Bill Clinton Endorses Obama
Feb 29, 2008 Political
In 2004, Bill Clinton said this:
“One of Clinton’s laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.”
Hillary keeps warning of the disaster that would be created if Obama wins the nomination. He is not ready to lead from day one, he does not have her experience, and the Republicans will tear him apart. She is trying to scare people about the possibility of an inexperienced person at the helm or of four more years of a Republican in the White House. Obama wants people to think and he always talks about hope. He does not say much but he meets the criteria of who you should vote for, according to Clinton’s law of politics and Hillary meets the criteria of a person not deserving of your vote.
I wonder if he feels the same way today? After all, it is a Clinton law of politics. Of course, so is lying, being dirty, and saying or doing whatever it takes to get elected.
See the video at Breitbart.
UPDATE: There is a new ad Clinton is running designed to tap into voter’s fears about national security. Once again, she is the fear candidate and breaks one of Clinton’s laws of politics…
“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,†the male narrator says. “But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.†The Politico
Others with interesting posts:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Small Donors Could Pay Off National Debt
Feb 29, 2008 Political
The Clinton campaign is expected to announce that it has collected $35 million in donations for the month of February. Barack Obama’s campaign is expected to announce a much higher total of $50 million, all from large numbers of people donating small amounts.
Both campaigns have basically tapped out the big dollar donors who gave early in the process. They are now relying on lower income people who send in $5, $10, or $20 at a time. It is probably safe to say (yes this is an assumption) that these lower income folks are probably in the lower 50% of income earners which means they, as a group, pay about 3.5% of the nation’s income taxes.
Why don’t these folks, who never seem to be able to afford anything without government intervention (the impression the Democrats give), make monthly donations to the treasury to pay off the national debt? Eighty-five million dollars a month would equal 1 billion 20 million dollars each year and that would help pay off the national debt, assuming that Congress does not continue its out of control spending.
Even a one month donation to the government would help. Perhaps these folks could earmark the money for Social Security or welfare so that they could help their own cause as well as the elderly who are trying to make ends meet.
I imagine people would not donate for these reasons because they are used to others providing for them. They do not want to pay their money to help others. After all, that is why they are donating to Obama and Clinton. These two are promising to spend even more of other people’s money to help the less fortunate and those small donations are worth it if universal health care can become a reality.
Sources:
My Way News
Political Radar
Tags: Clinton, donors, national debt, Obama
Democrats; Party of Racial Division
Feb 29, 2008 Political
For years and years the Democrats have painted Republicans as a party of old white guys that is not inclusive of blacks or other minorities. They like to point out that there are no black members of Congress in the Republican party and Howard Dean recently said that the Democrats look like the modern party while Republicans looked like they were still stuck in a time long ago. These geniuses never stop to consider that most blacks are registered as Democrats so it would be difficult to find black Republicans who would want to run for Congress. Why would they? If they are Republicans they are labeled as “Uncle Toms” and sell outs by other blacks. The tolerant party has no tolerance for those who leave the Democratic plantation.
Interestingly, the Republican Party under George Bush gave this country its first two black Secretaries of State. This goes unappreciated as cartoonists from the left portray Condi Rice as a big lipped Aunt Jemima to George the “Task master” Bush and those who call Colin Powell and others such as Michael Steele phony blacks for being Republican.
However, whenever we see stories about racial divides it is within the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton making racist remarks, John Kerry not hiring blacks to any position of prominence in his campaign, and now the Super Delegate fiasco. Many blacks are being threatened because they continue to support Hillary Clinton even though Barack Obama won in their states (or districts). These people are questioning the blackness of the SDs and are indicating that they need to support Obama because he is black and because that is what the people they represent have done. I indicated in an earlier post that I would normally agree with this kind of thinking (about doing what constituents want, not voting because someone is black) but that i feel it is different with the SDs.
The Super Delegates have no rules governing how they may cast their votes. If they were required to vote according to the will of their constituents then the rules would say so. The rules say they may vote for whomever they wish without regard to any external influences. Since this is the case they should be able to do so. If they happen to like Obama better then they can vote for him and likewise for Clinton. But this is not how people are looking at it and the tolerant party is full of people making threats.
I think the hypocrisy is funny and I know that if white Super Delegates were being threatened to vote for Hillary because she is white or because she won a certain area (in which case Kerry and Kennedy would have to change votes) there would be cries of racism and the race baiters would be out in full force. Since the blacks are making the threats it is overlooked and no big deal is made of it. I read a comment somewhere and the person indicated that it would not surprise him if there was some push to allow Obama to start with 200 Electoral Votes before the national election as a method of affirmative action. I can’t say that I would be surprised if it happened.
The fact is that the Democrats have used race as a method of dividing people for decades. They keep blacks “in their place” and do not allow them to stray too far from the plantation. Those who do are instantly labeled as sell outs and Uncle Toms and do not deserve to use oxygen. The racism that Democrats keep accusing the Republicans of seems to be concentrated right in their party. This is why the Democrats pray that their convention is not brokered because their racism will be on display. A bunch of old white guys could have the deciding factor in who gets the nomination for the left and that would fracture their party. They are aware of it and want the matter settled before then.
The bullying tactics used on the Super Delegates by members of the black community rival the tactics of the KKK. They are overtly racist and make no bones about this being a matter of Obama’s blackness and little else, including qualification, matters.
Like I have stated before, it would be good if people in the black community stopped drinking the Kool Aid from the Democratic Party and made up their own minds. Come to the Republican Party and become empowered over your own lives. You won’t need Hillary or Barack to provide you health care because you will be able to provide it for yourself.
Texas and Ohio Republicans please vote for Hillary so we can keep this fight on the left continuing up to their convention. Not only will it be destructive to their party, it will be great entertainment for the next few months.
Source:
The Politico
For my friend Adam: I told you Hillary was Satan.
Tags: Clinton, Obama, racial divide, racism, super delegates, threats
Hillary Deceived and Blew Chance
Feb 27, 2008 Political
In last night’s debate Hillary Clinton said she would release her tax returns if she is nominated “or sooner” and said she was working on it but she has been busy. She also stated that she would hope that papers of her First Lady tenure would be released quickly. Her husband has them and she also indicated that the Bush people would look at them first and hoped they would act quickly. It now appears as if she will not release her tax returns until at least April and there is no indication about her returns from last year, the ones that have been requested fro some time now. As for her papers, the White House says they have not seen them because Bill Clinton is holding them up. It is politics as usual around the Clinton camp.
As for blowing it, Hillary had a great chance to take the high road last night and she missed the opportunity by playing petty games. There was a question about the praise that Louis Farrakhan gave to Senator Obama over the weekend. Obama indicated that he denounced what Farrakhan has said in the past about Jews and that he [Obama] has not sought out Farrakhan’s endorsement. Hillary asked to respond and she talked about when a group endorsed her in her first Senate run. She stated that they were antisemitic and she rejected their endorsement. At this point I thought she was going to praise Obama for his denouncement of Farrakhan. This would have been the high road and would have shown her as a thoughtful leader.
Instead, she told Obama that it was not enough to denounce the man’s words, she had to reject! The difference is, she was endorsed and rejected it, he was not endorsed and has not asked to be. This made her seem petty and weak. To his credit, he deflected the whole thing and made her look like a fool. He said if it will make you feel better I will reject and denounce. If she had left it alone the onus would have been on him and people might have wondered why he was not rejecting something (that he really did not have to) or if she had taken the high road she might have looked presidential. The pettiness made her look inept and the way he handled it made him look cool and in charge. He looked more presidential.
I also question her Saturday Night Live reference. I saw the show and I they made fun of the way the media has gone ga ga over Obama. She might have worked that line in at a better time or left it out completely. It did not fit in well and it made her look like a whiner.
I think that the debate was Hillary’s swan song. I will never count her out because the Clintons are ruthless politicians and they know how to get ugly and win. She might hang close enough to make the convention a bar burner but she did not give people a warm and fuzzy feeling last night. Obama looked as if he had matured into the part and she looked like an amateur politician.
I do not like the idea of either of them in the White House and I think Hillary would be easier to beat given her high negatives. I must say though that I like seeing her go down in flames though her defeat might mean bad times ahead for America should Obama become president.
I also believe that Barack Obama’s message of hope has begun to get to me. I actually think I am beginning to grasp that message of hope, as in:
I hope these two don’t debate again, I am getting tired of seeing them.
Tags: antisemitic, Clinton, debate, deception, Obama
Military Worried About Obama
Feb 26, 2008 Political
Many members of the military and defense circles are worried about Barack Obama as an unknown quantity. They are worried about his lack of experience and inability to see the dangers of a blanket pull out from Iraq. There is also concern that Obama will, as he has stated many times, cut the military budget. We went thorough this with Clinton and it is why our military was not as strong as it needed to be when we went to war. Obama would like to cut the military budget in order to fund social programs, unlike Clinton who cut the military to the bone so he could claim a balanced budget (which was not really balanced).
There are a few retired military officers who think Obama will do fine and Obama himself indicates that George Bush and John Kennedy had little foreign policy experience (but both of them served in the military. Is Obama saying now that Bush has been successful in his leadership and conduct of the war. It seems to me that as much as Obama has been calling all of Bush’s decisions a mistake he would not want to use the president as a benchmark for how a president Obama might do.
Hillary Clinton has about a dozen flag officers supporting her indicating that more military people feel she would be a better leader. However, John McCain has more military experience than both of them and would be a far better Commander in Chief despite that weasel General Wesley Clark’s assertion that Hillary was best qualified. This guy could not carry McCain’s uniform and has the audacity to say that Hillary Clinton, with no military experience and little experience in military matters would be better at leading the troops than John McCain. I have problems with McCain but he has vastly more experience in this area than either of the Democrats.
Face it, if there were a crisis Hillary would shed tears so people would feel sorry for the poor girl and Obama would look like a deer caught in the headlights. Besides, how many members of the military do they think will stick around if either bring them home too soon and allow the terrorists to claim victory. The Democrats screwed the troops in Vietnam and now they want to screw them again. A few years ago the liberals were crying that Bush was going to re-institute the draft (when the actual call for the draft was made by Democrats). If these people are worried about being drafted (and most liberals are) then they had better worry if either Democrat gets elected and pulls our troops out of Iraq. People would leave in droves and there would be a severe shortage of troops to defend this country. Since they cannot force people to serve without a draft, guess what??
Think that the troops will not leave? I know a man who refused to be promoted from Lieutenant to Captain during Bill Clinton’s presidency because he did not want Clinton’s signature on his promotion certificate. There are many people like him who will not serve for people who cut their budgets, bring them home in disgrace and hand them defeat.
The military is worried about Obama but they have reservations about Hillary as well. I am willing to bet most of her flag officer support consists of people looking for a job in her administration. I guess those stints as so called military experts on the news channels dried up when the war started going better and Iraq was not the Bush bash of the day.
I am glad to be retired from the military so I will never have to serve under either of these boobs. It was bad enough having the first Clinton in charge (and we know what he did).
I know either of them will screw our troops and our country. I only hope if they win and end up pulling the troops out of Iraq that when the enemy follows us here, their attacks kill and maim family members of those who allowed it to happen. I would rather see Obama’s family killed in a terrorist attack brought on by his stupidity than to see my family killed because of it.
He can martyr his own kids, not someone else’s…
Source:
The Washington Times
UPDATE:
Here is a video of Obama talking about cutting the military and our defenses. He will also not spend money on unsuccessful missile defense systems. I guess he did not see we shot down that satellite…