Obama Needs to Go on the Offensive
Jan 23, 2008 Political
B. Hussein Obama has been on the defensive since former President bill Clinton came out attacking him. Obama has been forced to defend himself against half truths often conjured up at the last minute in order to sway primary elections. The Wall Street journal indicates that Obama is getting an education in Clinton. The WSJ relates:
One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton’s attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.” WSJ
Obama is learning the hard way that the Clintons do what they “gotta” do regardless of what it is because to them, winning is everything. Right now Obama is facing a fierce Bill Clinton who is doing what he has to do in order to distort a record and smear a fellow Democrat. Those of us on the right like to see the fighting among Democrats but are also reminded of the terror reigned on this country during the eight years Clinton was president. For Democrats, it is indeed a sad day when John Edwards appears most presidential, or as he put it, the only adult present at the debate.
It is time for Obama to do what he has to do. He has indicated he will strike back at Bill Clinton but that might not be a good strategy. Clinton is well liked among the party faithful and attacking him will continue to take the focus off the weaknesses of Hillary. Obama can attack Bill through Hillary and take the lead in addressing issues that were neglected during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Obama can make a good case when he tells the people that the Clinton co-presidents had eight years and failed to accomplish those things she vows to take care of now. Obama can tell people that the Clintons had eight years to fix Social Security and they neglected it even though Bill stated that it was broken and needed to be fixed. I believe he even thought private accounts was a good idea.
Obama can make the case that the Clintons had eight years to get health care for everyone (an item Hillary failed miserably on), eight years to make sure Medicare was efficient and provided for the elderly, and eight years to develop and implement an energy plan that reduced our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. Eight years to do all these things and they failed to accomplish them.
When Bill Clinton was running the first time he told us all that you get two for the price of one and Hillary told us it was a co-presidency. During this campaign Hillary has taken credit for the good things that happened back then. If she takes credit for the successes it is reasonable to attribute the failures to her as well. Obama can go on the offensive and strike H. Rodham Clinton on the very issues that she says she will fix and at the same time take shots at her husband without directly confronting him. This will tell the voters that the Clintons had their eight years and failed to get it right and it is unlikely that giving them more time will change this.
Obama has had a campaign of change, a mantra adopted by Hillary as well as some of the Republicans running for office. If Obama is convinced he is the candidate of change he needs to point out the failures of the Clinton co-presidency and make sure the failures are attributed to Hillary. If this does nothing more than cause the Clintons to go on the defensive it will have been worth it. The more the Clintons are forced to defend their record the less time they have to manufacture half truths about Obama.
It is win-win for Obama because if Hillary fights the charges and says that she was not the president it will allow him to point out that she cannot take credit for anything that happened then and will negate her experience claim. If she defends the co-presidency she will be drawing more attention to those failures leaving less time for them to attack.
It is time for B. Hussein Obama to take off the gloves and start hitting hard. It is time for him to strike blows where it will hurt and that is the ever changing Clinton legacy. Blame her for the failures and make her defend why she did not get those things done back then. make her explain how she will do it now when she could not do it then. Make Bill defend their record rather than attacking his.
Obama can get dirty without attacking Bill directly and causing a rift among the Democratic base by attacking the record and attributing it to her. He will come out ahead if he takes this approach.
It is time for Obama to show he is a quick study and has gotten a quick education in Clinton politics of personal destruction. otherwise, he will have to repeat the class in four years.
Bill Clinton, the 20 Million Dollar Man
Jan 22, 2008 Political
Last night during the Democratic debate there was some banter about Hillary Clinton sitting on the board of Wal Mart (that evil corporation that does not allow unions). The news today discussed this and the fact that the Clintons owned Wal Mart stock as part of their blind trust. I think it is unlikely that they did not know they had Wal Mart stock because they probably had it before the blind trust was established but then again, I don’t care what stock they own. Stocks only matter when a Republican owns them even if they have been awarded to charity (see Dick Cheney and Halliburton).
The Clintons went through their blind trust to see if there was anything that would be problematic (if it was truly blind, would it matter) and they got rid of the Wal Mart stock. This was done to prevent problems during her run for the White House. Interestingly, they (probably more so Bill) are now in the process of severing ties with a company that will end up paying Bill about $20 million dollars. The company is Yucaipa Cos. and it is run by long time Clinton pal Ron Burkle. Interestingly, this company has ties with Dubai though the pay out comes from domestic dealings.
Not so long ago the President was trying to allow Dubai Ports permission to run six ports here in America. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were huge opponents and Clinton was very vocal in her opposition. At the time, Bill was advising the company on how to make things smoother and get the deal passed (which did not happen). It appears that in addition to Bill there were other Hillary advisers working with Dubai only in this case it was to take over two defense plants.
Bill is severing the ties with Yucaipa because he does not want the relationship to reflect negatively on Hillary and her campaign. He is ending the relationship to prevent potential conflicts of interest. The question is, were there not conflicts related to her position as a Senator? If there were, why has he waited until now to end this relationship? If the only problem arises with her as president then why did he not end the relationship when she announced? Surely he was aware of any potential conflict.
Severing the tie to Dubai, a U.S. ally, will remove a potentially tricky problem for Mrs. Clinton. Questions raised about the activities of sovereign wealth funds — giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments — have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in such corporate giants as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Clinton said such purchases are “a source of concern,” partly because the foreign funds “lack transparency” and could be used by foreign governments as “instruments of foreign policy.” WSJ
With this item things become more clear. This was not a problem until Hillary called these kinds of relationships a “source of concern.” With that, Bill had to relieve himself of the burden of those kinds of concern so that Hillary’s chief rival, Senator Obama, would not be able to use the relationship against her as he did with her and Wal Mart.
The Clintons are opportunists and they only worry about potential conflicts when people discover them. They will keep potential conflicts alive as long as they can make money and there is no political liability (as in being discovered). Once there is mention of a problem or once Hillary makes a statement that is contrary to the Clinton’s behavior, things get changed. Of course, they always act as if there was never a problem and anyone who thinks otherwise is part of some conspiracy (Vast Right Wing or otherwise). Do as I say and not as I do.
I can’t help but wonder how Clinton and Schumer and the other Democrats would have acted if it were a Bill or Hillary Clinton that worked the Dubai Ports deal. Of course, the Republicans probably would have had a different opinion as well.
The Clintons have their hands in a lot of cookie jars. It will be interesting to see how many of them become public knowledge as the campaign season rolls along.
Others with similar items:
Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, third world county, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: blind trust, burkle, Clinton, conflict of interest, yucaipa
Another Lie About Bill Clinton?
Jan 21, 2008 Political
I was recently told in my comment section that a bunch of things about Bill Clinton were disproven including the story that he and Hillary fell asleep during the Reagan funeral. I watched that video and it looks like Bill is asleep and Hillary is trying to stay awake but, of course, if the Clintons say they were awake then who are we to question it?
The Reagan funeral might be something that can be debated but today Bill Clinton fell asleep during a church service commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King. The video leaves no doubt as Clinton falls asleep and his head drops down as he jerks back up to consciousness. You can see the story here (the story says he fell asleep at Reagan’s funeral) and you can see a video here.
I realize that this will probably be billed as some contrived story made up by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and those who worship the ground that Bill walks on will buy that however, this does not appear to be a hoax.
It is ironic that Bill claims that King’s “I Have a Dream” speech inspired him to get into public service. I guess he took the title literally.
UPDATE: For what its worth, I don’t care if Bill Clinton falls asleep or not. The point of the post was to counter a claim that the story of him falling asleep in the past was proved false or made up by the right. This post is in response to the comment, just to make it clear (for the boobs who are not able to tell). **and I don’t mean the commenter**
Which Clinton is Running Against Obama?
Jan 21, 2008 Political
During this primary season we have a Democratic Party which includes H. Rodham Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton. When the campaigns started over a year ago a lot was made of Bill and how he would be involved. Hillary made it known that this was her campaign and that she was running on her own and when things started out it certainly looked that way. Then Hillary was rocked in Iowa and went into New Hampshire with a double digit deficit. Enter Bill Clinton.
Bill has been very involved since Hillary’s embarrassing loss in Iowa and since then he has been the one confronting B. Hussein Obama. Sure, Hillary cried to garner the sympathy of women but it has been Bill who has been attacking. Bill went on the warpath and said Obama’s record of opposition to the war was a fairy tale and then he defended the teacher’s union’s lawsuit in an effort to disenfranchise voters in Nevada. Bill then questioned the veracity of the process and accused the union of voter suppression though eyewitnesses tell that it was the Clinton campaign trying to suppress the vote and disenfranchise Obama supporters. That info came from a member of the Daily Kos.
Bill Clinton is now campaigning in South Carolina while Hillary runs through the tsunami Tuesday states. If she is the one running for president, why is she not in South Carolina? It is not unusual for campaigns to send surrogates to future states but usually the candidate campaigns in the active state. Hillary is not in SC and Bill is so that begs the question, which Clinton is running against Obama? Bill Clinton is vastly more popular than his wife and was widely viewed as the first black president which might explain his presence in SC but he is not the candidate. If we are to believe that Hillary is her own person why is she not the one campaigning? If Hillary is capable of being president on her own merits then why does she send her husband out to fight her fights?
When Bill ran in 1992 he told people that with him you get two presidents for the price of one. Is there any doubt that Bill is running for his third term this time as Hillary’s co-president? From what we have seen in her campaign, is there any doubt that Bill will be calling some of the shots? Is there any doubt that Bill will have an active roll in governing this country?
People can make the claim that H. Rodham is the strongest candidate but the truth is, her strength is Bill and without him she is nothing. She depends on him and without his strengths her negatives make her completely unelectable and this is just in the Democratic base. In the national election, nothing Bill says or does will erase the greater than 50% negatives she carries. Republicans will come out in droves to keep her out of office.
Of course, if the Clinton crime family keeps working on the voter disenfranchisement they might be successful in granting Bill his third term.
Tags: bill is running, Clinton, disenfranchise, negatives, third term
Presidential Words I Agree With
Jan 21, 2008 Political
These are the words the president stated in a State of the Union speech nd I agree with them:
“Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq’s arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. Washington Post
Saddam Hussein was perceived as a threat and it was acknowledged, in more than 16 words, that he had a viable nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program. This speech was from 1998, long after the time that the left keeps saying that Hussein got rid of weapons. Ten months later, then President Clinton, signed HR 4655 into law. This law instituted a policy of regime change in Iraq. True to form, the law explicitly stated that it did not address the use of military force. I guess he was saving that option for when another scandal popped up.
There is little difference between what Clinton said and what Bush said and there is little difference between their policies. The major difference is that Bush took action while Clinton was getting a little action.
Let this also serve as notice to those who say I never find anything good to say about Bill Clinton.
Tags: Clinton, hussein wmd, regime change, state of the union