I am imagining that Hillary Clinton is spending a great deal of time with close advisors and political strategists this week.  She has been a very good soldier for Barack Obama for four years now.  But there is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to allow her own presidential ambitions for 2016 to be spoiled so that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012.

An inevitable gunfight has been building between the Chicago Democratic machine and the Arkansas Democratic royalty for weeks now.  And President Obama can thank his short-sighted Vice President for expediting the inevitable shootout to begin at the same time as early voting.

President Obama has escaped disaster time after time with scandals and cover-ups that would have taken down the cleanest Republican president.  The abuse of the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to force Boeing to place its 787 plant in union-controlled Washington State left no chinks in Obama’s armor.  Bribing Lockheed Martin with covering of legal expenses if they will postpone required layoff notices until after the election does not seem to have raised a single liberal eyebrow.  Even invoking Executive Privilege to withhold information from Congress regarding the murders of an American Border Patrol and hundreds of Mexican citizens has not shaken the President’s loyal following.

But while the yellow-tinted, main-stream media is blatantly positioned on the side of the Democratic Party, they did not count on having to choose sides between Barack and Hillary in the final days of the 2012 presidential election.

It all started innocently enough.  The President and his Secretary of State set out on an international tour beginning in 2010, sharing enlightened American liberalism to a welcoming world.  Cultures who once hated America would naturally embrace the new oneness with a Presidential bow.  

The State Department’s mission now includes promoting the agenda of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community worldwide.  Or, as Secretary Clinton put it, “So here at the State Department, we will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/06/143517.htm)

We could certainly expect that asserting the LGBT acceptance message to other cultures, especially to muslim countries, would be the Obama Administration’sdaisy in the gun barrel milestone.  To quote Secretary Clinton’s closing line in her address calling on every State Department bureau and every embassy to participate in the advancing of worldwide LGBT tolerance, this is “one of history’s great moments.”

Even Hollywood’s international ambassador, Madonna, did her part in carrying out the mission on an informal basis this summer.  Last month, while entertaining a crowd in Washington, D.C., the pop star included this supportive mention of the President’s program, “Y’all better vote for f_ _ _ _ _ g Obama, OK?  For better or for worse, alright?  We have a black muslim in the White House.  Now that is some s _ _ t.  Some amazing s _ _ t.  It means there is hope in this country.  And Obama is fighting for gay rights.  OK?  So support the man, G_ _ _ _ _ mit!”  This heartwarming message was delivered to an American audience shortly after returning to the U.S. from her tour in two decidedly Islamic countries, where she treated her muslim audience to a flash of her right mammilla during a concert in Istanbul.

After softening up the militantly modest sensibilities of Islam’s religious police through messaging, supported by Madonna’s indecent exposure tour, the Obama Administration got down to some thoughtful personnel deployments.  In an apparent act of altruistic hope and change, the State Department dispatched a gay man as Ambassador to Libya.  What could possibly go wrong?

The murder of Christopher Stevens and three other Americans took place just three months after Stevens arrived as America’s Ambassador to Libya.  In response to this horrific act, the Obama Administration and Clinton State Department jointly concluded that Libyans must simply have become impulsively emotional over a YouTube video called The Innocence of Muslims (see the trailer HERE).  After all, it was produced by a Coptic Christian who lives in California, USA.

Now here’s where the story gets weird.  The Obama Administration went all-in with the YouTube video as the sole impulse for Ambassador Stevens’ death.  They dispatched Susan Rice, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, on a persuasion tour across television talk shows to convince U.S. citizens that an offensive video was the Libyan Ambassador’s actual cause of death.  The President himself even asserted the story on David Letterman’s nighttime show.  Every other spokesperson for the Administration stuck to the script.

The State Department even created a television ad (linked HERE) to calm down Muslims who may be prone to violence as a result of the YouTube video.  They paid Pakistani television outlets $70,000 to play the ad, which features both President Obama at the White House and Secretary Clinton saying, “Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video.  We absolutely reject its contents.  America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”  One week later, the Coptic Christian filmmaker was arrested in California.

Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter struggled awkwardly in a live interview with Brett Baier to defend the Obama Administration’s storytelling.  Once off-air, she cried, “Help me, Brett.  I’m too pretty to be a Democratic Party hack.  I should be a Fox News girl!”  (OK; That last part is not true.)

But Congress has called on State Department personnel to testify under oath about the Libyan embassy attack.  And nothing from testimony is consistent with the Obama Administration’s contention that the murders were a spontaneous mob response to an amateur video.  Nor does the State Department support Vice President Biden’s debate claim (repeated by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) that the lack of security personnel was due to funding cuts implemented by Congressman Paul Ryan “for the wealthiest 2%.”

The Obama-Biden team seems very willing to let Hillary Clinton become the scapegoat for their poor handling of foreign affairs and for covering up the real story of a loyal American left shamefully vulnerable by a president who blows off intelligence briefings daily.  Secretary Clinton will not take the fall for this president.  And if Bill Clinton chooses to weigh in on behalf of his wife this month, Mitt Romney will walk across the finish line on November 6.  In the worst timing for an administration up for re-election, a dithering media may actually choose to investigate the truth - out of not knowing what else to do.