In the closing two weeks of this campaign for Iowa, Hillary Clinton has launched a new 'softer side'
initiative. She parades around with her daughter and her mother, and says things like she's shy and doesn't like talking about herself.
Are you kidding me?
Is this really going to work?
Are the American people really that dumb?
Remember... this is the woman that was commonly joked to be running the 'secret police' of the white house during the Clinton Presidency.
Remember - Travel Gate? Where Hillary Clinton was found to have given false testimony to the special council?
William Safire was right. Hillary Clinton was and is a vindictive power player. Why do we want this back in the white house?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Real Reason Why Bill Did Not Run in '88
One name - Gennifer Flowers
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
New Iowa Poll
Barack Obama, 33%
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Politics Matters Resolution
I pledge to post something each day until Super Tuesday.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Obama's secret weapon - Michigan
Barack Obama has publicly pulled out of the Michigan primary due to the fight between the state and federal Democrats.
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Is Keith Olbermann the last American Patriot?
If you haven't seen it.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Big Debate Bounce for Obama
Take a look at the recent primary state polls taken after the debate, and one can easily see a post debate bounce for Obama.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)