Guilty by association: The Hillary Clinton-Governor Spitzer Factor

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton and her team seem to think it is fair game to suggest that Obama is somehow tainted by his limited association with Tony Rezko. Doesn't this then mean that she is likewise tainted due to her association with Governor Spitzer? Doesn't this mean that she must somehow be involved in Spitzer's wrongful activities, if Obama is to be considered by her (and her team) to be involved in Rezko's? Why shouldn't she have to expect her formula for pointing fingers at people to be applied to her equally?

Just the other night, I was reading some posts by people sold on Hillary. One was readily making comments that were inaccurate, but there was one post that almost made me fall out of my chair laughing.

As a Hillary Clinton supporter, this poster claimed to be so totally knowledgeable about the Clintons and all the facts involving them with regard to Obama and otherwise. So then... as a claimed expert on the Clintons... this person actually wrote that she would NEVER vote for a lawyer! (So how is she going to vote for Hillary then?) Need I say that I was so very happy I hadn't just taken a sip of my coffee as I read that statement?

This person was basically claiming that actual facts (provided by other posters) regarding the Clintons were unwarranted personal attacks. Excuse me? No one is allowed to provide actual information as to Hillary's history, record, performance, actions et al, unless it is complimentary, but her side is not held to the same rules? Her side -- and only her side -- can not only bring fair points to the table for consideration -- they can also call people names, get personal and insinuate the allegation of "inappropriate" where "inappropriate" might not be due?

Hillary's side can liken Obama to Ken Starr on-the-record, but it was oh so wrong for one of Obama's people to suggest Hillary was acting like a monster in a comment that was suppose to be off-the-record? The difference here being that Hillary's people wanted the comparison to be put out there for the voters to consider -- Obama's person did not.

It was Clinton's side that brought up the race card, yet they seem to readily try to shift that blame over to Obama, like they think there is no record or documentation that tells the true story of what happened?

The Clinton's have a long list of associations with people that have found themselves in a bit of trouble, so it does make it quite surprising and amusing that they, of all people, would dare try to use guilt-by-association on anyone else. Even more amusing is the fact that they would bring up Rezko in particular -- someone that apparently fooled many politicians, including them it would seem. Remember the photo of them with Rezko? Did they know him? How well? And, what about their association with Governor Spitzer? It is all fair question, especially if they are going to pose the same question to others when it fits their need.

Guilt by association? The Clinton's might want to move out of their glass house, before throwing anymore of them there rocks they are so famous for throwing! After all, today... it is Governor Spitzer that is in trouble and that is their person associated with!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.