Is This Hillary's "Steely" Moment?

Any movie buff will remember the climactic scene in "The Caine Mutiny", where Humphrey Bogart, playing Captain Queeg under stern cross-examination at a court martial, starts to melt down. He finally takes those ball bearings, AKA steelies, out of his pocket and starts clicking them around in his hand, like the "worry beads" that men in the Near East use. This is a sign that he has finally run up against a brick wall, and that his stories and alibis will no longer stand up, and people are no longer convinced. (It's also a sign that he's a nut.) It is not, however, the final scene in the movie, since later on the "mutineers" get together over brandy and cigars and talk the whole thing over, not without a certain slight, awkward feeling of guilt. The question is, has Hillary reached her "steely" moment in this campaign? That is, has it gotten to the point where the whole business is starting to clearly unravel, and her continued presence on the campaign trail is turning into an embarrassment? According to the last few days' commentaries, that's pretty much the way things are right now. Most of the journalistic wise men have all but crowned Obama the nominee, and they are starting to talk openly about the campaign from here on out as being Obama (and "Whoever") vs. McCain (and "Whoever") -- with, of course, Bob Barr thrown in as a possible spoiler for McCain.

Well... as I've said many times before, don't be so sure. Hillary has more tricks up her sleeve than Houdini, and she is going to fight like a demon for this nomination, right up to and into the convention, _even if_ Obama seems to have enough "pledged delegates" to put him over the top. That's my prediction, at any rate. I've just seen too damn much of these people (Hill and Bill, that is) over the years to expect anything different. I mean, we're talking about people who were so averse to leaving the White House that they tried taking most of it with them. For them -- to paraphrase Vince Lombardi -- power isn't everything; it's the _only_ thing. After being "co-president" for eight years, do you really thing Hillary has been at all satsified with a lowly Senate seat? I doubt it very much.

For one thing, look at that fat pile of "disputed" delegates from Michigan and Florida. Who says that won't be seated after all, and all vote for Hillary? Can anyone guarantee that this won't happen? No. Do the Democratic Party rules keep it from happening? No -- not if they can be changed a bit, by Hillary and her machine. She is all ready to make total fools of the people who are falling all over themselves to jump on Obama's bandwagon.

But this brings up an interesting question. In the event she does not win the nomination, or the presidency, that means her husband will be unemployed again... for an indefinite period. Well, we know the kinds of mischief Bill Clinton can get into when he has time on his hands. This alone might be sufficient justification for voting for Hillary -- since if she gets in he'll at least be confined to the White House most of the time, and not roaming the streets.

To which I'd like to add a great quote from a so-called "Democratic media strategist": "If you strapped Hillary Clinton to a lie detector... she believes in her core that she would be a better candidate in the general election, and a better president." To which I can only add, if you strapped Hillary Clinton to a lie detector it would blow up because of massive overload.