J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

If you believe that the blame Bush for all your woes mantra would have been any different had Hillary Clinton been elected president, think again.

The current administration needs a course (top to bottom) in self responsibility. This don’t blame us, blame the other guy mentality is growing old and beyond that, it is juvenile on its face.

Tweet This Post

A lesson in unacceptable behavior by a United States Secretary of State.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s temper flared on Monday when a Congolese university student asked her for her husband’s thinking on an international financial matter.

According to Jake Tapper the initial question was interpreted incorrectly and the questioner was referring to Obama not former President Clinton.

Oops. Maybe Mrs. Clinton should have held her powder dry.

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

Regardless of the error, the notion of Secretary Clinton’s deference to her husband clearly touched a nerve with America’s top diplomat. Just a week ago the former President stole his wife’s thunder when he appeared in North Korea to rescue two American journalists detained there. His trip came just as Secretary Clinton embarked on a swing through Africa she hoped would shine light on the plight of the continent.

Still, imagine what the students thought when her response was translated back and they heard Clinton call President Obama her husband….

Tweet This Post

Joe Namath, Golda Meir, the Chicago 8, Arafat, Woodstock, and so much more.

These were the faces and events which defined the year 1969.

Please vote (no registration required).

MarineParents is in the running to win $3,000! They can’t do it without YOU though because the winning charity will be the one with the most votes. Voting ends at 9 p.m. Eastern Time July 21

Has Barack Obama successfully sidelined Hillary Clinton?

The Telegraph believes it to be true:

If President Obama’s goal in appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was to neutralize his biggest rival, he has certainly succeeded. Clinton looks a shadow of her former self, and has been the most low-key Secretary of State in recent times. Her immediate predecessors Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were far more prominent figures on the world stage during their first six months in office. Clinton, in contrast, looks tired, disinterested, and largely going through the motions.

The folks at Let Freedom Ring are in the midst of a brilliant campaign to weed out those in Congress who will not commit to actually reading a health care bill prior to voting in favor of it:

Those signing on to the pledge as of yesterday are available at the link above. If your Congressperson is not on the list, give he/she a call and inquire as to why not. I’d love to hear the answers.

Tweet This Post

Who said this?

“It’s as much just your sort of clock gets all off.”

Answer here.

Tweet This Post

To some it is all about image.

It’s all about creating a false impression of what America really is in order to appease others.

It’s about affixing blame and apologizing to those abroad for all of our mistakes.

If America is such a drain on the rest of the world due to our beliefs and ideals then riddle me this: why is it when others are in imminent danger or oppressed they look to the United States first in almost all instances?

Gateway Pundit quotes the Washington Post today with a most disturbing statement from this administration’s Secretary of State:

Clinton’s remarks came in response to a question about the “prejudice” in the United States against Muslims because of terrorism, a term she rejected forcefully, pointing to the history of Christians. “I am a Christian,” she said. “Through the centuries we have had many people who have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. They have perverted the religion.”

It would be difficult to quibble with the fact that all religions have had their moments in which they have committed egregious acts in the name of their faith, however, taken in the context of this forum, the Secretary of State appears to wish to apologize for those in America who have “persecuted” Muslims.

She leaves the distinct impression with her statement that Christianity is perverted on a large scale. Does she truly believe this to be the case or once again it is convenient rhetoric to soothe those who feel wronged by America?

In our short existence, this country has given more than any other. We give money, in generous amounts, when necessary. Countless times we have sent aid with the assistance of peaceful organizations [many of them Christian based] when needed and, yes, we have shed blood many times so others may live free.

Perhaps its time the current administration stress the strengths and
goodness of the country they were elected to serve. That is, if they believe it themselves.

[As an afterthought, here's something to ponder.

Does the Secretary of State think by her remarks she could change the thinking of those who committed acts of terrorism here and abroad during her husband's two terms?

How about those who killed the 3000 plus on 9-11 or maybe these fellows could be swayed to believe we and other free nations are willing to atone for all our sins.

If she does then I think she is sorrily mistaken.]

Tweet This Post

About that tax plan offered by Senator Obama:

bama’s been lowering the bar on his tax plan. Where he once claimed that only Americans making over $250,000 would see tax increases, he’s now down as far as $200,000 and maybe even $150,000 if his running mate Senator Foot-In-His-Mouth is to be believed.

But one aspect of Obama’s tax plans have been ignored. See, Obama and his comrades are also promising to let the Bush tax cuts expire. If that happens, we’d see massive tax increases for Americans making as little as $50,000/year.

Pretty soon the only people receiving any tax break at all will be those who pay none to begin with!

Hope for McCain supporters (even if it’s just a little bit) from DJ Drummond:

I have been saying all along, that McCain was closer to Obama in the election campaign than the polls were indicating. However, I have been doing so by focusing on party affiliation, the demographic most fiddled with by the polls. Those critiquing my analysis have sometimes pointed to internal demographics which show problems for McCain. With just a week until the end of the season, let’s see where the thresholds for election are, with regard to demographics. That is, what is the minimum performance in each area which was enough to get the win?…..

Over at Musing Minds I found the one line post of the week to date.

Check it out..it has something to do with that wealth distribution we’ve heard about lately. It seems the concept really does run in the democratic family.

Who knew that the Speaker of the House is such a comedienne? Made me laugh!

Live From the Ministry of Truth. A new video from Ed Driscoll..good stuff!

Tweet This Post

After reading this report I’m not so sure it isn’t under discussion.

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, “not because she’s a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past.”

“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight.”

I’m telling you, the polls must look bad for Obama. He seems desperate and this is a gentle way to ease Biden out for Clinton. But won’t it look transparent?

Tweet This Post

Next week the Democrats are set to meet in Denver for their presidential nominating convention. The expected winner is Barack Obama.

It looks as though the Clintons are going todominate the convention, though.

Hillary Clinton will make a prime time speech, as will her husband Bill the next night. Chelsea Clinton is expected to introduce her mother and Hillary has hired the Thomasons tocreate a video as her introduction to the delegates. If the name sounds familiar, these are the people who produced “The Man from Hope” for Bill Clinton when he was nominated the first time.

Hillary’s name will be put into nomination and a roll call will be taken. Do you suppose some of the people who now have buyer’s remorse about Obama will switch and vote for Hillary? Is that what she’s hoping and has been planning for all along?

Obama will speak the next night in a stadium of some 75,000 or so people to accept the nomination. But what if the much-discussed superdelegates renege on their support for Obama? Does Hillary have an acceptance speech already loaded into the teleprompter for her hoped-for nomination?

I’ve never seen a convention where the runner-up has gained so much attention from the platform and the floor as this one promises to be.

I guess I’ll have to tune in the first couple of nights to see this demonstration and just record my favorite animal programs to watch later.

You’d never know this is supposed to be Barack Obama’s moment, would you? I think he just got fleeced.

Tweet This Post

Andrea Mitchell interviews General Petraeus.

The General wastes no time in making his positions crystal clear..now only if the media would listen.

While the Democrats attempt to jockey for position to take credit for us “winning” in Iraq, (we all know it had to be that pressure they put on the President), their steady drumbeat of words fall on deaf ears with me.

This is the party whose leader told us the war was lost. Remember Mrs. Clinton’s “willing suspension of disbelief” of General Petraeus’s report to the Armed Services Committee?

How about the disgraceful actions and words of Congressman John Murtha?

We should not forget the continuous threats on the Left to cut funding for the war, knowing full well the American people would not tolerate our troops being left in further jeopardy.

As for the media, well they have done their level best to turn public opinion against the war and the President perhaps not realizing there are those of us who resent their constant negativity and lack of support and recognition for the successes achieved.

President Bush has remained steadfast in his claim that when Iraq was stable and their government was certain they could maintain the peace, we would leave. His recent conversations with Prime Minister Maliki are the beginning of that process, not some artificial time line the Democrats would prefer our troops and Iraq follow.

Wars are not won or lost by presidential nominees (especially those whose positions change like the wind) or those in Congress, many of whom have never set foot in today’s hostile environments.

No indeed, they are won by men and women like these:

Something a bit different this week, in keeping with our the war was won theme. This is a video produced by the Third Infantry Division (aka Task Force Marne and MND-C) the surge division in Iraq.

and, those who have stepped up to defend their own country as it struggles (as our nation did) to form a democracy:

Then there are times when the change hits you across the forehead like a 2×4. Yesterday I found inspiration in the tears of joy on hundreds of faces at the graduation for the Iraqi Military Academy at Rustimiyah as 252 young men graduated from the one year course of instruction and were commissioned as 2nd Lieutenants in the Iraqi Army and Air Force.

Tweet This Post

Perhaps not so interesting in the sense that Barack Obama has added former Clinton aide Patti Solis Doyle to his staff but more intriguing as to the position she will assume:

FLINT, Mich.– The Obama campaign announced on Monday that it has chosen Patti Solis Doyle to a key general election post, making her the first prominent Clinton official to make the leap to the other side.

But it is not exactly being seen by Clinton loyalists as an olive branch.

Obama is installing Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the future vice presidential nominee, who has not yet been picked. Given that Solis Doyle was fired from the Clinton campaign, is now at odds with several senior officials who remained and has a strained relationship with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton herself these days, the appointment may well signal that Clinton’s chances of being picked for the vice presidential slot are close to nil.

Although Solis Doyle devoted her adult life to working for Clinton and once counted her among her closest friends, her departure from the campaign was a rough one. Loyalists openly blamed her for the internal warring and strategic failures; after she left, Clinton expressed hard feelings toward Solis Doyle for the way money had been spent. Fairly or not, Solis Doyle is not the person the Obama campaign would pick to send a signal that it is about to welcome Clinton on board. If anything, some Clinton loyalists privately said, it is an insult.

I don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would come back to work so closely with Ms. Doyle if she were the Vice Presidential nominee, however, there are many things about politics which I don’t understand as of late.

Tweet This Post

By now everyone knows Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and no link is necessary, although I’ve provided clips of her speech.

By suspending her campaign she can continue to raise money to replenish the Clintons’ private coffers. After all, he didn’t make all those speeches just to throw away the money.

As I see it Hillary has cried “Un” but will not cry “cle” until January 21, 2009, a full day after the next president is sworn in. Then she will begin to plot her next run.

Never, ever underestimate the Clintons. She is still officially in this race hoping there will be buyer’s remorse on Obama and she can jump right in and fill the top of the ticket. The wheels are always spinning in the heads of the Clintons.

Oh, she said all the right words with her arms spread as though she were going to take flight at any moment, but if Barack or anyone else believes her they are naive. She has probably negotiated a big speech in prime time at the convention for herself and her husband.

She’ll put on the act of support for Barack Obama, but it is only an act. She really wants him to lose so she can say, “I told you so.”

She has made history by being the first woman to seriously be considered as a candidate for President of the United States. I’ll give her that much credit, and one day a woman will be elected, but hopefully one who is not so self-consumed and has the interest of the country at heart.

If I were Barack Obama I would stay as far away from her as John McCain is staying from President Bush, and I like President Bush. Harry Truman once said “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” It seems that President Bush is learning that the hard way, but then again he’s doing what he feels is right and not what the polls tell him he should be doing. Love him or hate him or his policies, you have to admire the fact he doesn’t look to polls to make policy.

It appears the country has been spared another Clinton presidency; at least for four more years, but don’t count on it until noon on January 20,2009. And if Barack is smart he won’t have her as his VP or as a cabinet secretary.

Her sore loser attitude has soured her reputation in the Senate, but hey, why should she care? Over half the voters in the two elections her husband won voted for someone else and they still acted as though they had been coronated.

Hillary spent money like a drunken sailor during the first part of her campaign, until she realized it was running out faster than she could replenish it. Now bills are unpaid and she’ll keep trying to raise money to pay them; the biggest creditor being herself.

And why shouldn’t she have spent like it was going out of style? She was supposed to just have her name in the race and the presidency would be served to her on a diamond-studded gold platter.

It’s funny how things work in the real world, but I have a hunch she’s still thinking she can pull this off someway to her benefit, so she won’t say “cle” until she goes to her grave.

We have in Barack Obama a candidate as slick as Bill Clinton and one who thinks he’s the next JFK. He’s still a socialist and people not blinded by rose-colored glasses will see he is a charming man but still an empty suit.

He has spent two of his three years as a Senator campaigning for president and it won’t stop until November when the election is held.

Now I have my problems with John McCain too, the most recent one being the fact he is buying into the global warming thing going to ruin the planet. I’ll not touch on Bible prophecy to explain why I think this is all as it is supposed to be, but suffice it to say I don’t believe it is our biggest problem.

Now we have two men who have promised clean campaigns. Judging from McCain’s first ad talking about his family and military history and the DNC’s ad twisting his words I would say we shall see what we shall see.

Anyway, if you supported Hillary, don’t give up hope yet. She’s still trying to figure out her next step.

Tweet This Post

I must say it, even though it might be unpopular..I felt sorry for Barack Obama last night.

What a shame that his words had to be lost once again in the rhetoric (and plea for money) from one (at least at this writing) candidate.

Having watched all three speeches, I can only summarize this way:

John McCain..first of all, should have butted out. This night did not belong to him.

As for his speech, well, it might have been strong in substance but his delivery left a lot to be desired.

Republicans should be concerned if this is the best he can do as eventually no one will be listening..they will all be asleep. Energy is important in campaigns and the Senator showed absolutely none last evening.

Hillary Clinton..Probably one of the most egotistical, brazen “acceptance” speeches I have ever witnessed.

She has proven herself incapable of recognizing an other’s accomplishments.

Touting her own breakthroughs in this primary season is fine and should she decide to take this to the convention that too is her prerogative, but, what I witnessed last night was not characteristic of someone I wish to see occupy the Oval Office.

No grace, no humility, no tact and worst of all no words of congratulations to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama..Back to my opening line.

Watching him take the stage to deliver an acceptance speech as the Democrat’s presumptive nominee had already been deflated by the mania of the Clinton’s. Something was missing as he delivered this speech.

Maybe he was overwhelmed by the enormity of of what had just been bestowed upon him. I don’t think so.

I believe he had just been treated to his real first taste of the Clinton family.
He may have recognized that they feel he and the general population are required to be beholden to them for all they have done (in their minds) and will do in the future.

He should have been prepared, after all the coronation was all but guaranteed not that very long ago.

Suffering loss is a part of life. Observing those who have no capacity to give others their due is pathetic.

Senator Obama does deserve congratulations for not only taking on and defeating the Clinton machine but for surrounding himself with individuals who planned and executed his primary victories with cunning and care.

Coming away from last evening with the same feelings I have had for quite some time now as to this presidential election was of no consolation. I still have not found that candidate who leaves me with the feeling that I will be doing much more than voting for the lesser of two evils. For reasons I have stated before, John McCain is my only reasonable choice but it is a gut wrenching one at that.

Tweet This Post

Paul Aldrich reminds us why we should elect Hillary Clinton as our next President of the United States.

In this otherwise tedious election season, it is nice to have a good laugh.

Enjoy!

Tweet This Post

While speaking to the Israeli Knesset yesterday President Bush made this remark:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’

“We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history”

Remember, he was speaking to the Israelis who are the survivors and descendants of the survivors of the worst appeasement policy in history; that of Chamberlain with Hitler.

Instead of democrats agreeing this is actual history (and no democrat names were mentioned) Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi and who knows who else felt compelled to condemn the speech as a political slap in the face at them. Unless their names are Chamberlain or Hitler they were not mentioned.

I actually think the president was thinking more in the lines of Jimmy Carter, who has had his hands in every crisis since he created the one with Iran.

The argument is that the president shouldn’t go overseas and talk bad about the Congress. It’s an unwritten rule. I guess it just took effect because if that’s the case it stands to reason no politician should go overseas and criticize the President of the United States.

Let’s see, Pelosi, former President Clinton and former President Carter come to mind immediately as breaking that unwritten rule and very recently and often.

Why do you suppose they all got so touchy about the comment the President made? Do you suppose the shoe fit them and it was too close for comfort?

Tweet This Post

While being cautious in their headline by using the word “possible,” the NYT offers a sensible assessment of the current state of not just the race for the nomination but that of the party of a whole on the Democrat side of the aisle:

Certainly, no one is expecting a couple with such political skills, an extended network, history and broad appeal — not to mention fund-raising power — to disappear from the Democratic stage. Mrs. Clinton would presumably return to what could be a potentially very high-profile role in the Senate. Mr. Clinton is only 61, and never has been the kind of politician happy on the sidelines.

But Mr. Obama’s move to the brink of the nomination was fraught with symbolism and evidence of a party in transition. A first-time presidential candidate, he has so far outmaneuvered the vaunted Clinton political machine. He positioned his candidacy as a repudiation of the kind of politics the Clintons practiced and a generational break. And he drew thousands of new voters and donors into his fold, giving the party a fresh face and new energy.

“The Clintons had an important role in the recent history of the Democratic Party and will always play some role, given their success at bringing this country peace and prosperity,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who backed Mr. Obama. “But elections are about the future, not the past. It’s a new era. This is a new spirit that’s out there.”

The evidence may be mounting that Senator Clinton has very few options left to secure the nomination of her party but it was a pleasure to read an article which is not presuming to ask her to leave the race.

I see no one moving that mountain except the candidate herself and only after she is firmly convinced all of her avenues are exhausted be they in the best interest of the party or not.

Interviews with current party leaders and those who have gone before make this piece a worthwhile read.

Tweet This Post

After the drubbing Hillary Clinton took last night in North Carolina and the too close for comfort win in Indiana for her, it appears even she recognizes now Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president.

She has cancelled all public appearances for Wednesday after lending her campaign another 6.4 million dollars. The question she and the former president must be asking themselves is how much of their wealth are they willing to throw to what appears to be a losing cause? Contributions will dry up as she did not have a good showing Tuesday.

I have seen on many blogs people who claim not to be racist actually being racist when they speak of people voting for Obama because he has the same skin color they have.

My question is why don’t they have that right if that’s what they want? I’m part American Indian and I know if an American Indian were to run for president and be seriously considered I would seriously consider voting for him/her (unless the person came from my tribe. I know them too well. LOL)

I might even cave a little on philosophy if an Indian were to run and not agree with me on my important issues, but I doubt it.

I can understand why, though, black Americans are taking such pride in Barack Obama. After a history of slavery and second-class citizenship, civil rights fights and promises that their turn would come they have finally come to the point where they can see the brass ring and it is almost within their grasp.

They feel they have a chance to have a president who truly knows their plight in life and will make it better and this is their best hope ever of seeing it come to fruition.

At least this is my impression upon reflection of everyone pretending not to be racist when they are. That’s why everyone was so thrilled to hear of Jeremiah Wright and what he had to say. It gave them an excuse to say why they didn’t intend to vote for Obama even though the underlying reason was racism. Not for everyone, but for too many I care to count.

I will not vote for Barack Obama but it is not because of the color of his skin. It is because I believe he is a socialist and will take us down a path I don’t wish to follow. It is because he is so inexperienced in politics at any level I don’t want to put him in charge of our foreign or domestic policy for fear of what damage he might cause due to that inexperience.

We were not given a stellar cast of characters in this year’s races for either party to come up with a candidate we could all rally behind and say, “This is the one who should be president.” Neither party has been excited about their candidates if you tell yourself the truth.

Sure, voting for someone who is of your race is a poor excuse to vote for that someone, but everyone has the right to choose their candidate regardless of the reasons for choosing him/her.

A blog I was once associated with is filled with bloggers who are so racist and so southern in their thinking that the Wright flare-up just made the perfect excuse to say why Obama shouldn’t be elected instead of actually saying their true feelings. That is until you go to the comments and read between the lines in some cases and straight out in others.

In no way am I endorsing Obama or getting into the Democratic Party’s race for the nomination, but I wasn’t born yesterday and I can see the writing on the wall for Hillary Clinton. She’s done. Stick a fork in her, and that’s just reality.

You can rest assured when the national campaign between the two presidential nominees actually takes place this blog will stand firmly behind John McCain, but it won’t be because he’s white and Barack Obama is black. It will be because I agree most with his positions on national security, abortion, and his record of fighting pork in the Senate, along with other things.

What we say about either candidate will be factual, backed up by other publications and we will not get involved in race-baiting or rumor mongering.

May God continue to bless America and may the best candidate win.

Tweet This Post

If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, then the news of a ten point win in the the Pennsylvania primary should be most welcome. As for the outcome, I do not think it was ever in question, it was just a matter of the margin.

This was the first primary in which I did not watch any of the cable or national news network coverage of the results, as our Flyers were embroiled in game 7 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs against the Washington Capitals.

What a wonderful series this was. Not because the home team won in overtime last evening but because it was hard fought, scrappy hockey with much brilliant goal-tending thrown into the mix.

Back to the primary. I don’t really have much to say that has not already been said a million other places. How many ways can you say, Hillary survives to fight on? As I read through the coverage later in the evening, I found myself chuckling at this couple of paragraphs in an article whose author appears to want Mrs. Clinton to exit the race.

Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s “Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!” (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as “Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!”) They could sing:

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!”

I don’t believe Mrs. Clinton will “go, go GO” anywhere except all the way to the Democratic convention. Losing is simply not an option.

Oh well, now we will hear, read and focus on Indiana and North Carolina. Let me rephrase that. Others can turn their attention to those races. I have witnessed enough negativity in the past six weeks here in PA to last me a lifetime.

I will be focused on a Canadian city and a home team who has a chance to advance one step further towards that cherished cup.

If I’m going to have indigestion and feel my blood pressure rise, it might as well be over something I enjoy. At least I know this. Win or lose, I will see good sportsmanship and even in the face of disappointment, realistic thinking and praise for ones opponent.

Tweet This Post

Let the spin begin. (I guess the scrutiny became a bit too hot.)

Sorry Mrs. Clinton. Not buying.

This is operating under the duress of sniper fire:

This is not:

And what irks me is that the Clinton campaign would believe voters were naive enough not to know the difference.

No Senator, there are some things you would never forget and coming under sniper fire would be near the top of the list. There is no room for “she misspoke” on this issue.

Update: For those who might say that’s just one photograph or perhaps there were other issues the former First Lady dealt with in Bosnia, here is a firsthand report from CBS news:

Others writing:
Sweetness and Light

Mark Halperin

Ed Morrissey

Tweet This Post

Captain Ed provides a round-up of a few of the issues which have arisen out of the release of Hillary Clinton’s records while First Lady:

The news media have begun digging into the newly-released schedules for Hillary Clinton during her husband’s administration, and they have already found some interesting holes and juxtapositions in her timelines. For instance, the Guardian in Britain notices that Hillary was outside of the country when a few crises arose, calling into question how much impact she had on their management:

Scroll through the post as there are many updates. None of this is supposition on the part of others and certainly shows that the Senator should be questioned on many of her present claims.

Here’s another supposed contradiction (not related to release of WH documents) which caused me to take pause:

In a speech on Iraq policy delivered Monday at George Washington University, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recalled facing “sniper fire” on her 1996 trip to Bosnia to visit U.S. troops on a peacekeeping mission. But reporters traveling with the then-First Lady made no reference to any “sniper fire” at the time, and pictures of Clinton arriving at the main air base in Tuzla (see attached video) don’t show anyone ducking or covering.

These are the Senator’s quoted words from the above mentioned speech:

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.

Take a few moments and view the video mentioned above and judge for yourself where the truth lies. HT:The Hillary Project

Senator Obama has been put through a meat grinder (and deservedly so) over the past week for his association with a pastor who has shown his disdain (speaking lightly) for the United States.

Now I ask this…If one candidate is being held to a certain standard and made to explain his actions and words, should not the other be just as accountable?

Tweet This Post

Source.

Tweet This Post

Being hit in the butt with a few pieces of raw rice does not compare to being in captivity in a cage for 5 1/2 years. Yes, I’m comparing John Kerry to John McCain because the old dog Gloria Steinhem from the ERA days has brought up the service of John McCain.

Steinem raised McCain’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.

“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”

Yeah, John, how come you got shot down? Weren’t you wearing your magic hat? Oh, sorry, wrong John. I’m sure you got shot down on purpose just so you could get your bones crushed among other things.

At least she disapproves of Kerry’s salute.

She compares being the wife to a president to being his secretary and learning the job that way:

Steinem also told the crowd that one reason to back Clinton was because “she actually enjoys conflict.”

And she claimed that if Clinton’s experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might “finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over.”

Hmmm. She’s not a fighter but she enjoys conflict. Does anyone else see the irony here?

If Hillary had been Bill’s secretary there wouldn’t have been a blue dress, now would there? And Bill wouldn’t have been found guilty of perjury. And it wasn’t about sex—it was about lying to a grand jury.

Quoting Mark Noonan at Blogs for Victory after telling us Wes Clark’s opinion of Hillary being Commander in Chief:

So, wandering around the world in the plush accomodations of the First Lady is better experience for CinC than 23 combat missions; showing extreme courage under the harshest of conditions for years; the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, the Distinguished Flying Cross; being commander of a squadron; working with Congress to fund new supercarriers and retiring as a Naval captain? Wes, if you say so, I guess it must be true…

Beats the heck out of getting a purple heart for having a grain of rice hit your butt.

Tweet This Post

That’s not my question in the header of this post, but it seems to be on the minds of others.

First from Maureen Dowd:

After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.

Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.

Then this from Eyeblast:

And more unwelcome news I am certain for the Clinton campaign:

Civil rights leader John Lewis dropped his support for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid Wednesday in favor of Barack Obama.
Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Atlanta, is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton’s campaign in the face of near- unanimous black support for Obama in recent voting. He also is a superdelegate who gets a vote at this summer’s national convention in Denver.

In a written statement, Lewis said Obama’s campaign “represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history” and that he wants “to be on the side of the people.”

“After taking some time for serious reflection on this issue, I have decided that when I cast my vote as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention, it is my duty … to express the will of the people,” the statement said.

Lewis’ endorsement had been a coveted prize among the Democratic candidates thanks to his standing as one of the most prominent civil rights leaders of the 1960s.

All politicians (especially those running for President) make promises which as thinking Americans we understand will and are most times difficult to keep. It’s one thing to recite flowery phrases on the campaign stump quite another to work with Congress to push initiatives through.

But, (and I never thought I’d hear myself say this) I must agree with Maureen Dowd when she writes:

Voters gravitate toward the presidential candidates who seem more comfortable in their skin. J.F.K. and Reagan seemed exceptionally comfortable.

I don’t know if we are seeing the real Barack Obama. Heck, I am taking little comfort in what I know to be the real John McCain but in the case of Senator Clinton I have yet to figure out who she really is.

It seems at this point in time many voters are having the same problem.

Tweet This Post

Maybe Hillary will pull out the Democratic nomination..I never count out a Clinton. It hasn’t looked good for her campaign recently. If it were me, I don’t know that I would have replaced one campaign manager with another that brings along memories of the past and the baggage both the Senator and former President carry:

Doyle has now been replaced by another loyalist, Maggie Williams, who served as Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff in the White House. Williams is someone to whom Clinton has turned in her moments of greatest peril. Former White House aides recall how in 1994 Williams planned and executed — without telling the press office — the famous soft-focus pink-sweater news conference, in which the First Lady talked about Whitewater and her cattle-futures trading for 66 min. Williams left the White House at the start of Bill Clinton’s second term, saddled with more than $300,000 in legal bills, after having been called to testify before the Senate Banking Committee about her role in the Whitewater damage-control effort. On the night of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster’s suicide, Williams and counsel Bernie Nussbaum combed Foster’s office for personal papers, and she was later criticized for allegedly removing a sheaf of documents that were locked away before eventually turning them over to attorneys.

It amazes me that people who had enormous legal fees and reputations tarnished for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. would continue to serve them. That’s politics I guess.

Tweet This Post

You have to hand it to the Clinton’s.

When all the pollsters, pundits and many blogs had written the Senator off, they once again defy all.

While I am no fan of the former First Lady, I must give credit where credit is due. Obviously, they (or she) depending on how you view this win, have not lost their “magic” when it comes to wowing the electorate.

On the Republican side, I suppose I will continue to wait and see exactly what direction the primary voters choose to take the party.

I am so underwhelmed at the moment with the prospects as they are at this juncture, it will take a real turn around for me to be “excited” by the GOP candidate.

Politics are amazingly unpredictable but one thing remains certain, polls have proven themselves as useless as I have always believed.

But no matter. As interesting and challenging as the politics in this country are, tomorrow we will all, God willing, wake up and have the things which mean the most to each of us in our lives.

*For those who may not have followed the results of the NH Race closely and would like a look at the county by county vote for both parties, this is an excellent website.

Tweet This Post

Usually I am a pretty compassionate person. At least that is the way I have always attempted to live life.

Maybe I am just to cynical where the Clinton’s are concerned but I have a very difficult time finding the following to be believeable:

Then Clinton began getting emotional: “It’s not easy, and I couldn’t do it if I didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country just don’t want to see us fall backwards,” she said.

Then, her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, “You know, this is very personal for me. It’s not just political it’s not just public. I see what’s happening, and we have to reverse it.”

All of a sudden the Senator has a soft side? This is the woman who as much as tells us that she is going to save us from all the evils thrust upon us by the current administration (without articulating exactly what they are.) In her mind, I believe she feels the Presidency is an entitlement, not the honor I have always felt it is.

She’s tired, she’s eating pizza, it’s hard. Well so is the Presidency, hard that is. It is 24-7-365.

In my book this is just another act. If by some chance it is real, the only reason I can deduce she would be reduced to tears is that she sees that to which she believes she is entitled slipping away.

If nothing else, it sure makes her the headline the day before the New Hampshire Primary.

Both the former President and his spouse have always been cold, calculating politicians. Why am I to think this is anything but another political ploy to garner sympathy?

Video available here.

UPDATE: It seems The Captain is not buying this whole scenario either.

More reaction here. [Liberty Pundit]

An excellent educated guess at what might be happening with the Clinton campaign here. [Right Wing Nut House]

*If these new numbers being offered by Rasmussen are anywhere near correct, then the internal numbers for the Clinton campaign would no doubt be worrisome.*

Tweet This Post

This is so breathtakingly ridiculous that I must quote the majority of the article for those who may not link over to read the whole thing otherwise:

Bill Clinton voiced his abiding anger at the media’s coverage of him and his wife in Durham, N.H., today, and suggested that media bias will force Clinton to go negative on Barack Obama.

He also expressed his frustration that his wife is perceived by voters as divisive through, he said, no fault of her own.

Clinton, like his wife, is traveling New Hampshire taking questions from voters, and he spoke at the University of New Hampshire in Durham in response to a plea from a woman who said she’d like it “if you and Clinton joined Barack Obama in putting the Republicans on notice” that it was time to “change the game” and end the “meanness” and “manipulation” in politics.

Clinton replied that he liked the idea — in theory.

“I think we can change it as long as you have access to information by people who are committed to judging everybody by the same set of rules and following the same set of rules,” he said. “According to the most recent media analysis, that’s not what’s happened so far, but yeah, I think it should be done.”

Clinton also let his audience glimpse the scars of his White House years.

Nobody would like it better than us if you could get that personal vilification out of there, because nobody’s been vilified more than we have,“[Emphasis, mine] he said, after noting that he thought Hillary and McCain could run a respectful campaign. “One of the problems with laying down and turning the other cheek is McCain had one dose of it. They gave it to us for eight years.

Gag, choke, cough. For a former President of the United States whose administration was involved in more self inflicted scandals than any in recent memory and who had the press working on his side for almost 8 years to play victim now, is a disgrace. Could this be an indication that the Clinton campaign’s internal numbers are tanking? Are we hearing a bit of desperation here?

I don’t know if Hillary will secure the Dem’s nomination but the baggage she carries now is what was created by the co-presidency the Clinton’s imposed on us while in Washington.

Besides, no one but Mrs. Clinton answered the questions posed to her in debates and on the Sunday talk shows.

We all know she would never go negative on anyone (ahem)…the press is going to make her do it. I’ve heard some real whoppers throughout this campaign but that statement by the former President takes the cake.

Maybe it’s time one of these two began owning up to the mistakes they have made rather than blaming them on the press who glorified them and the voters who gave them eight years in the White House.

The final few paragraphs are worth the read.

Update:

I am not one to follow polls closely but I know the Clinton’s always welcomed those which furthered their cause of the moment.

That being said, check out the latest numbers from Rasumssen for the state of New Hampshire. If this hold true in the primary and Obama wins by a large margin, what then. Will those Superdelegates begin to show signs of jumping ship? Time will tell.

*Welcome Anchoress readers!

HT: Hot Air

Tweet This Post

A year after she announced officially she was running for president Hillary Clinton’s face is showing the strain of travel, lack of rest and just the rigors of such a long race.

Maybe she’s just had a hard day in the cold of Iowa and New Hampshire, but look at how this campaign has affected her. She looks every day of her sixty years and then some.

This is not a political comment, but more of a comment on this unending campaign begun so early by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

To be fair, if you look around the mouth and chin area it almost looks like a touched-up photograph of the senator. If it isn’t she is completely exhausted by her schedule.

Tweet This Post

Bill Clinton is the most shameless politician who is the least embarrassed at looking us square in the face and contradicting what is known on record to be his previous position on an issue.

He now claims he was always against the Iraq war. Always, since when?

Former president Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning,” apparently glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time. Clinton made the remarks while campaigning for his wife in Iowa – a largely anti-war state for Democrats — as he expressed bitterness over getting a tax cut with money that could have been spent on the military.

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Clinton said. He said he “should not have gotten” the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and has never apologized for her vote, even as the Democratic nominating process has reached fever pitch and she has been drawn into a three-way tie with more ardent Iraq war foes, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards.

Sen. Clinton has, at times, even cited the experience her husband had dealing with the Iraqi regime in the 1990s as one reason she gave Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt when she voted for the war in 2002….

…But past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently Clinton opposed the war in real time and before it grew widely unpopular. In immediate hindsight, Clinton did not sound like a fierce critic. “I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Clinton said on May 18, 2003, during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College in Mississippi.

Sometimes in a presidency it is necessary for a president to lie to us as when President Kennedy excused himself from an event in Chicago saying he had a cold when he was really dealing with the Cuban missile crisis in Washington.

That’s excusable, but for a former president to tell us a bald faced lie in order to make his presidential candidate wife look more favorable to the voters is inexcusable.

It’s all about power with this tag team. Remember the actual audio recording of Bill Clinton saying he was offered Osama bin Laden on a silver plate but refused because he hadn’t committed any crimes? He obviously knew he was behind the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist activities but he chose not to pursue him.

And who can ever forget watching that long, wagging finger as he told us he never had sex with that woman—Monica Lewinski when he knew he was telling a lie?

Who can forget he lied to a grand jury about his sexual harassment of women during the Paula Jones hearing and got a fine and loss of law license over that lie?

His wife, the aspiring president, is just as bad if not worse. Remember the cattle futures in which she invested a mere $1,000 and got a huge return in a short time? Blame it on beginner’s luck.

How about the Rose law firm billing records that couldn’t be found during the Whitewater investigation, but suddenly showed up on a table in the residence of the White House with no explanation and with her finger prints on them?

Now we have this coming from the Washington Post, not exactly a right-wing publication.

When Americans step into the voting booths next November we all need to ask ourselves if this is what we want for another four to eight years if she is the Democratic nominee as expected.

Now is the time for a gut check for all of us. Let’s pray we have the guts to check it and reject it.

Update: If ~J~ will indulge me, I’d like to add a link to this piece by Cassy Fiano which expounds on the thoughts in this post with further quotes from the former President. Among my favorites…

……Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers.”

Resent away Mr. Clinton..I can think of no reason you would except your own regrets for what you did not accomplish while in office.

Sue

Tweet This Post

Sometimes you read a line or a paragraph which you just want to share:

Quick, besides marrying a future president, what is it that Hillary has accomplished that hasn’t been accomplished by any number of women over two decades? In some ways, she has accomplished much less than many.

Yep!

Tweet This Post

Hillary Clinton is touting her “experience” in the White House as reason to elect her or vote for her in the primaries.

KNOXVILLE, Iowa — The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can’t afford to break in a newcomer.

In speech that kicked off a two day campaign swing through Iowa, the New York senator painted a bleak picture of a U.S. economy battered by home foreclosures, rising oil prices and lack of good jobs for middle class workers.

The former first lady compared the situation to 1992, when her husband ran against the first President Bush.

“There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush,” she said to applause.

Without mentioning names, she suggested Democratic rival Barack Obama — less than three years into his first term in the Senate — and other candidates lack the experience necessary to address the nation’s myriad fiscal challenges.

“There is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for — our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,” Clinton said. “Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.”

The last time I checked, unemployment under former President Clinton was around 5.6% on a good day. We have been hovering around 4% under President Bush for a long time.

Yes, the dollar is falling, but that’s only because Alan Greenspan took the interest rates to almost zero and that allowed people to buy things they otherwise couldn’t afford. Then the adjustable rate mortgages went up and they really couldn’t afford their new houses and toys. We have no one to blame for that but ourselves.

Now, I’m a bit older but when I voted in 1992 and 1996 I remember seeing the name Bill or William Clinton on the top of the Democratic ticket. Nowhere did I see Hillary Clinton, but if her experience as co-president (two for the price of one) is her argument then we could make the argument she is not eligible for the office of President of the United States because she already served two terms.

I wonder how that would fly.

Actually the biggest accomplishments during the Clinton administration came because a Republican Congress forced him to reform welfare and do other things. The so-called balanced budget he left was more of two sets of books and it didn’t take us long to find it out.

If continuing to allow our ships to be blown up without doing a thing about it, waging air wars under the auspices of the United Nations (against our Constitution), scandal in every department of the government including the White House itself and this very candidate (lost files that turned up mysteriously after the statute of limitations had run out), pardons of shady characters, funny money from the Chinese, and outright gifts of our technology to the Chinese for those donations are what they have to offer us again I’m going to pass.

The only good thing I could see in a second Clinton presidency would be maybe they’ll return all the furnishings they trucked off when they left the last time. Even that isn’t enough to get me to vote for her. She can keep the stuff for all I care.

I have no doubt she was a big influence in the Clinton administration, but let’s not get all teary-eyed wishing for the past. It wasn’t anything to brag about.

Tweet This Post