Elmer the wabbit stalker

The running of the wabbits is off to an early start this presidential election cycle … or so it seems.

The signs are unmistakable.  Hunters crashing through forests of subpoenaed documents and confiscated e-mails.  Their media blasts are shotgun wild; blowing up chunks of soil and biting off chunks of helpless tree bark.

The wabbits scurry off to chuckle at the Hunters’ futility.

The Hunters are so anxious to bag any front-running, though undeclared Republican presidential hopeful they cannot shoot straight.

They are the Elmer Fudds of wabbit hunting.  All noise, no results.  You can almost hear the Fudds screaming “I’ll get you, you wascally wabbit!”

But the wabbits – so far – are having all the laughs.

Certainly all the constant media attention is having some effect.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie‘s favorable ratings have taken a hit; but at 49% after all this, he ain’t exactly bleeding to death over staff-initiated lane closures that few people outside northern New Jersey and NYC care about.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker – on the other hand – is fighting off unproven accusations that are three years old, involving staffers illegally performing campaign work on government time, when Walker was still a little known County Executive.  People, who worked for Walker, went to jail; but a Democrat prosecutor found no evidence of Walker’s knowledge or acquiescence.  Still the hunt for Walker’s presidential future continues.

Despite Democrat attempts to tie the Christie and Walker controversies together as an indictment of general Republican malfeasance, the only thing that’s common between the two is their potential aspirations for The Oval Office.

Hence all the hunting and drama …

For voters – still two years away from having to declare their preference for a Republican presidential candidate – the Democrats’ strategy should be disturbing. For the Democrats are not interested in uncovering official misbehavior; their only objective is clearing the field for Hillary Clinton.

Shhhhhhhhh … We’re hunting wabbits!

But the wabbits aren’t cooperating.  So far the Democrat hunters have only proven two things.  One is that the wabbits are much, much smarter than the Fudds.  The second is surely an unintended consequence that should come back to bite the Fudds right on their Clintons!

These same hunters of Republicans hopefuls will tell you looking into Hillary’s own history with a husband who cheated on her from the Oval Office; and who – more recently – failed to protect embassy personnel in a largely lawless country, would be an unproductive undertaking.

Needless to say anyone, who take their decisions on Chief Executive qualifications, should disagree.

Even Daffy can figure out why!

Clinton’s experiences in her White House tour as First Lady carry both weight and significance in assessing her suitability for the Highest Office in the Land.  I scratch my head over assertions that what happened in the Clinton White House 20 years ago is somehow not pertinent to Hillary’s foregone run in 2016.

First off, for all those touting her as an ideal candidate to be the first female President, how does one reconcile her enabling behavior in regards to her husband’s predatory behavior towards other women.

This has long been a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Clinton 42.  As a federal employee, I could well have been promptly and righteously removed from my job for using even the appearance of supervisory authority and it’s perceived power to press an inappropriate advantage towards a female employee, even if she were a consenting participant.

How could a Chief Executive behave so brazenly; performing exactly the kind of behavior over which those working for him could easily lose their jobs?

As a much touted example for women, it should be equally appalling that Hillary throughout the Clinton history, enabled Bill’s behavior through her repeated acquiescence.  It didn’t happen only with Monica in the West Wing with the cigar, dear Fudds!  It was a pattern of behavior that first caught the attention of the press and government watchdogs when Bill was still the Governor of Arkansas.

Imagine how strong Hillary would have appeared had she nipped her runaway Lethario in the bud!  At face value one could conclude this was at best a psychologically abusive relationship; and isn’t that something women are encouraged to end or leave?

If the definition of insanity is expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over again, the question should be what was Hillary’s mindset when she repeatedly forgave Bill?  And what does that say about her judgement and decision making at a time of crisis?

Then again, she probably wouldn’t be where she is today hadn’t forgiven Bill’s wanderings over and over again.

One might surmise that Hillary traded a Proximity to Power for those oft-repeated acts of forgiveness.  Did she trade the potential for future incidents for a bright political future of her own?  Is it hard to imagine Hillary conditioning her forgiveness on Bill’s backing of her own political future when it became her turn?  Does anything other than a marriage that evolved into one of political convenience explain her behavior?

How is it that some think this fundamental character flaw is not worthy of intense scrutiny for one positioning herself to become President?

Character is developed over an extended period of life and living.  Leadership is forged from making the tough decisions and difficult choices.  Strong women do these things every day.  Does Hillary get to skate on the choices she made or didn’t make and how they affected other women – Bill’s future conquests – down the line?

Benghazi is another matter unto itself which I will not got into here.  Suffice it to say that it’s beyond indecent that a few lane closures on a local bridge – even for New York City – has garnered more media coverage than the legitimate interests of finding someone responsible for the breach of physical security that ended the lives of four Americans including an Ambassador!

It’s one thing for President Obama to declare that he is “ultimately responsible” for embassy security; but that’s simply a catchall.  Someone was more directly ultimately responsible, and that person would be in the State Department.  So when no one is held officially responsible with whom does the problem lie?

Where’s a good hunter when you need one, Elmer?

Hillary should certainly be subject to her own time in the crucible, if the mainstream media reciprocates their bottomless fascination with lane closures and three-year-old cold cases (How likely though is that?); but at least “What difference – at this point, does it make?” is going to make one cutting campaign commercial!