Hillary Clinton? "Baffling" says Camille Paglia

For forty years there has been no Liberal I appreciate more than Camille Paglia.  Readers of this blog have seen me quote or cite her more than once. In fact, she epitomizes everything this blog stands for, she's a free and independent thinker who is never swayed by political party or cults of personality.  She calls it like she sees it.

Certainly we often disagree.  In fact I disagree with her more often than not, but my respect for her is boundless.

She has recently been interviewed by Salon Magazine and that interview is causing a great deal of controversy because of her views of Hillary Clinton.  And on this topic she and I agree completely.  In fact her words concerning Hillary Clinton are so accurate, so profound, so spot on correct, I cannot improve on them by one sentence.

Reprinted below is just a small portion of her interview.  Be sure to read the entire article here: Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.

Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.

Why Did Obama Lie? Why Did Others Lie?

Slowly buy surely the actual facts in the Islamic radical assault on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya are coming to light. 

We now know that Ambassador Stevens asked for increased security many times before the attack.  We know the State Department turned him down in a dismissive and arrogant manner.  It appears no one at the State Department will pay the price for this gross error in judgment.

We now know that drones overhead witnessed the attack and that officials in the CIA, the State Department and even President Obama himself knew this was a terrorist attack.

We now know that there was no protest of demonstration preceding or during the assault on the Consulate.

And today we know that President Obama was fully aware that the radical group Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.  The White House had emails from this al Qaeda allied group within two hours of the attack.

What we will never know is why President Obama lied continuously and consistently for two solid weeks about the attack.  We will never know why he forced Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary to lie, when Carney knew the truth.

We will never know why the President ordered Susan Rice, the United Nations Secretary to outright lie on four Sunday Morning News Interviews, destroying her credibility forever.

We will never know why in the world Vice President Biden told such an involved fictional account of the information known to the administration, even recounting totally false dates, during the Vice Presidential Debate.  Biden knew from day one.  Why did he destroy any chance he might have had of becoming President? 

Certainly the administration will never explain these lies and the bizarre and unnecessary cover-up of the facts.  It's a mini-Watergate with no logical explanation. 

We can only guess that the President was trying to place the blame elsewhere, on an obscure video maker, to avoid any direct blame that would harm his re-election chances.  It just all seems so odd.

If President Obama wins re-election the Main Stream Media will then investigate and ask these same questions.  If he loses it will fall upon a disgruntled staffer to reveal the truth.  But either way, Mr. PResident, the truth will come out.