Friday, February 29, 2008

Next Up: Hillary’s Plan for Puppy Neglect!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Mark Penn’s polling must have shown an untapped opportunity to pander for the childrens’ vote!

Hillary has now become a blogger on HuffPo in a post called “Child Poverty,” where she plagiarizes channels borrows from pleads to John Edwards:
Marian Wright Edelman, my friend and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, says it best: "If we don't stand up for children, then we don't stand for much."
This is not just an economic problem. It's a moral outrage.I've been working to better the lives of children for 35 years, and the future of America's children will be a centerpiece of my presidency.

The issue is personal for me.
Now, I have nothing against fighting for kids, but I just have to ask:
Is it 35 years since you first started working for children, or have you really been working for kids for “the better part” of 35 years? If so, is that in addition to the 35 years you spent working on womens’ issues, and the 35 years you spent traveling the world talking about foreign policy, while preparing to be Commander in Chief? How about the 35 years of paying peoples bills and putting food on their tables?

How old are you anyway?
While I don’t doubt that Hillary cares about children, publishing this now sounds like a last ditch effort to get Edwards’ endorsement before Tuesday’s critical primaries, while trying to shore up the “mommy” vote she desperately needs to keep.

It also makes me wonder how many children, whose parents are the low income voters Hillary is targeting, are more likely to go hungry because their parents were compelled to help pay off her $5 million loan so she could continue her flailing campaign by sliming the likely Democratic nominee!

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Will Hillary Pull a “Huckabee?”

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

A recent flip-flop in the position of the Clinton campaign suggests that she has shifted her focus from trying to use superdelegates to make up the pledged delegate gap between her and Obama, to keeping the number of uncommitted superdelegates high enough to potentially make up the gap at the convention.
A set of talking points emailed to Clinton supporters within organized labor describes the arguments to use on uncommitted super delegates. In the email, the Clinton campaign suggests telling the uncommitted delegates that "it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now.”
At the same time, Harold Ickes, the guy known as “the campaign’s general in the fight for superdelegates” has been elevated to a more prominent role in the campaign.

The change of strategy strikes me as being similar to a guy who spends all his available cash on lottery scratchers, and decides to postpone scratching them so he can spend a bit more time as a potential millionaire!

The move suggests one of two things to me:

Either she is in such denial over the relatively miniscule chances of actually fulfilling her promise to be the “inevitable” nominee, that she is willing to do anything to extend the illusion of viability, for her and her financial supporters, until the last possible moment at the convention!

Or she is planning to hang around against all odds, like Mike Huckabee, hoping that some sort of miracle will occur during the next five months that would change the game board enough to give her a shot at the nomination!

If the second suggestion is her true motivation, then I’m led to wonder what her campaign might be willing to try, surreptitiously, during the next few months, in the hope of manufacturing such a miracle!

Then again, maybe she just wants to stick around long enough to get her fair share of love on the late-night comedy circuit!

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

I'm a "Solutions" Blogger!

I’ve got the answer to the “Hillary/Huckabee/Nader” problem.

After Obama’s decisive wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii - giving him more than a 150 pledged-delegate lead in the race to the Democratic nomination, it appears that the Clinton campaign is descending into some sort of alternate campaign universe. She went out and gave her same tired old stump speech completely ignoring her 17 point drubbing in Wisconsin and now the polls showing that Obama is gaining or overtaken her in most of the remaining states. It’s not too different than the reality - Mike Huckabee seems to be inhabiting - a place where you can ignore the facts if you don’t agree with them. Sound like anyone else you know……………….say - with a 19% approval rating?

It would be one thing for these candidates to push on by refreshing their message……… maybe write a new speech or something. But come on – the message hasn’t worked “from day one” and its time to face “reality”. There has to be something else for them.

Then it hit me!

Why doesn’t Fox create a new “reality” TV series where three candidates run for president of their alternate universe.

“HillHuckaNader 2008” could be a huge ratings success. They can tour the country, give speeches & debate each other. And they wouldn’t have to hold back anything. - in fact the more vile and nasty the better. Who wouldn’t watch that?

Then Obama and McCain can get on with the actual presidential election.

*Prediction: If their “Presidential Election” reality show involves eating weird shit – my money’s on Huck!

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Show Me Your Taxes!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton just release her friggin’ tax returns?

When asked about it during tonight’s debate, she actually managed to come up with an even more ridiculous answer than her previous standard.

This time, she said she may do it before the end of the primary season, except for the fact that “she has no time to sleep,” and that she “would work on putting them together.”

As you recall, her earlier response, which has been repeated numerous times by her campaign, was that she would release them only “after she secures the Democratic nomination.”

I can see only two reasons for her original response: Either she thinks there is something in her returns that would keep her from getting the nomination, or she thinks they are so incredibly interesting that people will vote for her just to get the chance to see them!

As for tonight’s response, I can only say that the majority of Democrats agree: She should forget about working on the tax returns and go take a nap - so Barack Obama can start campaigning against John McBush!

Contrary to What SNL Says . . .

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

(Note: YouTube disabled, so image link is to NBC video)

Bitch isn’t the New Black!

It’s the New Dumb-Ass!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

More Tears?

Just a gut feeling - but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary unleashes some tears during tonight's debate.

It is the only thing that has really worked for her. All the other tactics have only hurt her. The one thing that seemed to make a tangible difference in voting was her weepy moment in New Hampshire.

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The funniest thing to me about this image is not the irony of the guy holding this particular sign upside down.

It’s the fact that throughout the campaign, every time I’ve seen masses of Hillary supporters waving their yellow “Smart Choice” signs, I somehow thought her campaign was stealing a riff from the producer of some cholesterol free butter substitute! The subliminal visual wasn’t helped by the fact that Hillary often showed up in a bright butter colored outfit!

Then again, as smoothly as Hillary thought she would slice straight to the nomination, perhaps she might consider the other cholesterol free butter substitute as her new campaign slogan!

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Is Hillary Clinton Becoming the New Woody Hayes?

Must be something about Ohio!

Hillary Clinton’s meltdown seems to be progressing, as she gets more and more angry and frustrated at her inability to score political points on Barack Obama.

Based on yesterday’s tirade, and now today’s blow-up, and with two more days of campaigning before the next debate in Cleveland, I won’t be surprised if, by the time she get to the debate, she ends up running out on the stage and trying to sock her opponent in the head!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hillary Uses Karl Rove Tactic by Accusing Obama of Karl Rove Tactic!

Now I understand Hillary Clinton’s conciliatory gesture at the end of Tuesday’s debate!

At the time, it seemed particularly odd that she would end the debate like this:

. . . when, during the debate she went out of her way to make childish and silly arguments like this:

Then, less than 24 hours after claiming to be “really, really honored” to share the stage with Barack Obama, her campaign began pushing perceived ties between Obama and a radical domestic terrorist group.

Now, I can see that her “spontaneous conciliatory moment” was a tactic, designed to set her up as “the nice lady” before she came out and accused Obama of Karl Rove tactics, using a mailer she was shocked to have been given that morning, but that Paul Krugman was complaining about over three weeks ago, and which allowed her to scold the younger Obama during a tirade ending in “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”

She might as well have added, “How could you treat me this way after I was so nice to you in Tuesday's debate!”

The irony of this tactic is that it seems right out of the Karl Rove playbook - to preemptively accuse your opponent, with mock outrage, of the same things you are already doing!

The Clinton campaign has been spreading false information about Barack Obama for months. Now Hillary is getting self-righteous about how unfair it is for Obama to “compare and contrast” their health plans, or their respective positions on NAFTA, in a couple of mailers?

In the words of another Clinton, “Give. Me. A. Break!”

Apparently, instead of bowing out with class and dignity, Hillary Clinton is determined to go out in "a blaze of ugly!"


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Notice how, in the video above, Hillary begins by claiming to have been handed the mailers that morning, as if that's what prompted her outburst.

Well, here's the evidence from Hillary's own website, that her campaign has known about the mailer in this picture since at least February 1, 2008, the same day Paul Krugman wrote his column about it!

Apparently, Hillary wasn't so angry about the mailer that it kept her from being "honored" to share the debate stage with Barack Obama!

A Shot in the Arm Ass for the Straight Talk Express!

With John McCain digging himself deeper and deeper into a web of lies, and as new information keeps trickling out about how closely connected McCain is to the GOP culture of corruption, I think it’s time for him to do something dramatic in order to get some more positive media coverage.

As the presumptive GOP nominee, I think he has no choice but to go ahead and name a running mate who can return his image to that of the honest, principled, straight-shooter that he has always been assumed to be.

How about:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Thursday, February 21, 2008

This is How It’s Done (Part 2)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

I recently highlighted some clues to the way I see the Clinton machine organizing their attacks on Barack Obama, in Hillary’s last desperate attempt to tarnish him before the Ohio and Texas primaries - by trying to make him seem weak to blue collar white male voters.

As if on cue, within minutes of the announcement that Obama had won the Wisconsin primary, the attacks intensified, even as Hillary was being introduced for her post-primary speech by Tom Buffenbarger, head of the machinists’ union:
Prior to Hillary Clinton’s speech last night in Youngstown, Ohio, Buffenbarger delivered nothing short of an Obama diatribe.

While campaign introductions typically sing the praises of the upcoming candidate, Buffenbarger's speech barely mentioned Clinton until the conclusion. It was all about Obama, and it was laced with venom and ad hominems.
Taking off the gloves, he said, “Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois State Senate. He took a walk more than a 130 times. That's what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves. All the right combinations. All the right footwork. But he never steps into the ring.”

But it was Obama supporters for whom Buffenbarger saved his most vitriolic contempt, and he proved that the Democratic Party’s coalition is nothing if not fragile. Channeling Howard Beale from the movie "Network," he yelled into the microphone, “Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”
Clearly, Hillary wasn’t opposed to Buffenbarger’s efforts to chum the waters with red meat, as she launched right into her standard stump speech without even acknowledging Obama’s win in Wisconsin (perhaps leading Obama to launch his victory speech early in order to cut her off before she could try to build on the hostile introduction!)

In keeping with the theme, the Clinton campaign announced yesterday that they intend to attack Obama’s qualifications to be Commander in Chief, which I fully expect to be a big focus during the upcoming two debates, starting today.

Finally, there was this indication that Hillary’s big money donors are pooling their resources to form a 527 group in order to aid her campaign. I’m willing to bet that they won’t be running ads touting how Hillary will be “ready on day one” to get the country “back in the solutions business!”

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Two More States Become “Insignificant!”

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

As Obama runs his state winning streak to ten (Yes, I’m calling Hawaii now, because I’m tired and want to go to bed!), I’m somehow reminded of George Bush’s statement that he would stay in Iraq, even if the only one supporting him was his dog, Barney.

With Obama’s momentum building in nearly every demographic, I am led to wonder: If the states Hillary’s campaign has determined to be “significant” were to keep repeating their primaries, which state would end up being Hillary’s Barney?

Monday, February 18, 2008

Three Things about the Bush White House that Hillary Clinton Won’t Change.

After eight years of the disastrous Bush presidency, the country is clearly poised for change. Although it’s undeniable that a change from George W. Bush to either Democratic candidate would be dramatic, there are some characteristics of Hillary Clinton's leadership style that have emerged during her primary campaign that do not appear to differ much from what we've seen from the current president.

A President in a Bubble.

Hillary surrounds herself with people who always tell her she is right, regardless of the available evidence, and without consideration for changing conditions. Her stated intention to fight for the nomination "all the way to the convention," no matter what transpires in the coming weeks and months, is reminiscent of Bush's stubborn insistence that he will continue to fight the war in Iraq until we see the flowering of pro-American democracies throughout the Middle East!

Hollow Slogans R Us.

Phrases like "Ready on Day One" and "I'm in the Solutions Business" are fine if you are selling accounting software to small businesses or delivering packages overnight, but they are not reasons to have confidence in a president. These types of marketing slogans are about as meaningful as, say, having a huge "Strategy for Victory" banner behind the podium for a speech on a failed war in Iraq!

It's the Secrecy, Stupid.

Hillary likes us to know how hard she's working for us, but her history suggests that she prefers that the actual work take place behind closed doors. This is widely thought to be one of the reasons for failure in her previous attempt at health care reform. Her recent suggestion that she would release her tax returns only if "she secures the democratic nomination" is reminiscent of Bush's claims that he would discuss possible White House involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's identity only after the conclusion of an "ongoing investigation!"

In contrast, I think it’s safe to say that Barack Obama would represent significant change from George W. Bush in these and every other area. He has clearly expressed a willingness to engage in discussions with those who may disagree with him. While his campaign uses recurring rallying cries, such as “Yes, We Can,” they are not marketing slogans designed to “sell” his own competence or qualifications. He has released his tax returns, and has made openness in government a key part of his campaign.

Friday, February 15, 2008

My Letter to Hillary

Dear Hillary,

I am writing this letter to respectfully ask you to stop bashing your opponent in desperate hopes of reviving your chance at the nomination. It is beneath you. You have too many “results” awaiting you as a U.S. Senator to go down this way. I know things aren’t working out the way you had "hoped". I know you are disappointed. But despite all of your “30 plus years” of experience – and your “day-one” readiness – you are not owed the Presidency!

Sometimes Hillary, life doesn’t go as planned and its incredible disappointing. But, that is when you show who you really are. You can continue to be bitter and angry. You can throw out all kinds of "cheap" insults toward your opponent. You can tear him to shreds. And it might even make you feel a bit better in the short term. But your years of experience and leadership should be telling you that ultimately this is not the answer. Do you really want to win that way?

Even you would have to admit that Barack Obama is an incredibly worthy opponent. He has run a consistent and positive campaign. He has inspired “hope” to a nation with his "cheap words", “platitudes” and "empty promises". He has brought new voters, young and old, enthusiastically into the process – despite his lack of knowledge of the earning potential of the Lincoln Bedroom or inner workings of the Whitehouse travel office. He has been masterfull as Commander and Chief of his campaign - "from day one".

In closing I will ask you to campaign, give speeches and debate the issues by emphasizing your plans and experience. But please Hillary, leave it at that. Show us how an experienced leader wins or loses with dignity.

Campaigning with a the message to “not get our hopes up” is no way to lead!

Now if you will personally pay my bill’s, put food on my table and fill my prescriptions – please campaign however you want!!!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

This is How It’s Done!

As Hillary approaches must-win primaries in Texas and Ohio, she desperately needs two things to happen. First, she needs to find a way to throw Obama off his game. This is a prime reason behind her call for debates, so she can try to force him into a pissing match that blurs the distinction between their respective approaches to leadership, and leaves “experience” as the main reason to choose between them. Second, she needs to find a way to draw blue-collar white male voters to her side, as Obama has been consistently building his appeal with this critical swing demographic.

Today, several elements of her strategy for accomplishing these two things seemed to become apparent, and they aren’t pretty! Much like the Republicans in 2004 convinced blue-collar white male voters that John Kerry was a coward, Clinton and her surrogates are now trying to convince the same type of voter that Obama is a coward.

Here’s how they are trying to do it:

1. Hillary releases a new ad in Wisconsin, criticizing Obama for being afraid to debate her.

2. Joe Wilson releases a high profile piece on Huffington Post accusing Obama of not being tough enough to take on John McCain.

3. Mark Halperin, the same source used to leak the news of Hillary’s $5 million campaign loan, goes on a radio show and says that John Edwards thinks Obama is “a pussy!”

There may have been other components to this strategy already, and there will certainly be more attacks of this nature, as the pattern is clearly forming to try to turn Obama’s lofty and inspiring calls for change into a sign of weakness. The goal is to contrast Hillary’s carefully crafted image as a fighter, with an image of Obama as a passive weakling, who is incapable of sticking up for himself.

In his piece, Wilson goes to great lengths to characterize Obama as meek and unable to stand his ground, even though Wilson had to resort to Free Republic to find an account of what he calls “his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain.”

. . . will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain
Halperin’s comment was even worse (my emphasis):
HALPERIN [discussing John Edwards' potential endorsement of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama]: I can tell you, he's really skeptical of her ability to be the kind of president he wants. But, he kinda thinks Obama is...he thinks Obama is kind of a pussy...He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office.
Of course, just to make sure he didn’t get the David Schuster treatment, he quickly posted the following apology:
I’m sorry. In a live radio interview this week, I used a word I shouldn’t have. The fact that I was conveying other people’s words is no excuse for my lapse in judgment. It won’t happen again. — Mark Halperin
The Page, 11:00 AM
Note that his “apology” conveniently gives him an opportunity to remind us that he wasn’t just paraphrasing, but was “conveying other peoples’ words,” when he decided it was important for us to “know” that Edwards thinks Obama is a pussy!

Clearly the next step is for Hillary to attack, attack, attack! If Obama fights back, she can call him a hypocrite whom she’s revealed to be a typical politician. If he refuses to take the bait, she can call him a coward, and claim that it shows he won’t stand up to John McCain! Either way, she hopes the blue-collar white male audience will walk away thinking Obama is like the wimpy smart kid they used to beat up in the fourth grade!

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Will Edwards Endorse the “Forces of Status Quo?”

One of the more dramatic moments of the early primary season occurred during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire when John Edwards came to Barack Obama’s defense with the following rebuke to Hillary Clinton:
Every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- every single time.
Although Edwards was critical of Obama on other occasions, there was nothing approaching the sharpness and passion of this statement toward Clinton, and I kind of expected Edwards to come around to endorsing Obama after he dropped out of the race.

However, amid reports that Edwards is involved in intense negotiations with both of the remaining candidates, including a recent dinner with Clinton at his home in North Carolina, I am beginning to suspect that he will end up deciding that his most important priority is his fight for career change, and that he will end up endorsing what he already labeled as "the forces of status quo!”

It's just a feeling and I hope I’m wrong, but Edwards’ recent cancelled meeting with Obama doesn’t bode well. Neither does the fact that Paul Krugman, one of Edwards’ most vocal supporters, who has also turned into one of Obama’s most vicious attackers, has now expanded outward to attacking Obama’s supporters!

His latest, ironically titled “Hate Springs Eternal,” lashes out at supporters of Obama, as he somehow manages to blame all of them for unfair treatment of the Clintons, although his only actual example is MSNBC’s David Schuster. Here’s one of his most “venomous” paragraphs:
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
Fortunately, his conclusion unwittingly puts his goal for the piece in perspective:
Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
So why the hateful character assassination toward Obama supporters and the Obama campaign?

Unfortunately, my fear is that this is a distraction from the issue of Edwards’ earlier alignment with Obama on the need for change in Washington. By “demonizing” the Obama campaign, Krugman can provide cover for Edwards to tout Clinton’s close affiliation with “blue collar working Americans” as a reason to give her his endorsement.

As I said, I hope I’m wrong about Edwards. I hope he really stands by the things he said during his campaign.

But if I’m right, I surely hope it’s enough to knock Russ Feingold off the fence toward Obama before the Wisconsin primary!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Working the Superdelegates!

This interesting article
from the NYT describes the ongoing process of lobbying for support from the superdelegates who might eventually decide the Democratic nomination.

Here’s my contribution - a letter that I just sent to my local congresswoman, who is currently a superdelegate who has endorsed Hillary Clinton:
Congresswoman Woolsey,

I was quite surprised to read in the Press-Democrat that you were endorsing Hillary Clinton, after choosing to endorse Dennis Kucinich in 2004. As a founding member of the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” it seemed odd that you would choose to back the Senator who has voted for the Iraq war at nearly every opportunity, when several other candidates in the race had stronger anti-war credentials.

Your endorsement seemed even more unusual after the Iowa caucuses, when Kucinich, the man you previously supported, threw his second ballot support to Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama.

Your rationale at the time of the endorsement was to state that you are “looking at who can get us out of Iraq. That has to be somebody who is electable."

After the California primary, in which more of your constituents voted for Obama than Clinton, you pointed out that although Clinton had not secured the Democratic nomination, she had a “solid lead.”

What you didn’t say was that Clinton’s “solid lead” was based entirely on endorsements from superdelegates like yourself, rather than from pledged delegates from voters in the State primaries and caucuses.

And even that lead is rapidly shrinking!

The presumptive GOP nominee is now John McCain, the man who has suggested that we could be in Iraq “for 100 years” and who jokes about “bombing Iran!” Head-to-head polling shows that Obama fares much better against McCain than Clinton does, for several reasons: First, Obama appeals to many of the same independent voters that might lean toward McCain. Second, conservative voters who tend to distrust McCain, absolutely despise Hillary Clinton!

If you really want to get out of Iraq, how can you still consider casting your vote, as a superdelegate, for Clinton, in opposition to the majority of your constituents, when your vote could possibly enhance John McCain’s chances of victory in November?

Saturday, February 09, 2008

The Case for Hillary!

After reading this post at TPM Election Central about Hillary Clinton’s recent fundraising efforts, in which she has raised a reported $6 million to “keep pace” with Barack Obama’s $7.6 million in the 48 hours after Tuesday, I thought there must be someone out there who can articulate the passion with which Hillary’s supporters have embraced the cause of helping her pay off that $5 million personal loan to her campaign.

As an Obama partisan, I’m in no position to make that case, but I found a post on DKos, written by a more objective Obama supporter, that captures it pretty well:
my basic message is: don't ridicule or underestimate these people. They don't show up at crowded rallies because they are at work, or picking up the kids from school, or because their aging knees can't stand for hours in line outside an arena. What they do is vote. They don't hang out online for hours marveling at the ever-changing totals of internet fund-raising. But when Hillary finally got around to mentioning that she was short of money, well of course they raised $6 million in a day. What, you thought they wouldn't? Thought they weren't as dedicated as us, not as smart as us, didn't know how to use the internet? Well, they not only saved Hillary's campaign, they freed her up from dependence on the money of lobbyists. Did us all a huge favor, probably changed the party forever.
Of course, during my search, I also found another argument for Hillary in the form of several posts by the commenter, yityyl, written during a 45 minute period in response to the TPM post, which I also include verbatim:
i coontributed to HILLARY
imagine all this money and he did'nt win decisivlly on tuesday ...
now imagine him without all this money she would've swept the floor with him...
the elitists 100,000 plus are his donors....
she will fight for the poor
Health care is my greatest issue....
Posted by yityyl
February 7, 2008 10:03 AM
Followed by:
she won the popular vote on TUESDAY get it staright . knock it in your head ....
and despite all that mometum going for OBAMA in the last two weeks before SUPER TUESDAY she still beat him...
now if you will say that according to some news sources he won the delegate count (by a slummy few) on THAT DAY , then i say to you :
and she is the UNDERDOG...
health care is my greatest issue
somehow i fell OBAMA just doesn't care aboutthat issue alot , he only has a plan ( astupid sad one according to PAUL KRUGMAN) because he needs to have one, but SHE ,SHE will roll up her sleaves and pattionattlly work and shvits for us on this issue.....
Posted by yityyl
February 7, 2008 10:18 AM
And Finally:
and he will collapse on the health care issue after the attack dogs come from the right in seconds. he will be eaten up for dinner . understand?
then he will comprmise with the conservatives , then we will be left with nothing.
she will fight like a lion.
remeber this is bush style all over again -no experience, just TALK TALK TALK, she can show the reciepts on her many accomplishments. she is a fighter and she did the CHANGE already ....
stop being so in the air over this Obama guy !
mandate? are you crazy ? change ? it's all cheap talk! no results!
she will do everything to get our agenda done! and he! he will totaly give in because change is in the air... how stupid can you be.....
Posted by yityyl
February 7, 2008 10:48 AM
To put this argument in favor of Hillary a bit more succinctly:

Sorry, but just because I can appreciate an objective argument, doesn’t mean I can stop being a smart ass!

Friday, February 08, 2008

Mitt-out Mitt!

Mitt Romney's Speech yesterday was stupid, logic twisting and just plain crazy. He almost made George Bush seem coherant.

John Stewart explains:

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Clinton Has Nearly Played All of her Good Cards!

As Tsunami Tuesday ends in a virtual tie and both candidates scramble to claim some sort of victory, I find it notable that all of Hillary Clinton’s eight (maybe nine) wins fell into three distinct categories:

1. Her home State of New York, with spillover into adjacent New Jersey and Massachusetts.

2. Her former home State of Arkansas, with spillover into adjacent Oklahoma and Tennessee.

3. The Mexican border States of California, Arizona (and possibly New Mexico) where she enjoys heavy Latino support. (That this was the key reason for her victory in these States rather than the start of a “West Coast wave,” is confirmed by the fact that Obama won most of the Norcal counties that share more in common with Oregon and Washington than with Socal!)

Obama won everywhere else, giving him a total of thirteen (maybe fourteen) States.

The only remaining States that fall into the above categories for Hillary are Texas and Pennsylvania. These are aces, admittedly, but the game may be over before she gets to play them!

And now, it seems she has been forced to dip into her own personal bankroll with a $5 million personal loan to her campaign, so she can play a few more hands!

Contrast this with Barack Obama’s ability to engage thousands of small financial supporters, as well as enthusiastic, motivated volunteers to help in his campaign, and you can clearly see the downside of campaigning as someone so frighteningly competent and experienced that she, alone, can do it all for the country!

To see the upside of Obama’s more inclusive, empowering approach, click here (and donate a few bucks if you can!) Obama’s supporters are on pace to match Clinton’s personal loan within the first 24 hours after the polls closed last night! My $100 was within the first hour!

So far, the strongest individual contribution I've observed from a Hillary supporter was to give my group a thumbs down and yell "Hillary!" as we were waving signs during yesterday's rush hour traffic!

Keeping the Vault Open!

By the time Mitt drops out of the GOP race, Tagg Romney will be wishing John Edwards could still become President!

Monday, February 04, 2008

How Smart is Hillary Clinton, Really?

The conventional wisdom, even among critics of Hillary Clinton, is that she has what everyone calls “an encyclopedic knowledge of policy.”

For the life of me, I can’t tell from listening to her interviews, speeches and debates, what these people are talking about!

When Hillary Clinton talks, I hear someone who so wants to be seen as having extensive knowledge that she answers filibusters every issue with a barrage of often irrelevant facts, stated with such authoritative zeal that she hopes to convince listeners to accept her superior knowledge without question. So far, this tactic has worked! Few members of the media are willing to second guess a woman with a “ten-point-plan,” even when eight of those points sound like complete jibberish!

I’ll cite just a few examples from recent days that have led me to question, despite Hillary’s brainiac reputation, whether she knows what she’s talking about when it comes to policy, leadership, or anything else:

Universal Health Care

Clinton has often criticized Barack Obama for failing to offer what she considers to be “universal health care.” She says he doesn’t intend to mandate that every single person buy the insurance, while he focuses on making it affordable enough that everyone who wants to buy it would be able to do so. Regarding her mandates (my emphasis),
Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it."
So what about those who can’t afford to buy it, such as the homeless or chronically unemployed who have no wages to go after? How are they any different under Hillary’s plan, than those not buying insurance under the plan Obama is proposing? If asked, I’m sure she would reel off a dozen reasons why, each of which would contain serious sounding phrases like “health legacy initiatives” or “innovation agendas” in such rapid fire succession that any breathing person with a pulse would become desperate to change the subject rather than ask a follow up question!

Running the Federal Government

Another area where Clinton has tried to establish her superiority over Obama is her stated approach for running the federal government as president, which came in response to Obama’s comments about inspiring others to help achieve his vision (and his admitted need to have a good secretary):
"I know that we can get on top of this, but it's going to require strong presidential leadership - it's going to require a President who knows from day one you have to run a government and manage the economy," she said. "The buck stops in the Oval Office."
What the hell does this mean? Is she going to be delivering the mail? Conducting tax audits? Will she be handing out checks to stimulate consumer spending around the Christmas shopping season?

I suppose rather than delegating responsibility for the many front-line tasks of the various government agencies under her administration, she’ll be out there supervising them all. At least, I hope she will be prepared to resign if anyone in the federal government, whose work results apparently would stop at her desk, makes a serious mistake (like, say, calling a political opponent a Muslim drug dealer!) Surely she wouldn’t ask someone else to take the blame for responsibility that wasn’t delegated!

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy this “encyclopedic knowledge of policy” thing at all. In fact, I think a more accurate description would be to say this:

Hillary Clinton has a “Wikipedic” knowledge of policy: She sounds authoritative, but half of it is bullshit!

(by the way, the video was included primarily for the section right after the 3 minute mark, where she demonstrates a less than encyclopedic knowledge of humility!)

Pictures of the Day

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Obama Inspires the Youth Vote!


Trading the Bush Bubble for the Clinton Bubble!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Yesterday, in response to this post on the Hillary Clinton campaign blog, I submitted the following comment. It was, I thought, respectful and honest, and clearly within the rules described for submission. However, the moderators of the site chose not to publish it.
Although I intend to support and vote for Sen. Clinton if she becomes the nominee, I am leaning toward Barack Obama because he has inspired my two teenaged boys to vote with me for the first time. In the past, they have told me that “all politicians are the same,” and suggested that they did not trust politicians who only talk at them, telling them what they should believe, and valuing the politicians’ own experience more than listening to young people like them. I am inspired at seeing my boys care enough about their future to want to vote, and I’m afraid that their enthusiasm will die if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee.
While refusing to acknowledge mild dissent may be standard practice on campaign blogs (I didn’t test Obama by sending an equivalent comment to him), this incident reminded me of my surprise a few weeks back when I picked up my local newspaper to see that my Congresswoman, Lynne Woolsey, was endorsing Hillary Clinton, after deciding in 2004 that her strong anti-war views justified supporting Dennis Kucinich!

That was quite a jump – from supporting the guy who is ready to rename the Department of Defense into the “Department of Peace,” to endorsing the centrist Senator who has voted in favor of George Bush’s Iraq fiasco at every step, and has refused to admit that any of her votes were a mistake.

And Woolsey’s decision was all the more stunning, after seeing Kucinich throw his second choice support in the Iowa Caucus to Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama!

Did this mean that Woolsey had suddenly abandoned her opposition to the war, or was it something else?

The article about Woolsey’s endorsement went on to offer one feasible explanation:
David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political science professor, said he was surprised by Woolsey's alignment with Clinton, but attributed it to realpolitik considerations

Should Clinton win the White House, Bay Area Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. George Miller of Martinez, would play powerful policymaking roles, he said. But given the Clintons' political style, a Democrat who endorsed someone else might be kept out of the loop.
That would be just great! Hillary Clinton is out there touting herself as an “agent of change” after eight years of “President Decider and his Merry Band of Yes-Men,” but her fellow Democrats in Congress fear she would freeze out the influence of anyone who doesn’t show appropriate loyalty to her!

I look at everything I see from the Clinton campaign, and I’m left feeling that Hillary Clinton is aiming to replace a president who wants to be treated like a king, by being a president who wants to be treated like a queen!

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Phonebanking for Obama!

Let me just start by saying that I am not a phone person! In fact, one of several highlights of my first experience volunteering for a political campaign was stopping long enough to take this shot of my empty workstation next to this earnest volunteer (who was clearly much more skilled at the process than me!)

There were, however, a few other highlights mixed in with the disconnected phone numbers and oblivious non-voters among those I called. Several people expressed interest in volunteering for the campaign down the road, and everyone I spoke with who was already a decided voter, had already decided to vote for Barack.

All in all, it was a interesting and rewarding experience, albeit one that, for someone who greatly prefers writing to chatting on the phone, was occasionally akin to having surgery without anesthesia!

Friday, February 01, 2008

Hillary, It is Imperative That You Buy a Thesaurus!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Hillary Clinton’s supporters like to tout her supreme competence, hard working determination, and her ability to discuss intricate policy details. At the same time, they knock Barack Obama for being a hollow rhetorical shell who won’t talk about the issues at hand.

Last night’s debate between the two candidates served to highlight the fallacy of those arguments, as the most striking contrast between them was in the way they communicated their ideas. Although the specific policy differences between Clinton and Obama are relatively minor, their differences in the use of language, and their focus on the questions being asked, gave a pretty good preview of the way each candidate would lead.

The key question that crystallized for me during the debate is this:
Do we want a president who wants to listen to people, or do we want a president who wants to tell people “what is imperative?"
I lost count, but I’m sure Hillary used the word “imperative” nearly as many times as she used the words “I” or “me.” Apparently, her campaign must think the word strikes a chord with listeners, so it was imperative that she use it as often as possible! Clearly, Hillary likes to be the one who knows it all, and is eager to tell people what they must believe. She gives her lengthy, often rambling, but fact-filled, answers, and usually ends with the same egocentric flourish, “and that’s what I’m going to do!”

It’s the classic “top-down” leadership style versus the “collaborative” leadership style of Obama, who seems willing to listen to others, and spoke of surrounding himself with bright, competent people who are willing challenge his ideas and hopefully make them stronger. Rather than talking about the policy solutions that “he is offering,” Obama speaks in a more inclusive way, about the policy solutions “we can accomplish together.”

I find it fitting that the line most widely considered to be Hillary’s best - about “needing another Clinton to clean up after another Bush” - was clearly scripted, probably from the earliest stages of her campaign. And Obama had at least three or four funnier, more dramatic, and seemingly improvised lines that actually related to the questions asked during the debate.

Hillary’s answers, on the other hand, often veered away from the question into vague pronouncements of her experience and determination, often sounding something like this:
It is imperative, starting on day one, that we have a president who is willing to buckle down, roll up her sleeves, and put her nose to the grindstone!
And her supporters say Obama uses hollow platitudes?

Ultimately, Hillary’s signature line of the debate serves as a good reminder of what this primary election is about:
After eight years of George W. Bush, do we want the next four to eight years to be with a president who wants to listen, or a president who wants to tell us “what is imperative?”