What did Hillary Mean to Say?

There has been an uproar over a comment by Hillary Clinton when asked about dropping out of the race. She indicated that her husband did not wrap things up until June 1992 and that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. People were quick to jump on this and say she was inferring that Obama could be killed and then she would be the nominee. I see it differently.

I am certainly no supporter of Hillary Clinton but in this case I have to agree with her. From the moment I read the comment I knew she meant that there were times in history where the nomination process was still going on in June. It is a foregone conclusion that she expressed it poorly which does not bode well for a person who is supposed to be so brilliant. I know that the Clinton history is filled with nuanced statements but I cannot get on the bandwagon of people who think she meant that harm could or should come to Obama.

Al Sharpton [Daily News] has contacted Hillary and told her to choose her words wisely which is ironic considering Sharpton’s were have been responsible for a number of deaths. His peace marches have turned into riots where people have been killed based upon what he told the crowd. I imagine he should know that poorly chosen words can lead to catastrophe because he has certainly had his share of inciting catastrophic moments.

Clinton has apologized [My Way News] for the remarks and explained that she meant no disrespect to the Kennedy clan and once again explained what she meant. Unfortunately, there are those who will look at this as one more way that Hillary is ruining the nomination process and how her scorched Earth policies know no bounds. While I believe that the Clintons will say or do anything to win, I also know they would never say or do anything to upset an American dynasty such as the Kennedys. That would be political suicide though her poor remarks might end up being the self inflicted wound that finally does her in.

One thing to keep in mind is that if Obama were a white person these remarks would not have the same significance. Since there were early worries that he might be killed this has a lot more weight. People naturally assume some redneck will unload on him because he is a black guy. The reality is, all the worries are about people on the left. They are the folks running their primary and it is the Hillary supporters that they must be worried about.

I have rarely agreed with Clinton (and never politically) but in this case I have to. She did not mean to place Obama in jeopardy or suggest that he might meet an untimely demise which would give the nomination to her. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion by those who worry some crackpot will take a cue from what she said and off Obama. I can’t imagine anyone would want to see any of them injured or killed. Politics are one thing but taking a life is quite another and no sane person wants to see someone die because they disagree politically. This, of course, is in the US. A lot of people want to see terrorists who disagree politically cease to exist.

No one in his right mind believes the Obama/JFK comparisons but then again, no one is his right mind wants there to be an Obama/RFK comparison either.

Maybe Hillary was just tired or maybe people actually have a different opinion about what happened to Vince Foster…

Related Items:
Wall Street Journal
New York Post

What, no cut and run from Hillary?

A recent poll shows that a majority of Democrats think Hillary Clinton should stay in the race. The candidate herself, despite insurmountable odds, has indicated she will stay in until the end and that she plans to win. Hillary and her supporters want her to stay even though it looks impossible to win and even though she is broke and lending her campaign money.

These are the same people who want us to cut and run from Iraq. They are the folks who tell us that we cannot win in Iraq and that it is costing a lot of money (it is). The successes in Iraq are certainly more evident than in the Clinton campaign but nonetheless, they want us to cut and run from the war.

Why is it that people who advocate cutting and running from a war we are having success in advocate for Hillary to stay the course even though she cannot win without her party screwing Barack Obama over?

If these people applied the same standard to Hillary’s campaign as they do to the war then she would have been gone long ago. Not that I want to see her leave but one would think these people could at least be consistent.

The painful truth is that if the Democrats had a winner take all primary, Hillary would have locked up the nomination long ago. However, the Democrats chose to play games with their system and now they are in a pickle. There will be blood at their convention and a lot of people will have hurt feelings.

Who could ask for anything more?

Related items:
Washington Post
Rasmussen Reports

Big Dog

Should Hillary have said it?

Barack Obama has started acting less like a candidate in a primary and more like a presumptive nominee for his party. He is looking past Hillary Clinton and directly at John McCain. Obama is in a good position and feels comfortable though I would not count out a Clinton. Hillary is expected to win big in West Virginia today and Kentucky next week and then, according to rumors, she will drop out of the race. No matter how strong Obama is going, 64% of Democrats nationwide want her to stay in the race so we will see what she does after Kentucky.

The article describing the rumor indicated that she hinted she would leave after those contests, presumably so she could leave on a high note. There is one thing she said that I think might have been better kept in her brain:

“A woman is like a tea bag: You never know how strong she is until she is in hot water.” New York Post

Given her husband’s past and what he lied about doing (and considering the hot water he got in), I am not sure I would have used the words Tea Bag to describe a woman.

Big Dog

Michelle Obama has spoken; No VP Hillary

There has been a buzz about an Obama/Clinton ticket since the early days of the primaries when media types fawned over both candidates and lamented how they wish that a vote could be cast for each. Will you run on one ticket, a dream ticket?

Early on Hillary said that the idea was a good one but it remained to be determined who would get top billing and Barack seemed open to the idea with similar concerns about top billing. With Obama in the lead it would appear that any unified ticket would have to have her playing second banana to the Obamination. Hillary would not like the idea but might be willing to do it just to get closer to the top spot. Obama might be willing to have Hillary as the VP because it would partially placate her disillusioned supporters who still believe that misogyny is at the root of her demise.

I have a bet with a coworker who believes the combined ticket will occur while I believe there is no way in hell that they will run together. It would take credibility away from both of them to combine (though most politicians rarely worry about credibility). He portrays her as part of the politics as usual crowd of DC and she says he cannot garner the white vote and has not been properly vetted. These are valid arguments and show how the ugliness of the protracted campaign further hamstrings the Democratic party and its choices.

I believe there is one factor here than trumps all others and that is the Michelle Obama factor. She does not like Hillary and she also knows that Hillary as VP brings the baggage of Bill who will hover. They would make Obama an outsider in his administration. Not to mention the fact that Mrs. Obama does not like Hillary Clinton and is not happy with the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign.

Michelle Obama is upset that Clinton keeps dragging this out even though she cannot mathematically win the number of pledged delegates needed to take the nomination outright. Never mind the reality that Barack Obama cannot win outright either. The nomination will go to the super delegates and they can do anything they wish. It is likely that Obama will get the number of votes he needs but one can never count the Clintons out and this is a fact of which Michelle is well aware. She has to be worried that the nomination will be taken from her husband and once again plunge her into a position where she is not proud of her country. Why should Clinton concede when anything can happen among the super delegates?

There are many reasons that an Obama/Clinton ticket is unwise but no matter how many reasons there are for or against the only opinion that will really count is the one offered by Mrs. Obama. She does not want Hillary on the ticket and therefore Hillary will not be on that ticket.

No man wants to go through life hearing his wife repeat “I told you so.”

Source:
Real Clear Politics [Robert Novak]
Jay at STACLU has a video up from SNL where they are pretty brutal to Hillary

Big Dog

Others with interesting posts:
Stop the ACLU, Rosemary’s Thoughts, jamesloganmd, Right Truth, Kodera’s Korner, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, InvestorBlogger, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, A Blog For All, 123beta, , Cao’s Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Candidate of Change

Money

This election has been about hope and change on the Democrat’s side. I already addressed the hope issue and equated hope to wishful thinking so now it is time to address change. Candidates from both sides talk about change and the Democrat’s are lapping up the change kool aid as if it is something new. All presidential candidates (all candidates, for that matter) campaign on change. If they did not want change they would be happy with the person who is already there.

The change issue seems to have hit a collective nerve on the left and they have embraced the message of change from the very first day. But what do they want? They have two candidates of change. Hillary and Obama are both candidates of change so why are people flocking to B. Hussein Obama when Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about even more change?

Obama has changed his story about Pastor Wright more than a few times and he has had to change what he said to what he meant with regard to the bitter folks in this country. While people like to think Obama is a fresh face with new ideas he is an inexperienced politician who conducts business as usual. He did not get ahead in Chicago by being the outsider he clams to be.

Clinton changed her sniper story, her opinion as to whether Obama could win in the general election, her benchmark for success, he position on NAFTA, he story about releasing documents, her position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS and any number of other things that far outweigh the number of changes that B. Hussein Obama has made.

So, if the Democrats really want a candidate of change then they are supporting the wrong person. Hillary Clinton is the candidate of change and she has Obama beaten by a wide margin in that category.

The only real change we will get with either one is how rapidly they change what they promised on the campaign trail to what they will actually do in office. They will change even more and most of it involves taking more of the change out of your pockets.

I am looking for change as well. I say we start by changing the three people still running with three others and have a “do over.” Then I say we change out every seat in the House and every seat in the Senate that is on the ballot. Then I say we change the tax laws as in abolishing them along with the plethora of unconstitutional government programs that suck the lifeblood out of our republic.

Now those would be positive changes.

Big Dog