By Christopher Gabriel, Blog Harbor 

Have you ever seen Richard III?  If you have, you possess an immediate understanding of why I believe Hillary Clinton is perfectly suited to play the complex role of Richard. 

Women playing men’s roles in Shakespeare is more common now than in any other time in theatrical history.  And to play a demanding role like Richard III, it requires an actor able to walk the fine line of being likable and villainous at the same time. 

One might go as far to say Richard is duplicitous at his very core.

With that in mind, is there an actress on the planet more qualified in portraying duplicity than Mrs. Clinton?  At the very worst, it’s not a stretch to see the visual similarities between Clinton and the actual Richard III.

If you’re unfamiliar with the plot of Richard III, here it is in a nutshell:  Richard will do anything . . . anything . . . to get what he wants.  And what he wants is the throne from his older brother, King Edward IV.  He so resents Edward’s power, being completely incapable of containing his own power-hungry madness, he decides he will kill anyone who stands in his way of becoming king.

And let me be clear, lest anyone gets the wrong idea: I am not for a second suggesting Hillary Clinton would begin knocking people off to claim the presidency.  Not hardly.  What I’m talking about here is desire.  Passionate, myopic, unadulterated desire.  And in the realm of wanting the big prize, the lengths someone will go to sit in the Oval office.

In the world of Hillary, Bill and the Clinton Kool-Aid Drinkers, I estimate about 98% of what’s available to them, ethical or not, is in play.

When you’re sitting in a theatre and watching a play like Richard III, the audience knows exactly how devious and malicious Richard is but the other characters on stage do not.  Eventually you’re overcome with the desire to run on stage and scream, “DON’T YOU SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE?  RICHARD MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!”

I’ve often found myself screaming the same about Hillary.

Bear in mind, I’m no political wonk and I’m not a Democrat-hater.  My voting record clearly shows I’ve cast my lot with both Democrats and Republicans at every level of government over the years.  But . . .

When I look at Hillary Clinton, I see a smart woman who knows the rules of engagement better than anyone in U.S. politics, outside of her husband, in nearly half-a-century.  Her ability to get nasty and dirty while simultaneously portraying herself as Snow White is awe-inspiring.  One minute, she’s a street fighter in Brooklyn; the next she’s a damsel in distress fighting the mean people who just never give poor Hillary a break. 

Some will point to the moment in the Texas debate when she claimed it was an honor to be with Barack Obama as the beginning of her plot.  And to be sure, this was pure Richard at his very best:  Sucker Barack and his people and then rip their collective hearts out at the next available opportunity. 

In truth though, I believe it started in Michigan.  Obama removed his name from the ballot after hearing the Democratic National Committee would not seat the state’s delegates due to moving the primary date illegally . . . curiously, Hillary left her name on.

Now, almost to the letter of her long-range plan, Hillary and the Clintonettes are essentially demanding Michigan be counted.  She got votes; she got delegates; she deserves them both.  The only teeny, tiny problem is the guy she’s running against wasn’t even on the ballot.  

Am I missing something here?  Look, let’s even forget all the rules, the signed agreement, the fact Hillary, simply because her last name is Clinton, is entitled to whatever she desires.  If her opponent wasn’t on the ballot because the assumption was that the state of Michigan was out of play, why on God’s green earth should Hillary Clinton be entitled to receive anything from the state of Michigan? 

And of course there’s Florida as well.  Another moot primary since the state broke the DNC rules.  At least Obama was on the ballot.  Still, though, Hillary’s folks are clamoring for the votes and delegates because, well . . . she’s Hillary Clinton. 

I’m sure we’ll have do-overs in both states soon enough.  Since it appears it will benefit Hillary III, one way or another this entire situation becomes reality television at its most bizarre.

Finally, let us not forget Clinton’s resident erudite accomplice, Lanny Davis.  This guy appears more on the cable networks than authors promoting their books.  Allegedly he isn’t on Clinton’s payroll as his name always has “former” attached to it with respect to Clinton, but there can be no doubt he is Buckingham to her Richard. 

When you begin connecting the dots, doesn’t it seem there’s something in all of this for Davis?  It’s not just that he’s head cheerleader, spin doctor and propaganda artist all rolled into one.  No, he goes much, much further for Hillary.  If even the slightest hint of negativity appears on the Clinton horizon, there’s good, ol’ Lanny on our television screen comforting all of us.  His is the constant voice of reassurance that it is utterly beyond the scope of comprehension Hillary and her 35 years of experience, tax records and business deals should warrant any questioning.  What — are you kidding me?  She’s Hillary Clinton for Heaven’s sake!!  The woman is practically royalty and the rest of us better damn well begin to understand that no one . . . NO ONE . . . questions Richard . . . er . . . Hillary Clinton.

And should we dare, hey look there’s Lanny on Fox . . . no wait, he’s on CNN . . . wait, wait, wait — was that Lanny on the BBC and Univision, live, at the same time?  Couldn’t have been . . . could it?

Of course, it’s brilliant on Hillary’s part to have this guy showing up on television more often than OxiClean’s Billy Mays.

Now, having said all the above, do I think Hillary is doing anything wrong?  No.  But that’s the point.  While I respect Obama for trying to run a positive, gentlemanly campaign, it’s time he looks through a different lens and see who he’s really up against. 

My advice to Obama is to read the character description of Richard III.  When you’re up against the mad king, you cannot hope to win by just smiling and talking honorably, forever remaining above the fray.  

It can be argued that in the end, Richard fell short of what he hoped to acquire.  But prior to his inevitable downfall, the wake of malice and destruction he produced was profound.

In life, it bears mentioning that sometimes . . . sometimes . . . a Richard III does in fact win.

hillary clinton photo, courtesy politico.com; richard III drawing, courtesy britannica.com

For Blog Harbor and more cool stuff visit CGabriel.com