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 MoveOn.org, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 think...is 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

William F. Buckley Jr. & Blackford Oakes (RIP)

Before there was Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Before Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge and Phyliss Schlafly, Bill Buckley stood alone.

In the Mid-50's, the beginning of the cold war, he went after the Soviet sympathizers in the media and the atheists in academia. He was aggressive and verbally savage.

Not only did Buckley communicate the principles that each Republican candidate today says that he best represents...Buckley defined them.

He founded National Review magazine. He started the TV Show Firing Line, where he appeared as the moderator for twenty years.

He wrote cold war thrillers, about a CIA agent Blackford Oakes, just because every other author was trashing America and the CIA.

He was an army veteran, a Patriot, and a devout Catholic. He was an intellectual with the guts and brainpower to go after and beat anyone who attacked his values, his character, his faith and his country.

He once said, sometime in the sixties, that he would rather be governed by the first hundred people in the Cambridge phone book than by the faculty at Harvard. A prophetic statement, more true today than it was when he said it.

He will never be replaced.


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Decision...Obama

Hillary Clinton came out fast Tuesday night. At the first bell, she threw her best punch of victimhood from the hip with the intent of turning the contest to her favor from the get-go. She landed only air and this would set the tone for the entire fight. The early rounds consisted of Clinton attempting amateurish haymakers in the hope of landing the knockout punch she sorely needed. However, in each case, Obama deftly sidestepped the punches and effectively countered with quick jabs and short rights to Clinton's most vulnerable area, her credibility.

Clinton's inability to land in the early rounds seemed to take the steam out of her. She continued to pursue Obama in the middle and later rounds but with much less intensity. Obama, after building up his early lead, was content to box the remaining rounds. Clinton continued in pursuit but was unable to land any effective punches while Obama continued his effective fight of maneuver and short counters. The bout ended with Obama hugging Clinton and congratulating her on her effort while it was obvious to all that he had won a comfortable decision.

The fight that I described would certainly have been more entertaining than the debate that occurred. Hillary Clinton knew that she needed a big win to turn back Barack Obama's momentum and give her a chance to win the nomination. However, all of her attacks seemed small and petty.

She began by complaining that she always seemed to get the first question in the debates. She attacked Obama for his flyer in Ohio that criticized her health care plan, trying to imply that Obama's campaign standards were below hers (imagine that!). To this, Obama pointed out that his campaign's mailouts were very similar to the ones that the Clinton campaign had sent out criticizing him. He then added, "you don't see me whining about it." This pretty much set the tone for the early part of the debate.

After the first break, the debate seemed to settle down with neither side doing much more than defending their respective positions. Mrs. Clinton, needing something big, came away with nothing. Instead, she may have lost votes by her early attacks which gained no traction and rather made her look like the desperate politician that she is.

One of the interesting things about this debate was watching Sen. Clinton's eyes while Obama was speaking. There seemed to be there a combination of hatred and fascination. Hatred because he was beating her when she thought she was unbeatable. Fascination because nothing that she was doing could dent his armor. Obama has proven to be the perfect opponent to beat Hillary, much like Holyfield was to Tyson. He can effectively defend against her attacks and turn her weaknesses against her. As D. B. Jackson wrote, Hillary's attempt at making herself the victim was ineffective against Obama's superior victim status.

Personally, I think the contest is over now. Clinton had been fading in both Texas and Ohio before the debate. I expect this to increase and for Obama to take both states. Certainly, Hillary will not achieve the margin of victory that she needs to stay in the race.

It is not a question of if, but when.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

What I Heard Last Night

If you were a scriptwriter from SNL, back from a half-year vacation/strike, you would have heard Hillary Clinton use your comedy skit to illustrate that she has been victimized in these debates.

If you are the CEO of Exxon or a capitalist of any kind, you would have heard Barack Obama say that ExxonMobil 'will not part easily' with the eleven billions of profit that Exxon returned last quarter.

If you are a feminist or a metrosexual, you would have heard Hillary say that having a woman in the White House would represent a 'sea change' in how we are governed.

If you are a militant muslim and anti-semite, you would have heard Barack Obama, after some kicking and screaming, denounce and reject your support.

If you are unemployed in Ohio, you would have heard HRC say that she was in support of training you to install solar panels.

If you are a hard-working over-taxed middle class taxpayer, you would have heard some very large numbers of Americans that will be covered or subsidized for medical insurance by both universal coverage plans (BHO and HRC).

If you are an exporter of any kind, who happens to ship products from Ohio or Texas, you would have heard both of them say that they will rewrite or repeal NAFTA, because 'on whole,' it has hurt average Americans.

If you are a tax preparer, you would have heard how time consuming it was going to be for HRC to make a copy of her tax return and release it.

If you are John McCain, you would have heard that it was your fault that BHO is going to back away from his public-funds only commitment from just three months ago.

We all saw a very disturbing image of both HRC and BHO running hard-left and pandering to every special interest group imaginable. Images of an evil America, where 'men make the rules' and racism lurks around every dark corner.

We heard about a country where four working women can finally meet with a presidential candidate and share their problems - when in four years, all Bush and Cheney have done is pander to the elite and the rich tycoons.

A country that is losing the war in Iraq, a war that we never should have fought. And it has made America 'less safe.'

A country that is headed in the wrong direction and only BHO and HRC can save it. Saving it requires higher taxes, bigger government and an immediate retreat from Iraq.

God Save Us All !!

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Claws Come Out (LINK)

Many thought that Hillary Clinton's softer, "coming together" closing statement at last Thursday's debate presaged that she might soon depart the campaign and allow Barack Obama an unimpeded path to the Democrat nomination. Sen. Clinton dashed such thoughts to pieces yesterday in Cincinnati when she waxed indignant at the Barack Obama campaign over a flyer that criticized her health care proposal.

Clinton accused the Obama campaign of using Republican tactics in distorting her record for political gain. "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" she said. She then threw down the gauntlet to Obama angrily telling him, "Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

Despite the entertainment value of her outburst, one has to be struck by the irony and hypocrisy in Clinton's rant. When it comes to the politics of distortion, innuendo, and personal destruction, the Clintons wrote the book while Obama is merely a piker. After all, it was Hillary Clinton who had assembled FBI records on Republican opponents during Bill Clinton's presidency. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, it was Clinton surrogates who exposed Speaker-elect Bob Livingston's extra-marital affair, causing him to resign as speaker and later to leave the House. After this happened, Bill Clinton hypocritically bemoaned the "politics of personal destruction."

Hypocrisy and destruction, slash and burn, are the Clintons' stock-in-trade. They will surreptitiously work to destroy anyone in their path while publicly proclaiming the highest of ideals. Barack Obama is only the latest target. It is also significant that Clinton tossed in a shot at the Republicans, saying that Obama's flyer was something out of the play book of Karl Rove. Hillary is always more at home when she can point back to the VRC (Vast Right-wing Conspiracy). It also allows her and her fellow Democrats to continue to reside in their fantasy world where only the Republicans play hardball politics while their 7-year savaging of George W. Bush is excused as "telling the truth."

The Clintons are reminders of the ugly side of American politics. They certainly have their Republican counterparts but few practice the dark political arts with the facility of Bill and Hillary. By this Summer, they will likely have been purged as major players from the political scene and we will not mourn their departure. From a policy standpoint, Barack Obama is no better but at least he comes in a more pleasant package without all the residue of Clinton corruption.




-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Vice Chairman of GM gets it right (LINK)

China is having its coldest winter in 100 years. China is a big part of the globe.

Global temperatures have risen every year since their low point in 2001.

Hundreds of scientists have proven that greenhouse gases have had no impact on global temperatures - and have attributed all of the warming over the last fifty years to the sun. Some have even hypothesized that sun spot activity may cause 'global cooling,' an environmental effect much worse on mankind than 'global warming.'

As I sit here typing, Old Man Winter will not let the Northeast out of his grip. My oil consumption for my furnace continues unimpeded. Another seventy bucks for the plow guy to clear out eight inches of snow from by 220 foot driveway.

In the meantime, the flock of zealots will demonize the dissenters of the cause. The latest heretic is Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman of General Motors.

It sounds like the believers have inundated his blog with venomous statements because of his own, and I assume, well informed decision to not believe with the bigots and the wackos.

I wonder how long the earth will have to cool - five more years, ten? - before we can move on from this ridiculous concept.

From REUTERS: General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Out-victimed !!

Hillary failed to land the knockout blow. She even got booed by the liberal austin audience when she chided Obama for his use of MA Governor Deval Patricks words. Her prepared line, 'this is not change you can believe in but change you can Xerox,' got the liberal pro-Obama crowd to briefly boo Mrs. Clinton.

Oh, how far she has fallen !!

A woman who has made her living being a victim, has been trumped by a bigger, untouchable victim. A black man with a gift of gab. Her style of politics, personal destruction of anyone in her way, has been neutered by his superior victimhood status.



I would give more debating points to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama came across as cocky and smug...but none of it is enough to end his run. Even if she can win a few states, his 150 delegate lead is too much to overcome. It is unlikely that she can coax the superdelegates to her side and even if she could, many have pre-scolded the Clintons on this tactic.

In the end, whoever gets the most popularly voted delegates wins. The two-year Senator, long on wind and short on substance will emerge as John McCain's challenger.

Before we wince and toss 'n turn over the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency, let's enjoy watching the Clintons waddle off into the sunset - a damaged brand- beaten by an underfunded, inexperienced, silk-tongued man, with the best victim status.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Welcome to the Real Media World, John

For several years now, John McCain has enjoyed preferential treatment by those in the liberal media establishment. He was their favorite maverick. This favor was not related directly to anything that Sen. McCain believed or did but rather because he was often in opposition to the Bush Administration which most of the media believe to be either misguided or just plain evil. From the media's standpoint, McCain gave them many opportunities to embarrass the Bush Administration by just letting him speak.

McCain obviously enjoyed this "favorite maverick" status. It was a symbiotic relationship in a way; giving McCain the attention he desired and allowing the press to attack Bush through a Republican surrogate. Many conservative commentators pointed out that the media fascination with Sen. McCain would last only so long as he remained useful to them. Seemingly, that day has arrived.

The New York Times has published a piece alleging that an improper relationship may have existed between McCain and a female lobbyist about eight years ago. All involved have denied the allegations but that is not the point I am addressing. The point is that the media fascination with John McCain is now over as many predicted. He has outlived his usefulness to them in their desire to harm the Bush administration. Now, McCain is in the direct path of many in the media achieving another objective of theirs; the election of a Democrat President. As the New York Times is airing allegations against Sen. McCain, it is simultaneously banishing stories of Michelle Obama's errant quotes to the back pages. McCain should have seen this coming.

Welcome to the real media world, John. We're glad to have you back.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Finally, America! We Have Made Her Proud !! (LINK)

I spent a little time today IM'g with B. Bryant on her choice of words. In the interest of accuracy, let's take Mrs. O. at her word. This is the first time in her adult life that she has been proud of America. Really, proud.

(She didn't say, this is the first thing that has happened in my adult life to make me proud).

But let's be conservative and assume that she is referring only to the American history of her Adult life...circa 1980 and beyond, and that period, apparently, has been nothing but a testimony to evil, greed and despair - according to Mrs Obama.

We defeated the Soviet Union without a shot being fired. Many were proud when the Berlin wall came down. (Michelle Obama: "Ho hum, yawn")

We liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis (Michelle Obama: "yawn, sigh")

Not a bit of pride in the way the country came together after 9/11???

George Bush just returned from Africa (his third trip) with a reaffirmation of the commitment of the U.S. to fight aids and poverty in Africa and the third world. Nothing??

We live in a country where our poor are the envy of the world. Unemployment is at 5% (half of other industrialize nations). We lead the world in charitable donations. We lead the world in racial equality. We are a free nation where we can vote, speak our minds and are free to choose our own occupations.

But, nothing could make Michelle Obama proud until her husband won some primaries and some college girls fainted at a rally. There is something very wrong with liberals.

To the liberals, recent American history includes, the Kennedy and MLK Jr. assassinations, some civil rights riots and George Bush hoodwinking the country into believing in WMD. Not much else !!

From the Fox News Link Above:

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said the comment “was sort of revealing.”

“She was an adult when we won the Cold War without firing a shot. She was an adult for the last 25 years of economic progress, social progress,” he told FOX News. “I think the Democrats have to be careful … they’re running against the status quo … You have to be careful not to let that slide into a kind of indictment of America. Because I don’t think the American people think on the whole that the last 25 years of American history is a narrative of despair and nothing to be proud of.”

We may well have a first lady worst than Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings !!

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Is Bill Clinton Losing It?

There has been much debate about whether Bill Clinton helps or hurts his wife's campaign. Bill has continually been very visible but always seemed to turn the focus upon himself rather than Hillary who is the actual candidate. As the campaign has turned increasingly in favor of Obama, the former President's words have become more testy, even vindictive, toward Obama and those who would oppose their return to the White House.

This was especially seen in a recent Clinton attack on abortion protesters at one of his speeches. Once again, he could not resist touting the accomplishments(?) of his Presidency, even claiming that no one had done as much as his administration to actually reduce the number of abortions. This really must be seen to be appreciated.



-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Barkley: "Republicans are Fake Christians"

Former NBA star Charles Barkley announced his support for Barack Obama in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. Barkley, an Alabama native and (former?) Republican, blasted Republicans as "fake Christians" because of their opposition to gay marriage and abortion. In an ironically judgmental diatribe, Barkley said that those positions were judgmental and contrary to Christianity. Barkley then said that he planned to run for Governor of Alabama in 2014. I would not want to wager on his chances for success.

Hear it for yourself.



-- Submitted by B. Bryant

CNN on McCain vs. Obama

For anyone who wonders why CNN is losing viewers, this clip is for you. Jack Cafferty, who would never be mistaken even for a moderate, addressed the issue of who would win the contest between John McCain and Barack Obama with viewer emails. It should not be surprising that three out of the four emails read were supporters of Obama and had little nice to say about McCain or his generation.

Thanks CNN. Fair and Balanced, eh?



-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Whither Goest Thou, Hillary?

As all pundits are saying, the next two weeks are crucial for Hillary R. Clinton. Her string of losses to Barack Obama put her in a do-or-die situation for the March 4 primaries. She must win both Texas AND Ohio, probably by substantial margins, to have a chance of securing the Democrat Presidential nomination. If she prevails, she lives to fight another day with still a chance to win the nomination. If she loses either contest, she is finished as a candidate. So the pundits say but are they right? As much as many of us would like to see Hillary and her Bill fade into the night, I think there is a good chance that we will not have our collective wishes anytime in the foreseeable future. In the remainder of this piece, I'd like to explore some options that may face Sen. Clinton in the future.

Option #1: Hillary wins the nomination and beats McCain
This would certainly be Hillary's favorite scenario, if not the most likely. Hillary would face John McCain in the general election. If she wins, we'll have her for a while.

Option #2: Hillary wins the nomination and loses to McCain
If she loses, she is done as a presidential candidate because Democrats do not care for those who lose to Republicans. She would not be viable for 2012 even though she might make a go of it. She would still remain a Senator and might try for Majority Leader.

Option #3: Hillary loses the nomination to Obama who beats McCain
If Obama beats John McCain, Hillary will never run for President again. She could not oppose an incumbent Obama in 2012 and would likely be too old in 2016. She would settle into her Senate position and maybe shoot for Majority leader.

Option #4: Hillary loses the nomination to Obama who loses to McCain
This would make Hillary the presumptive front-runner for the 2012 nomination. Obama would be a loser and not viable. Hillary would devote the intervening four years to campaigning for Democrats thus storing up markers that she can call for the 2012 campaign. McCain would be 75 then and might be viewed as vulnerable.

Option #5: Hillary pulls out all the stops to win the nomination even though behind
This is the nuclear option and the only one that could potentially sink Hillary as a public figure. It would be a high risk-high gain venture that might net her nothing. If she wrangles the nomination from Obama when Obama has more pledged delegates, it would generate much anger and resentment within the Democratic Party. Because of that she would definitely lose in the general election because many Democrats would not support her. She would be branded a loser and a divider and would basically have no place to go. This is the only scenario that I can foresee removing the Clintons from the public spotlight.

So, in looking at all these options, it is very likely that we will have the Clintons around for the foreseeable future. As much as we might like to think that her defeat by Obama would finish her, it actually might have the opposite effect, making her stronger for 2012. In any case, Hillary "ain't goin' nowhere."

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or Hillary Clinton

These ideas, this rhetoric...class warfare, anti-market: be frightened. They are dueling to outsocialist each other.

Clinton pits herself against business
By: Mike Allen
February 14, 2008 12:58 PM EST

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) trashed an array of corporate interests in an economic speech in Ohio Thursday, vowing that as president she would go after oil, credit-card, insurance, pharmaceutical, investment, and loan firms.

Delivering a major economic address ahead of the Buckeye State’s crucial March 4 primary, Clinton also slammed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as a lightweight, declaring: “My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions.”

“My opponent says that he’ll take on the special interests,” she said in her prepared remarks. “Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill – the bill never actually passed.”

Clinton has put a new emphasis on populism as she attempts to recover from a string of eight consecutive losses to Obama, and she continues to court the endorsement of former opponent John Edwards.

Earlier in the race, Clinton defended her relationships with business lobbyists, telling a blogger convention this summer that many of them “represent real Americans.”

But she took a very different stance today as she delivered as she delivered a “Solutions for the American Economy” address to General Motors employees in Warren, Ohio.

“Today, I’m announcing an agenda to reign in the special interests and save the American people at least $55 billion a year,” Clinton said. “Money that can go back into your pockets. Money we can use to create new jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, make college affordable and so much more.”

In another swipe at Obama, she said: “In the end, it comes down to just one question: When the bright lights are off and the speeches are over, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up for you, to deliver solutions for you?”

Clinton also said she measures her life “not by applause or headlines – but by whether I’m helping people.”

Here’s what Clinton said about each of the industries she vowed to rein in:

—“We’ll take on the oil companies and harness their record profits to create millions of clean energy jobs – high-wage jobs you can raise a family on. I’ll end their special tax breaks and give them a choice: invest some of your profits in alternative energy, or we’ll do it for you. People have been paying through the roof at the pump, and it’s time the companies paid their fair share.”

—“We’ll take on the credit card companies so that you and your families aren’t drowning in debt. Here in Ohio, payday lenders are actually taking Social Security checks from our elderly. That’s outrageous. I’ve proposed real consumer protections against abusive interest rates – capping them at no more than 30 percent and working to get them far lower. And I’ll ban those hidden fees and sudden rate hikes, because credit card companies shouldn’t be able to bait and switch you and your family.”

—“We’ll take on the insurance companies and tell them they can no longer discriminate against the sickest people who need care the most. They spend more than $50 billion a year trying to figure out how not to cover people. Well, I’m going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here’s the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition, you can get the health insurance you need – no questions asked.”

—“And I’ll go after drug companies and insurance companies that are overcharging consumers and the government – it’s time to end their profiteering at our expense.

—“We’ll take on Wall Street and tell them: you’re going to finally pay your fair share in taxes. Because it’s outrageous that a teacher making $50,000 pays a higher tax rate than some Wall Street investment managers making $50 million. And I’ll create a bi-partisan Corporate Waste Commission to review all those corporate subsidies – and propose a comprehensive way to end them. We can save billions of dollars a year and put it to work for you.

—“We’ll take on the student loan companies and tell them no more ripping off our sons and daughters. I’m proposing a Student Borrower Bill of Rights - no more deceptive advertising and outrageous fees. And we’ll end the inefficient subsidies for private student loan companies. Because we should be making it easier for our kids to go to college – not harder.”

Submitted by D.B. Jackson