Hillary is Not Unbeatable
Nov 26, 2007 Political
Since Bill Clinton left office after eight tumultuous years and his wife of convenience won a Senate seat in New York it has been widely speculated that she would run for the office of president and that she would win. She believes that the office of president is her manifest destiny, a right that she is owed by this country. She played coy, to be certain, but she knew all along what she intended to do even while she was denying she would run. She told voters who asked her if she would abandon New York for the White House that she was concentrating on winning her Senate seat, a ruse and half answer to make the uninformed believe that she had no aspirations to higher office. Then B. Hussein Obama came out early and announced his candidacy putting Hillary on the defense, a position that she does not like though as a Clinton, one to which she should be accustomed.
When Hillary announced she was running she was proclaimed the candidate to beat, the one with the experience, the one with the birthright to the presidency, a Hsu-in*, if you will. Hillary has been running a good campaign by keeping her interviews scripted, her questions planted, and her media friends happy. There is a certain segment that supports her out of fear or keeps their lack of support secret for much the same reason. If Hillary wins she will not forget those who crossed her and if she loses many will have hell to pay. Her name recognition and vague positions gave her a commanding lead when the whole campaign season kicked off but as time wore on her Democratic rivals began to attack her and that is where the cracks in her armor began to appear. She began fumbling for answers and has responded poorly to items that show her in a negative light.
Still Hillary was in the lead and looked unbeatable. She was in a tight race in Iowa but national polls showed her the presumptive winner in the primary and handily beating any Republican. Some of her supporters have commented here that her gaffs were minor and she has not suffered in the polls because she is a superior candidate and the things people are bringing up are non issues. It would seem that this is not the sentiment of the population now that Obama has taken the lead in Iowa. Hillary is not seen as invincible any longer. In a recent Zogby poll Hillary would lose to the top 5 Republicans if the election were held today. Hillary, whose people have been downplaying a potential loss in Iowa, now have to deal with news that she is not necessarily the front runner in the race.
The news gets worse for Hillary because the same poll shows that Obama beats every one of the Republicans to whom she loses. Couple this news with Obama’s surge in Iowa and this might make those who were weary of her in the first place even more inclined to vote for her toughest primary opponent. Democrats are so desperate to win the White House this news might cause a number of people to jump ship in hope that Obama can accomplish that task. Hillary, for all her faults, is not a dumb person. She has to know what the polls mean. She is an avid poll watcher and she has to comprehend what the future holds if current trends continue. She has to know that Obama will get a great lift from this poll because Democrats want someone who can not only win the primary but who can beat the Republican nominee and, right now, that person appears to be Obama.
The primaries kick off in about 5 or 6 weeks and a lot can happen between now and then. The Clinton camp can dig up some more dirt on Obama or release some false information just prior to the caucuses causing him to go into a tailspin. If current trends continue the dirt will be flying sooner rather than later as Hillary attempts to reign in her support and destroy Obama. Of course, she might be holding back because there are plenty of skeletons in her closet and she does not want them exposed. She also has some new issues with which to contend so she needs to tread carefully through the minefield of primary politics.
If she is not careful with how she slings the mud she might have to explain the rumors about her relationship with her female adviser. Another Clinton sex scandal might be just enough to sink her forever.
Source:
al Reuters
*Credit GM Roper for that one
Tags: commanding lead, Democrats, gaffs, hell to pay, Hillary, national polls, Obama, President, senate seat, wife of convenience
Democrats Cannot Embrace Victory
Nov 25, 2007 Military, Political
The problem with the Democrats, besides their weakness on national security, is that they want to win so badly they will say of do anything to get elected. This includes slandering our troops and changing their points of view in order to refocus the attention of the electorate. For the longest time the Democrats claimed that George Bush was not listening to his commanders on the ground (though commanders say he was) but when commanders asked for more troops and Bush listened (the surge) the Democrats criticized the President for actually listening to his commanders. They said the surge would not work and that we are in the middle of a civil war.
The surge is giving us great results so the Democrats have to change tactics. The first one was to slander an American hero named General Petraeus. MoveOn.org and other leftist groups like Code Pinko slandered the man and his message because his assessment did not say what they wanted, as if they understand the military or its tactics. This did not pan out well so they changed gears and started telling everyone that these indications of success were not really success because there are still Americans dying. Now that the success of the surge is undeniable the Democrats have taken a new course and that is to say that the military has made progress on the ground but the Iraqis have not done anything to sure up their political situation so the effort is really a failure. Hillary Clinton, who opposed the surge, is saying that since there are still troops dying and since the Iraqis have not done what they need to then we need to leave because we are being a referee in a civil war.
It is important to note that Hillary has no military experience and her only contact with military subjects is when she defended her husband for dodging the draft and sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post she asked for to give the impression she cares for the military. We veterans know she does not support the troops and that she will get very little of the military vote. She is the one who basically called General Petraeus a liar. We are expected to believe that Hillary, who sits on her ample derrière in DC knows more than the guy leading troops in Iraq. The guy getting shot at is the liar while the question planting, flip-flopping, triangulating, poll watcher is telling us the truth. Right… Likewise, Obama and Edwards have no military experience.
It is obvious that the Democrats cannot embrace victory and they take every chance to slander our troops. Jack Murtha convicted a bunch of Marines before they were ever charged and thus applied undue influence on the case. Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have differing plans that involve pulling our troops out of Iraq, and the other members of the Democratic Party keep telling us how either we are losing or the surge is not working. When even the New York Times (the mouthpiece for the left in America) reports that our troops are doing well then something must be going on.
These Democrats, especially the ones running for president, want to lead this country and want to be the leader of our military. How can they possibly lead the military when they do not support the military. They continually fail to provide money for the troops and they insist on pulling our troops out in defeat and disgrace. They cannot grasp the idea of victory and they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They change the rules, or move the goal posts back, in order to keep pressure on their plan for defeat. They cannot allow us to win and they cannot allow our troops to be successful or it will be bad for their ambitions.
We need a president who will lead us to victory and we need a majority in Congress who defines success as winning more than just the next election (say no to incumbents).
Source:
New York Times
Others with similar items:
Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american hero, civil war, Democrats, dodging the draft, general petraeus, george bush, Hillary Clinton, leftist groups, military experience, military subjects, moveon org, pinko, senate armed services committee, support the troops
Senator Dodd Should be Arrested for Child Abuse
Nov 24, 2007 Political
There is an article out about the Democratic Primary and how it boils down to a four letter word which happens to be Iowa. Hillary Clinton enjoys a lead in national polls due to her name recognition but in Iowa she is running neck and neck with Obama and Clinton with Obama now in the lead by a percentage points. The candidates are pouring their hearts and souls into this state and are spending time there courting people they will forget about as soon as the election (or caucus) is over.
Regardless of these power plays there is one candidate who has gone way overboard and who is abusing his child as part of this process. Senator Christopher has moved his family to Iowa and placed his relocated daughter in a kindergarten there to show how much he cares for the state:
Dodd has temporarily moved his family to Iowa to demonstrate his commitment to the state, enrolling his daughter in kindergarten at a Des Moines public school. My Way News
This jerk has temporarily uprooted his small child and placed that little girl in a school away from her friends at home just to show a state that he has little to do with just how much he cares about it. It is a pretty good bet he will not win Iowa and even if he does as soon as the contest there is over he will move his family back home and this means his child will have to go back to her old school. This is certainly not in the child’s best interest and has a huge impact on her social development. Children make friends and they do not like to be moved away from those friends. Moving during the school year means the child must go into a new environment where they are probably learning different things and then she will go through this again.
This is totally wrong and the guy should be arrested for child abuse. It is not like he has to do this, he is doing it to pander to the Iowans so he can show them how much he cares. Evidently he cares more about them than his own family. I find this disgusting and think he should be taken to task for it. Those Democrats are all for the children, especially when they can exploit them for personal gain.
This guy is 63 and he has a 6 year old and a 2 year old. I guess the only consolation is that he will likely be dead before they are grown and certainly he will not be around to abuse his grandchildren.
Tags: caucus, Hillary Clinton, kindergarten, national polls, Obama, pander, senator christopher dodd
Mona Charen of NRO Skewers Ron Paul
Nov 23, 2007 Link Fest, Political
I am not a Ron Paul supporter but to be clear, I have not gotten on the bandwagon of any candidate. I need to see more before I take a decision as to whom I will support. I understand there is a big net roots campaign for Ron Paul of Texas. I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.
However, I have found that Paul appears to be an honest man with strong devotion to his ideals. While I might not agree with all of them, I can see his is true to them and does not flip flop around like many other candidates. Mona Charen of NRO wrote a piece about Paul and in it I think she went out of bounds. She makes some good points but then likens him to some of the groups who happen to support him. She also took a stab at him because he received money from a person (or people) who have bad beliefs.
I do not think a politician has to give back money just because the donor has ideas that others do not like. This is not to say that candidates like Hillary Clinton should be able to keep money that was donated under questionable circumstances which border the realm of illegality (if they are not down right illegal). This goes for all candidates but when donors just happen to be people with whom others disagree it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to return the money. The politician in question does not have to agree with the donor to accept the money.
Imagine if Clinton were required to give back money from the gay and lesbian or ILLEGAL immigrant support groups because others found their positions detestable? Of course Hillary agrees with the groups so that makes it easier but I imagine that she would accept money from any conservative group that donated it legally regardless of their positions. If the person wanted Hillary to win she would take their money no matter what positions they personally held as should any politician, so long as the donations are legal. Charen makes the leap that Neo Con (a term that more people than Paul use) is shorthand for the Jews. How many times have Democrats used that term and why have Jews not found it offensive?
There is a little battle going on and the Paul campaign sent a letter to clear up some of Charen’s assertions. Whether or not that will do any good is hard to say.
However, it might be helpful if the Paul supporters stopped inundating email in boxes with their ardent support for Paul. Ticking off the people who have the power to write widely read columns does not seem to be a smart course of action.
As always, please feel free to comment.
Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Chuck Adkins, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Democrats, domestic policy, Hillary Clinton, honest man, illegal immigrant, mona charen, neo con, nro, ron paul, war on terror
Survival of the Fittest; Liberals Losing
Nov 23, 2007 Political
Though I do not believe in evolution, at least not in the Darwinian sense, I do believe that the fittest of a species survive in order for that species to continue to survive. Some creatures, unable to adapt, become extinct. I believe that one day a certain segment of the population of humans will be gone because they are not the fittest or, in some cases the smartest, to continue on.
Liberals (and I use that rather than Democrat or Republican because I realize there are liberals and conservatives in each party) are generally killing themselves off. The Supreme Court decision allowing abortion has resulted in about 40 million murders since that ruling took place. While I am not naive enough to believe that they were all liberals, I believe that the vast majority were. Given that abortion is a predominantly liberal position it only stands to reason that more liberals get abortions. This means that while liberals are having fewer or no children, conservatives (for the most part) are continuing to repopulate. This does not bode well for liberals as they will dwindle as a force in the future because they will not be bringing little libs into the world. This might explain why the school system attempts to brainwash our children with liberalism. They do not have their own kids to raise as liberals so they attempt to do so with ours.
In France there is another trend and that is that young women are deciding not to have children (1.89 births per woman), possibly in pursuit of a career. I do not know if they are aborting children or working hard not to have them but they are not repopulating at a high enough rate to ensure France’s continued existence. I also do not know how the political ideology breaks down but since France has overwhelmingly liberal views I would have to venture a guess that it is mostly liberal women not having kids.
In the UK there is another very small movement of environmentalist women deciding not to have children in order to protect the planet. The Daily Mail reports on two women who have decided not to have children for this reason. One was surgically sterilized and the other woman’s husband was surgically sterilized. The indication is that more couples are deciding not to have children as a matter of saving the planet though there is no indication as to what good a planet is without life on it.
These practices, by people who would be considered predominantly liberal, all but ensures that sometime in the future there will be few if any liberals left to make much of an impact on anything. At the rate liberals are going they will fail to be a force in the world.
While the lower-income males are feeling their genes being squeezed out of the human gene pool may be a bit of a surprise, no one should be surprised at the sharp decline in white Liberal male and female reproduction. This is to be expected, as Liberals, on average, have lower incomes when compared to Conservatives. However, even when controlling for income, the Liberals are still abandoning reproduction at a faster rate than Conservatives. Neuropolitics
[Author Note] The idea that Conservatives make more money seems to be at odds with recent data that shows Democrats represent more of the wealthy people in this country. Washington Times
Let us only hope that they do not become extinct because we need them. We need a small group of them to remind us why liberalism is not good.
Tags: abortion, brainwash, darwinian, environmentalist, liberal views, liberal women, liberals and conservatives, political ideology, supreme court decision