voting for Obama.

Is somebody asleep here?  This last post of his was on January 24th.  It is now March!  Groundhog Day came and went!

Same thing Valentine's Day.  All over and done with 'til next year. 

Presidents Day, NJ style? Long gone!  Lincoln's and Washington's real birthdays?  A fading memory.

Hello?  Bob?

Anybody!  Did Bob give somebody two rings . . . you know, just to let them know he got home okay? 

by Trochilus