Hillary's ties to Blackwater are the last straw

Anyone surprised?

Mark Penn is the chief strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton’spresidential campaign, working 24/7 on her behalf (indeed, he is knownto send email at 2 a.m.) and earning tens of thousands of dollars infees.

With that sort of day-and-night job, you would think Mr. Penn wouldhave time for little else. Indeed, other Clinton senior advisers tookleaves of absences or turned down clients in order to work for thecampaign.

But he somehow manages to remain president of Burson-Marsteller, apublicly traded global public affairs firm. And as such, he isinevitably linked to Burson’s clients — not all of whom are, shall wesay, on Mrs. Clinton’s Christmas card list.

Today we learned that recently one of those clients was Blackwater —the American contractor that provides security to some top Americanofficials in Iraq, and which is under investigation for allegedlyaggressive tactics and the role of its guards in the shooting at aBaghdad city square where 17 Iraqis were killed.

This is what happens when politicians are allowed to stay in Washington for too long.  Everyone that helps them is tied to dirty money.  And it underscores why I regret to say that, even with three full months until the Iowa Caucuses, I will not support Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  She epitomizes everything that is wrong with both Washington and the Democratic Party -- dishonesty, corruption, hyper political calculation, fenced thinking, and eliteness.

If during The Blue State primary next month no candidate receives a majority, this site's endorsement decision will come down to our editorial board.  The decision must be unanimous.  But as a member of the editorial board, I will refuse to support the former First Lady, and therefore she will not receive this site's endorsement.  We need change in Washington -- and that does not start when we keep recycling Washington insiders.

Hillary's Blackwater connection, as mentioned above, was the last straw.  Military contractors rely on war to boost their earnings.  We have seen that first-hand under George W. Bush.  And like with Bush, under a Hillary Clinton presidency, I hint a conflict of interest on issues pertaining to war.  I will not support a president whose friends profit off devastated military families and burned U.S. treasure.

Comments

[granny]

BRAVO!!

[Joey Green]

KUDOS!!! I could not have said it better.

Moreover, the candidate that has repeated the mantra "if she knew then what she knows now , she would never have given Bush authority to invade Iraq" , voted last week to give Bush authority to label Iran's Republican Guard officially, a terrorist organization. This due to the available intelligence "out there". Sound familiar?

Has she not been here before? Hillary
Clinton showed poor judgement back in 2001/2002 and has yet to really admit. Now she does it again. What is really pathetic about this is I am sure she KNOWS what she is doing is reckless, but politcally very expedient.

It just proves to anyone with an ounce of political sense that when it comes to this candidate, political triangulation, and strategizing trumps good judgement and wisdom.

Our faltering Republic cannot take much more of this either. This candidate deserves to be hounded, pounded (politically) and shown the door, for like her husband and the current exec. in charge, it is all about them, and their "place" in history.

She deserves much from us for sure, but certainly not our support in her quest for the presidency. Our Constitution will not endure four more years of a Clinton.

This latest Clinton/Blackwater connection underscores my last point directly.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Exactly, Joey! The line, "Knowing what I knew then," is a hinted way of saying, "I do not accept responsibility."

Yes, even though John Edwards voted the wrong way on this, he HAS accepted responsibility.

It's about admitting mistakes and learning from them. She is a PUBLIC FIGURE. We should expect much more out of her.

[MLP]

Hillary has far too much baggage for my taste. I've said it before....I sure hope that I don't have to vote for her.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Definitely, MLP....I'm dealing with the same mental predicament, in case she is the nominee. I don't know what I'd do.

[Ted K.]

I know what you guys will do.
You will vote for her simply because she has a "D" in front of her name.

Face it, if Hillary gets the nomination, you guys will vote for her on the Presidential ballot because you cannot bear to vote for anyone without the "D" before their name.

I have a hard time believing you would stand on your convictions against Hillary and vote a different party or not vote for the Presidential candidates at all.

MLP, said he sure hopes he doesn't have to vote for her. You don't HAVE to vote for anyone, but that statement exemplifies my thinking on what you all will do.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Okay, Ted. Would you vote for Ron Paul against Hillary Clinton, even though Clinton is more pro-war?

And Ted, obviously we're going to vote for a candidate with a D next to their name! After eight years of this! It's been utterly terrible!! Why would progressives want a Republican winning the election?

[Ted K.]

Sell out.
;-)

Your Ron Paul argument doesn't hold water.

I will tell you this though, I did NOT vote for George H. Bush the second time around, because of his "read my lips, no new taxes"- Hey, BTW here are some new taxes- stance.
Thought I was getting Reagan II, but he distanced himself too much from what worked.
Didn't vote that year for Pres.