Hillary Whitewashes Her Web Site
Jul 2, 2008 Opinion
Hillary Clinton has taken down all the negative campaign ads and memos that have anything to do with criticizing Barack Obama. The two supposedly unified the party in Unity New Hampshire and have buried the hatchet (though Clinton would probably like to bury it in Obama’s back).
This is probably nothing new but it is hard to tell because the web has not played as great role in presidential campaigns as it has this year. Past candidates toyed with it but this campaign season marked a new high in web site use by candidates. In the past Democratic candidates relied on the MSM to stop showing items from contenders so that there would be no opposition from within the party.
Obama and the DNC worried all along that Clinton’s words would be used against Obama in the general election and, of course, they still will. Her site was not the only one that contained the memos and video ads and they will certainly surface again during the Summer.
I am sure Hillary had to do this in order to secure money from Obama to settle her campaign debts. While I don’t think this is surprising or even out of the ordinary it makes one wonder how Clinton could have viewed Obama so negatively back then but so favorably now.
Maybe it is because it is all about politics and the Democrats will lie, cheat and steal in order to win.
Source:
Washington Times
Like Most Victims of Abuse, Hillary will Submit
Jun 7, 2008 Opinion, Political
Women who suffer abuse at the hands of the men in their lives usually end up blaming the men’s behavior on a plethora of other things and ultimately themselves. They then turn back to the men and in an effort to reconcile only to be abused again and again. Hillary Clinton has been through this before with her husband. His sexcapades were abusive to their relationship (and threatened her political aspirations) and she stuck by his side. She blamed the problems they were having on everything from Republican dirty tricks to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary Clinton stuck by Bill when many women were saying she should dump him. They failed to understand the psychological aspect of abuse.
And so we now have the end, or at least it looks like the end, of the Democratic primary season with Barack Hussein Obama snatching victory from Hillary. I am no Hillary supporter (I don’t support either of them) but I agree with her and many others that the campaign was sexist and that sexism was tolerated and even participated in by the media. Obama had a condescending attitude toward Hillary (your likable enough) and the media scrutinized aspects of Clinton that no male candidate endured. What Hillary wore, her cleavage, her make up and how she acted were common themes. The only mention of Obama’s clothing was the clamor of fawning reporters who were sexually aroused by Mr. Obama’s tight jeans. Those clothes were used to portray him as some kind of sex symbol with whom the lady reporters were enthralled.
After all the sexism that took place in this campaign Hillary Clinton was reduced to a victim who turned back to her abuser. Today she suspended her campaign and threw her support behind Obama and she called for all her supporters, many of whom are women, to get behind Obama as well. She asked them to turn a blind eye to the sexism many of them remain furious about. Hillary, instead of shunning her abuser, went to him.m And though I am sure she made few excuses for what happened she still ignored the open attacks on her sex and backed the man responsible. Her actions are no different than what she did with her husband after his abuse. The idea that she would be selected as VP is nothing more than continued sexism. She is not good enough to be on top of the ticket even after winning the most votes but she can play second fiddle to a man. It is like they are telling her that if she does not make a stink about the way she was treated and helps her abuser they will give her a reward (honey, here is a necklace. I am sorry I beat you up last night, you know I really love you).
Hillary could break the cycle of abuse and strike out on her own. She could either decide that she is not going to support Obama and go back to her duties or she could fight back by running as an Independent. Hillary Clinton received more of the popular vote than Obama did and she could hold her own in a general election. She could break the cycle of sexism and be beholden to no one in the Democratic party. She could demonstrate to the Democrats that she and her supporters did not appreciate the sexist attitudes and the way that she was treated and she could tell them she refuses to continue being a victim of the cycle of abuse that is common in those types of relationships.
It will take strength to do this but no one accuses Clinton of lacking strength. She could break from the party and turn Independent and announce her intention of running for the presidency. She could do this just after the convention where they anoint Obama and take advantage of the emotional state of the women who supported her. She would have to change party affiliation which would be another dig at the Democrats who would lose strength in the Senate but it would be necessary for her to run.
Hillary has thrown her support to her abuser but it is not too late for her to break the cycle. She can make her plans and then announce after the convention. She has people who would continue to work for her and she could get public funding for the election. It takes one step at a time in order for the abused to break the cycle and get away from the abuser.
Hillary can take that step by running as an Independent.
Sources:
Herald Tribune
al-Reuters
Washington Post
Tags: abuse, Clinton, concession, independent, Obama, sexism
DNC Has a Choice to Make
May 31, 2008 Opinion, Political
The DNC has been put in a terrible bind by the Democratic Politicians in Florida and Michigan who decided that they wanted to hold their primaries early. The DNC told these leaders that if they did so they would not be able to seat their delegates. The states moved their primaries and the candidates all agreed not to campaign in either state because of the DNC ruling. The DNC figured it could be heavy handed with its threats and that the states would back down. When the states did not back down the sanctions were imposed and it did not, at the time, seem like a big deal because Hillary Clinton was the candidate in waiting. Everyone assumed she would be the winner and that is why these states had early primaries, they wanted to have a say in the process.
The Republicans had a front runner in Rudy but took a more conservative approach and decided to strip half of the delegates from any state that went early. This approach has been seen as fair and has caused no real complaints on the Republican side. The Democrats, however, have a real mess on their hands. It did not start out this way. Everyone expected Hillary to win and she, along with the others, agreed that they would not participate in the states that went early and they were all fine with the decisions of the DNC. Then Hillary turned out not to be the winner. She was getting trounced by Obama and all of the sudden she decides that Florida and Michigan should count.
It always seemed to me that the DNC made the wrong decision from the start because they were so damned adamant about every vote counting in 2000 (even all their dead voters and people’s pets). The word disenfranchisement became part of the vocabulary of people who can’t spell DNC and it was the ugly Republicans who were keeping votes from counting. That all turned out to be a bunch of bunk but after all the caterwauling from the Democrats about every vote counting they would come up with something better than not counting every vote.
A lot of people in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised (now that they know what it means) and they are upset that their votes, so far do not count. The DNC feels that it has to at least give the appearance of being tough and having rules but they do not want to tick off people in two states they must have to win. What message will they send? Will they keep it so that no votes count and risk losing the states or will they allow some or all of the delegates to be seated thus telling people that while the DNC has rules it is OK to break them. Unless they stick to their original edict, one which all parties knew and agreed to, then they are waffling in favor of politics. How can we expect these people to run our country when they have no respect for rules, not even the ones they establish?
To the Democrats in Michigan and Florida, it was your party leaders who allowed this to happen. If you want to be mad be mad at them. Vote them out of office and replace them with people who can lead. As for being disenfranchised, that is what happens when you allow greed to top the rules. Your states were so greedy to make a difference that they broke the rules. Don’t worry, we in the Republican party would welcome you with open arms. We will count your votes. You Hillary supporters who think she got shafted, vote for our guy to show your party that you disapprove of their leadership. You Obama supporters who feel that he is getting screwed because he did not campaign in those states and therefore did not do well (to know him is to love him) vote for McCain just to show your party that you will not be taken for granted. We will not disenfranchise you like your party did.
The Democrats are working this out. They will bend the rules in some fashion to allow at least some of the delegates to be seated. This is contrary to the rules they established but they are trying to appease people. They are the party of appeasement and they have a candidate in the lead who will meet with unfriendly nations without precondition so that he can appease them. This is the DNC platform, appeasement and they are showing it with regard to Florida and Michigan.
They want to be everything to everybody and that is not leadership.
Related items:
Yahoo News
Yahoo News 2
Tags: delegates, disenfranchise, dnc, florida, michigan, primary
Pelosi the Mediator is Loose with Facts
May 29, 2008 Opinion, Political
Nancy Pelosi has indicated that if the Democratic nomination process is not settled prior to the convention she will step in to get it settled. She said that Democrats cannot afford to go to the convention without a chosen nominee. Seems to me that Nancy Pelosi is rewriting the rules for the Democratic Party. Their rules say that there are super delegates and that those selected as super delegates are free to choose whomever they want for president regardless of any other influence including the popular vote, delegate count and number of states won. The purpose of the super delegates was to ensure the people got it right (in other words, make sure we can get who we want) and to select a candidate if none wins outright. Pelsoi seems to be indicating that she does not want this process and that she will step in to make sure that all of it is settled before the convention, the time set aside to actually settle such issues.
Nancy also said a few things in response to questions about the electorate and the current president. Nancy demonstrates the typical liberal mindset with one answer and then distorts the truth with another.
“I totally agree … this war is a big lie. It was a lie to begin with, and it continues to be a lie … at some point, maybe the lies just got too heavy for him to carry.” [in response to a question about Scott McClellan’s book]
Republicans “will try to use it [California gay marriage ruling] in the rest of the country” during the election, but voters are “tired of people who will take you to war and get you involved in (these) cultural battles. … They want to know: ‘Are you getting me a job?’ … They’re tired of these cultural issues being the currency of the realm.”
This president will go down in history as the worst, whether you’re talking about jeopardizing our national security… (or) the worst record of job creation.” SFGate [emphasis mine]
In response to the first item, has Nancy Pelosi read the book? She agrees with it 100% and yet she has only been privy to the excerpts we have all seen. If McClellan states that all Democrats are criminals and molest young children will she still agree 100%? Perhaps it would be prudent for her to read the book before commenting on it. I see it, so far, as a man who is trying to make some money off his bitterness especially since many folks are saying he was not part of the big meetings and was rarely included in those things. I seem to remember that Tony Snow wanted to be included in meetings before he agreed to replace McClellan. If it was standard practice he would not have needed the assurance. I will wait to pass judgment on the content until I have read it. Pelosi has done with this book just as she has with the war on terror in Iraq. She has made judgments without having the facts in front of her.
Nancy Pelosi says that Americans want to know [from government] “are you getting me a job?” Since when is it the responsibility of government to get people jobs? Getting a job is an individual responsibility and it is up to every person to take this task on without the government. The Constitution of the United States has nothing whatsoever in it about getting people jobs. This is the problem with liberals. They think it is the responsibility of government to do everything for people including getting them a job. Nancy showed her true liberal colors with that statement and she left no doubt that she believes (as is her liberal indoctrination) that it is up to the nanny state to take care of everyone. She cannot imagine for one moment that people should do this for themselves. However, just to make it clear, those who want jobs (and are willing to go get them) can find them. The unemployment rate is low and it has been throughout the entire Bush presidency. His unemployment numbers are nearly identical to Clinton’s and Democrats tout that economy as the best ever. This leads me to the last item.
Her opinion of George Bush jeopardizing national security is a joke at best and complete stupidity at worst. There were far more terrorist attacks on the US or its interests during Bill Clinton’s presidency than during Bush’s. The 9/11 attack was the direct result of Bill Clinton refusing to attack terrorists each time they attacked us. He allowed them to attack embassies, naval vessels, and he pulled our troops out of Somalia after the Blackhawk down incident. This emboldened bin Laden to attack America, a country he viewed as a paper tiger. This is according to bin Laden himself and all the censorship and secret document theft by Clinton and his minions cannot change that fact. If Clinton had taken out bin Laden on any of the occasions that he could have (and there were at least three) then 9/11 probably would not have happened.
As for the job creation or the economy in general, the Bush economy is as good as the one Clinton had and in some measures better. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 occurred eight months into his presidency. Despite this, job growth is as high as Clinton’s, unemployment is the same and the largest amount of home ownership in history has taken place on Bush’s watch. The problems we are having now (not unlike the dot com bubble burst) are a result of US monetary policy and political correctness. Our monetary policy is poor and we continue to print money out of thin air. The more unbacked (as in a gold standard) dollars that they flood into the market, the less value each of them will have. As far as PC goes, we allowed race baiters to change how loans are given. Jackson and Sharpton cried that denying blacks (as well as other minorities) a home loan was racist despite the fact that the decisions were based upon credit worthiness. Rules were relaxed and people who should not have been given loans were. Now they are defaulting and the baiters are crying that the banks are at fault for lending to people who could not afford it.
The reality is, many people (minorities and not) took advantage of the great housing market but they bought homes they could not afford. Some lenders engaged in shady practices and dimwitted people entered into contracts for things like adjustable rate mortgages. When the rates adjusted people who bought more than they could afford lost their homes. With regard to jobs in this country, it is a fact that the unemployment numbers are the same as they were under Clinton. If Bush has been an economic failure then so was Clinton. They cannot have it both ways. One last thing. People should not fall for the balanced budget BS that they harp on. The budget was never balanced. They did a lot of stuff on paper that would have made it balanced if all those things were adhered to. In other words, if they did it all the budget would be balanced in the future. Congress likes to spend and they have spent us into debt.
If the Democrats want to insist that the budget was balanced then they need to give the Republican Congress credit for it. Congress deals with the budget and if it was balanced it was balanced by a Republican Congress. As I stated though, it was never balanced and has not been for quite some time.
Nancy Pelosi showed her true liberal colors and she distorted the truth. This is what they always do. Remember, she and her Democrats were going to fix the gasoline price problems, they were going to stop the war, they were going to do it all. One of them recently admitted that thye lied to America because they knew they could not. Keep this in mind when you hear them spouting off, they will lie to you in order to get your vote.
Pelosi has been the worst Speaker of the House in the history of Congress. She is inept and she cannot get things done without attaching items to war spending packages. None of her plans would ever pass on their own merits so she and her cronies resort to procedural games to get stuff passed.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi said that this would be a bad year for Republicans and it is shaping up that way. If the Democrats win I hope they win big so that they can pass everything they want. This is what happened in Maryland and now a lot of people have buyer’s remorse because of the extremely high taxes imposed by the fuhrer here. A Democratically controlled Congress will do the same and I have the same hope for any of America’s poor and elderly who put them there. I hope you have to choose between cat food and heat in the winter. I hope you are so burdened and put out by their imposing taxes and policies that you suffer the worst pain you have ever had. I want it to be a matter of life or death for you the entire time they are in office.
Sometimes people need to experience pain before they learn. Consider it a great learning experience.
Sources:
America’s North Shore Journal
Free Republic
derkeiler
Neal Boortz
Others with interesting posts:
Rosemary’s Thoughts, Alabama Improper, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Pet’s Garden Blog, Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Online Gym, Alabama Improper, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Chucjk’s Place, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Jimmy Carter Does the Unthinkable; Again
May 27, 2008 Opinion, Political
It is no secret that Jimmy Carter, America’s worst president, has a distaste for Israel and that he spends his time on unsanctioned missions of appeasement with terrorists. His actions go directly against the goals of the current administration and he harms not only our goals but his meddling is a direct threat to Israel. Carter recently stated that the US needed to negotiate [Doug Ross] with Iran and that Iran had rational leaders. Carter also suggested that the US should give Iran nuclear material to use for its peaceful purposes. Carter lamented that the Bush administration has not done what every other administration has done and that is to engage in dialog with countries with whom we differ.
Carter has now done the unthinkable and certainly something that no other administration has done. He has divulged one of Israel’s secrets. Carter told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and then told everyone that the country has 150 of them. Carter disclosed a secret that has been held closely by other presidents as well as the Israeli government. It has long been speculated that Israel had nuclear weapons but the country would never confirm or deny that and they certainly never stated how many they might have.
Carter is an absolute disgrace and he has harmed an ally in his quest to destroy Israel and boost the terror supporting countries and entities of the Middle East. How far will this has been go to achieve his appeasement of harmful nations? Will he divulge US secrets as well? Will this idiot tell the world what we have and possibly where it is? Al-Qaeda must be listening intently for its next mission brief.
Jimmy Carter thinks we should negotiate with Iran and its fanatical leadership, one of whom was involved in the taking of American hostages on Carter’s watch. Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to take invade our embassy and take its people hostage. He tried to negotiate with Iran over this issue and I have one question for him; How did that work out for us? We all know that Iran thumbed its nose at us and kept our people for more than a year. They released the hostages when Ronald Reagan took office. Perhaps Iran knew that Reagan would not pussyfoot around with drawn out negotiations. They were afraid the new President would retaliate with military force.
Carter is way past useful to this country and only maintains his status as useful idiot to those who wish to do us and Israel harm. The US needs to keep an eye on this guy and keep him from disclosing any more secrets. If he violated any law we need to prosecute him.
Most presidents get out of office and work on their libraries compiling their successes and leaving a legacy. Some help the country with humanitarian missions or as advisers. Carter has nothing good to look at and his legacy is poor at best. If he had a successful presidency he would be busy working on his own stuff but since he failed to get anything right when he had the chance he is trying to fix it now. No one is asking him for his help and yet he keeps jumping in.
The only problem is, he keeps using the same methods that led to his failed presidency. Continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.
Tags: classified, failure, jimmy carter, meddler, treason