Hillary Clinton, a less-delirious Bush
By Lorenzo Gonzalo Read Spanish Version
Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to be the candidate with the best chance to occupy the presidency of the world's most powerful nation. Her Achilles heel is baggage that belongs more to the masses than to the establishment and the elite.
Early in her campaign, she was forever being questioned over her support for the Iraq war and the coincidences between the Clinton and Bush families. For temporary reasons, the establishment put the two previous U.S. presidents together, taking advantage of the tsunami that flogged eight Asian countries in 2004. By coincidence, one of the presidents was the father of the current president. If the tsunami hadn't happened and the presidents had been other people, the montage would have been the same.
The principal reason that led to that theater was to give the sensation of a country with a united leadership, at a time when George W. Bush's lack of popularity was perfectly visible and sectors of U.S. power grew increasingly worried over the president's bad handling of Middle East affairs.
It is obvious that a country that has never experienced a coup d'état and where a military officer has never raised his voice to a president (at least publicly) was obliged to act in order to give that story continuity. The only precedent of an impeached president who was forced out of his post was Richard M. Nixon and that event created too many problems to allow a similar recurrence.
Consequently, the image of the Clintons and the Bushes walking hand in hand was purely a coincidence of political circumstances. What is not circumstantial is that the Clintons, like the Bushes, are part of the power elite and have distanced themselves from reality; therefore, both behave as if government were a separate, alien institution.
The plan to attack and occupy Iraq was not George W. Bush's but Cheney's, his work team and Clinton. Not even Bush Sr., even though he started the first Gulf War. At that time, the fundamental question was dominion of the region, an affair as old as the decades that separate us from World War I, a time when oil became a vital necessity to the United States.
But hegemony at gunpoint, though an old practice, was not practiced with such impunity since the days of Noriega in Panama. The bombing of Sarajevo enjoyed Europe's acquiescence and the use of lies more subtle than weapons of mass destruction.
Hillary Clinton has the best chance in this election because she is the truest representation of the Bush administration, without its blunders. Hegemony has been part of U.S. policy since the time of the Founding Fathers, but its current design and practice belong to today's power elite, and its execution has been mishandled by Bush's presidential team.
Hillary Clinton is a less-delirious Bush. The rest of the Republican candidates may fall victim to the same influences if partisan continuity exists and Barack Obama (perhaps because of his inexperience) still believes in the American Dream. To the establishment, which does not believe in Democrats or Republicans, Hillary Clinton may be the best option.
Lorenzo Gonzalo is deputy director of Radio Miami.
