The Clinton Deceit

HH: Charles, do you think it was a true statement?

CK: Well, I’m reminded of what the great retired political columnist, William Saffire wrote in the late 90’s. I can’t remember exactly when it was, but he called Hillary, I think I have this right, a congenital liar, and then he got a whole bunch of columns out of it, and explaining what he meant by congenital. And you know, this is not a new story. I never slept with that woman, that’s him, and then there was the Rose documents that showed up miraculously in the White House, their performance on Flowers in 1992 when the story came out on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. These people are pretty good at, let’s say, dissimulating, all right? That’s a cleaner, a nicer word.

The Clinton Campaign reacted overtly to Mr. Geffen's accurate commentary regarding the Clinton's obsession to lie.

The desire to defend, might stem from the understanding, this is a huge weakness for Hillary's facade.

Perhaps poll data, market research, etc., confirms the public is quite aware of the ugly Clintonian deceit.

The Clintons have demonstrated a bizarre insecurity, when anyone offers any criticism to their irresponsible nature.

Maybe they aren't fooling themselves, with all that finger wagging.

Ego, narcissism, etc., could create a higher sensitivity towards someone honestly reminding Americans about the Clintons.

Or, some Clinton Campaign members, eager to please their 'boss lady', decided to boldly counter a dose of reality from Mr. Geffen.

Regardless, the infamous 'Clinton Deceit' is a major campaign issue.

Supporters will try to manage the Clinton's need for endless fabrication, as nothing more than an attempted 'Swift Boating'.

But this unattractive reality cannot be ignored, or denied, for it sits like the 10,000 pound Intern in the Clinton living room.

Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot even tell the Nation, that she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq...

UPDATE:
A "talking points" memo distributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters gives them the carefully crafted campaign line on how to deal with a host of nettlesome questions, including Bill Clinton being a drag on his wife and the former first lady's guarded personality.

EVEN MORE...
'Hillary's negatives have been known for quite some time. The Democrats believed that she would overcome them once she began to campaign nationally, but that hasn't happened. In fact, this week she showed herself as an insecure crank, or at least her campaign made her seem uptight and insecure.

Giuliani exposes her as an albatross for the Democrats. Despite having near-universal recognition, she can only muster 43% against Rudy. Her Democratic opponents do not fare much better in terms of their support against Giuliani, but more people seem willing to be undecided regarding them than they do with Hillary. Edwards and Obama score in the mid-40s, but they also pull Giuliani into the same range, especially Edwards.

Is that Giuliani? It seems more reflective of Hillary. She has a large bloc of voters who will vote against her regardless of her opponent. Edwards and Obama get more benefit of the doubt.

What does this mean for Hillary? It means that she'd lose the election, if they held it today. It serves more as an early-warning system for the Democrats; Hillary comes with some serious electability limitations, and if that doesn't start shifting in the next few months, she can kiss that nomination goodbye. Assuming, of course, that nothing changes for the next 20 months.'