Friday, March 28, 2008

Hillary's Last Stand

Rodney Dangerfield used to joke, "if you want to look thin, hang out with fat people." Hillary has started to look like a 'moderate' next to Obama and his radical circle of supporters, including, Reverend Wright and Michele Obama.

Hillary knows her last play, even if the math doesn't pan out, is to convince the democratic party that this upstart radical with his anti-American history is not electable in November. She is destroying the last of the Clinton brand and running dead on against her party while continuing this quest. It will get worse. She will be behind a 'the worst of the clintons future documentary' set of tactics as she tears down the likely nominee and wounds him near fatally before he breaks out and begins his run against John McCain. And..oh the money they will spend.

In the end, this may be the only good thing the Clintons will ever do for their country. "All's well that ends well !!"

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

She Misspoke...Why Not?

Much is being made of Hillary Clinton's "Bosnia-gate" incident. As most know now, Hillary claimed to have come under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as First Lady. Her words were:

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

The revelation that is coming from CBS and other mainstream media outlets is that the alleged event never happened. In reality, Hillary's "running" amounted to a calm walk from the C-17 transport where she met a group of dignitaries and listened to a Muslim girl reading a poem.

As is often the case with the Clintons, the real story is not the story being told by the media. The story is not that Hillary (or Bill) would lie to embellish their credentials, defend their conduct, or attack their opponents. The real story is that the mainstream media actually did follow-up research on her statement and exposed it for the lie that it was.

Many wonder, "Why would Hillary Clinton tell such a transparent lie in such a public forum?" My answer is...why not? Lying for political gain is the Clintons' stock-in-trade. They have continually done it because it works for them. In the past, they had little to fear because the corrupt media had no desire to expose their lies and therefore hurt them politically. Bill Clinton could speak of defending the constitution while defending himself from perjury and obstruction of justice charges and the media gives him a pass. Hillary could talk about her vast experience and no one in the media could seem to do any research...until now.

What has changed is not that the mainstream media has returned to old-fashioned journalism but rather that they now have a new darling. They are waving the Obama pom poms now. Obama is the fresh face while the Clintons are old news and represent an older, more "political" era. How else can you explain the rapidity with which the Jeremiah Wright controversy died or the fact that the media has "discovered" that the Clintons will do anything to win?

Why would Hillary lie? Why not? Under the old math, she had little to fear. Hillary's great error was in not realizing that the rules had now changed.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Monday, March 24, 2008

Democrats for Posterior Sake (er, Posterity?)

Another day, another sex/political scandal for the Depraved Party.

2008 has been a banner year, if you're a tabloid writer who follows the Democrats around. First, we have former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and his $1,000 per hour playmate...followed by new NY Governor David Paterson announcing that he'd had an affair back in 1999... later amened to "multiple affairs" from 1999-2002 (and possibly beyond)...and now? Welcome to the GOP blog, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick!

Mayor Kilpatrick's purported activities included, according to The New York Times:

DETROIT — Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick was charged on Monday with misconduct in office, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and perjury, felonies that could end his political career and send him to prison for as long as 80 years.

Among the eight felony counts against him, Mr. Kilpatrick is accused of authorizing the city of Detroit to settle an $8.4 million lawsuit with several former police officers “with the corrupt motive” of preventing the release of text messages which would have revealed that he had lied under oath in the case, the charging documents say.

Announcing the charges, Kym L. Worthy, the Wayne County prosecutor, declared it a “very sad day” for the city and for all of Michigan, but said that central tenets of life — those that even 6-year-old children understand well — had been breached. “It would be much sadder still if true justice were ignored,” Ms. Worthy said.

The post-Clinton generation of Democrats...proudly protecting the rights, and economic needs, of prostitutes everywhere.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Monday, March 17, 2008

Good Riddance Client #9 !!!!

When Eliot Spitzer was New York's attorney general, he was relentless in his pursuit of financial institutions who he deemed were corrupte and in violation of reporting issues. He was even more relentless in advancing his career. He never let facts get in his way and he was merciless in destroying the character of his targets, even blackmailing them that he would press charges against their company if they did not resign. Many of his victims were innocent...that never stopped Eliot.

He has his sights on the Governors Mansion and eventually the White House.

Early in his term, it was reported that he used state troopers to track dirt on his political enemies. He confessed to these charges and there was even talk of impeachment.

He survived his first scandal.

After it was revealed that he sought out prostitutes for ten years, he turned from presidential hopeful to the biggest joke in New York.

Good Riddance. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Monday, March 10, 2008

The Clinton Horror Film

Andrew Sullivan has written a witty, and perceptive, article about Bill and Hillary Clinton that appears in the British Timesonline. One might disagree with his somewhat rosy picture of Bill Clinton's presidential accomplishments but he is dead-on in dealing with the Clinton's lust for power.

He's right. Writing the Clintons' political epitaph is reminiscent of the old SNL skit, "The Death of Rasputin," where the old guy keeps coming back no matter what is done to him.

A horror film indeed!

The Clintons, a Horror Film that never ends

Andrew Sullivan

It’s alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover’s tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races – one by a mere 3% – against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.

Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.

The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.

Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).

Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).

Consider: the Clintons could have prepared for primaries and caucuses after February 5 – so-called Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their presidential nomination vote – as any careful candidate would. They chose not to do any of these things. Not because they are incompetent. But because they live to risk.

Politics is also their life. They know nothing else. Most halfway normal people in politics could at some point walk away. Reagan seemed happy to. Not the Clintons. In the words of the American-based British writer Christopher Hitchens, these are the kind of people who never want the meeting to end. Hillary Clinton will never concede the race so long as there is even the faintest chance that she can somehow win.

They endure all sorts of humiliation – remember the taped Clinton deposition in the Ken Starr investigation (in which Clinton admitted to the inquiry headed by the far-right prosecutor that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky)? Hillary’s dismissal of the Lewinsky matter as an invention of the right-wing conspiracy? – because they know no other way to live. They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washington Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.

The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

One is reminded of the words of Bob Dylan: “And here I sit so patiently / Waiting to find out what price / You have to pay to get out of / Going through all these things twice.”

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

She's Back!!!.....Now What?

Despite calls from some Obama supporters for her to leave the campaign, Hillary Clinton responded by sweeping three of the four primaries yesterday, including big wins in Ohio and Texas. This came when Obama seemed to have the momentum and appeared to be cruising to the nomination. Clinton's wins broke Obama's momentum and changed the dynamic of the race for the Democrat nomination. It should get really interesting from now on.

The change in the Democrat race is more perception than reality. Obama still holds a commanding lead in pledged delegates and yesterday's results did not materially change that. The lead is so large that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Clinton to match his lead in pledged delegates with the contests that remain. This is pointed out clearly in Jonathan Alter's perceptive article in Newsweek. Even if Hillary wins all remaining contests, she will still face a deficit in pledged delegates as she enters the convention.

What has changed are the perceptions of this race. The Obama campaign is no longer seen to be a juggernaut. The Clinton campaign are no longer seen as inevitable losers. Clinton attacked Obama in his weakest area, experience, and placed dents in him. Obama faced media scrutiny (albeit small) for the first time and did not seem to handle it well. Also, his reputation as a person who is above politics took a serious hit with revelations of his dealings with an indicted speculator and a terrorist bomber from the Weather underground. His honestly came into question when it became known that a surrogate assured the Canadian government that his criticisms of NAFTA were only for political purposes.

These loses, and the revelations associated with them, have hurt Obama greatly. His great delegate lead still makes him the presumptive nominee but he has a race on his hands. The Clintons will pull out all stops in following up on the successful attacks they have waged. The media, stung by accusations that they are in the tank for Obama, will show more scrutiny. Clinton will begin making waves about the Michigan and Florida delegates even as she lobbies for support of more super-delegates. The race will continue probably until the convention and maybe into it.

All of this is good news for Republicans. This should be a Democrat year but their infighting may give us great opportunities to hold the White House and maybe even to make gains in the Congress. It is difficult for many of us to wish good political outcomes for the Clintons. We have seen too much from Bill's presidency but Hillary's good news is now our good news. Every attack that she initiates against Obama is one that Republicans will not have to initiate. The Clinton campaign's railing against media bias for Obama puts the issue into the public forum without Republicans having to raise it and thus face the possible backlash.

Hillary and Bill are doing our job for us.

"You Go Girl"

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

The NY Times Questions McCain's Eligibility

The New York Times is not saying that John McCain's birth (to two U.S. citizens, one of which was U.S. Naval Officer serving his country) in the Panama Canal zone should disqualify him from the presidency. They must have brought it up as an academic exercise to challenge a two-hundred and eighteen year old bill that made infants born to U.S. Citizens outside of the country...a U.S. Citizen. Since 1790, this bill has never been debated. I guess the N.Y. Times is just saying...

Maybe the Times should run a piece that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants should not be eligible for the presidency. How about a piece that they should not be eligible for citizenship at all. After all, they enjoy just getting us thinking about stuff.

Sarcasm aside, the New York Times should be embarrassed at this unbelievably despicable, transparent and jaded journalism. It is a sign of things to come.

I am encouraged to this the best they have?

Let's hope this junk gives Senator McCain the needed boost among conservatives. And it wakes John up to the fact that the Times and the Liberal Media are no friend of his...once they can't use him for Republican bashing.

If he wants a permanent and effective partnership, he needs to come back to the base.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson