Big Dogs Weblog

Observations on the Democrat’s Process

Apr 18, 2008 Political

The Democrats are having a tough time of it because they have two history making candidates who are fairly close. Their loyal supporters are pretty evenly divided with blacks supporting Obama and women supporting Hillary. There are several observations that I want to share:

• Hillary believes that every vote must count but only if they count for her.
• The will of the people is important unless their will is not what the candidates want.
• Obama believes Hillary (and McCain) are insider politicians who resort to dirty tactics. His dirty tactics are outside the beltway and therefore OK.
• Howard Dean thinks Republicans disenfranchise voters. It is not wrong though for him to want the nomination decided now even though there are 10 states still left to vote.
• Bill Clinton thinks that the press treats Hillary unfair because the press now treats her as they have Republicans for decades. Bill does never had a problem with how Republicans get treated.
• Bill Clinton said Obama whined about his treatment in the last debate and Hillary never whined despite her constant whining during previous debates.
• Democrats say they have plans and solutions but can never elaborate on them. The only thing they ever say is that they will raise taxes.
• The definition of rich is anyone who earns wages when it deals with Democrats taxing the rich.
• Democrats act surprised that Hillary told a lie (many actually) as if she has been honest her whole public life. You can tell she is lying because her lips are moving.
• Obama said race is an issue in America. He does not feel his racist pastor is an issue.
• Obama was one of the first to condemn Don Imus and the first to defend his racist pastor.
• Democrats do not want a Republican to win unless their candidate loses the nomination. Then, they will vote Republican. Half of the Democrats know the other candidate is a loser.

These are but a few of the things I have taken away from listening to the Democratic candidates and party members chatter.

Feel free to add your own in the comments or trackback to this post with your observations.

Tags: Clinton, debate, Democrats, lies, Obama

The Ho Hum Democratic Debate

Apr 17, 2008 Political

Though ABC’s moderators did everything they could to incite a war between the remaining Democratic contenders, last night’s debate was about as boring as they get. The Washington Post saw it as ABC dredging up old stories to try to spark a fight and the WaPo believes that ABC favored Clinton and showed Obama in a negative light.

I think that each candidate was taken to task and I think that both of them did a good job of accusing the other of unnecessary attacks while actually attacking in that fashion. Obama was upset that the Clinton campaign ran with his smear of small town USA and made sure we knew that Hillary was seen as elitist with her cookie remarks a long time ago. Hillary attacked Barry with regard to his past associates and he countered by letting us know that she had a controversial pastor as well as the fact that her husband had pardoned two people from the Weather Underground, a radical member of which Obama is associated with.

As far as it goes, the debate was boring. These two tried to show how the other was evil and then of course the replies showed that they are both just as evil. He hangs with terrorists who hate America and her husband pardoned them. She tries to exploit his elitist remarks by saying her family had factory workers in it and he counters by talking about his broken household and growing up a poor single parent child, blah, blah.

I thought Barry did a good job of countering what she said but his counters were not denials of his failings and were more of a “She did it too.” All he did was point out that she had done the same things in her past. He never denied being wrong or associating with the wrong people, he just said that she did it too. He lamented about things that are decades old being brought up and then he brought up her suspicious activities from, you guessed it, nearly two decades ago.

These two are absolute failures and neither could lead a group of people out of a burning building. He continues to deny the obvious and to make excuses about his associations and she continues to accuse him of the very things that she has done for years. There was a lot of finger pointing, a lot of venom, a lot of nice talk with nastiness wrapped inside and there was no substance.

Hillary talked about being ready to lead, about having her past already dug into and about how George Bush ruined the economy her hubby made great (another liberal myth). Obama talked about how people want change, how he sometimes chooses improper words and about how people should focus on issues and not nuances (unless his people are focusing on Hillary’s nuances). I also think it was pretty clear that they will not run on the same ticket though that remains to be seen. Democrats will do anything for power so they might kiss and make up when all is said and done.

The big winner last night was John McCain. He received ammunition from each candidate (though you can bet the Republicans are working overtime getting their own) and he probably benefited from the fact that these two looked like school children rather than leaders. McCain looks like the adult in this group and people will see that. I also believe that Obama got flustered a few times and gave circular answers that made no sense. McCain has to believe that he can wax Obama’s rear in a debate. At least last night showed that Obama is not unflappable.

I am sure that neither of these two should be president and last night reaffirmed that belief. I am also sure that the only thing either knows is that raising taxes is the answer to all problems. They both lied about our tax structure, they made false claims about the wealthy (which both of them are) and they both showed that if either of them is elected America will be in for some real bad times.

But it was fun to watch. I rarely get to see two clueless people have a fight. Watching them made me think of what it might look like if they rearranged the furniture at the school for the blind…

Tags: boring, Clinton, corruption, debate, lies, Obama, pastors

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

Obama Winning is a Consequence of Bad Judgment

Feb 22, 2008 Military, Political

In the debate Barack Obama made a statement that might lend credence to Hillary’s new mantra about being ready to be Commander in Chief. Obama told a story that is rather nuanced. Yes it has elements of truth but some items are half truths designed to say George Bush is a bad Commander in Chief. Ask the troops who they would rather have in charge Mr. Obama, the answer would not be you.

OBAMA: You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

This whole statement was open to a lot of criticism because Captains do not lead platoons and platoons do not get split across two theaters. Additionally, our troops sometimes do not get all that they need but this is not because the president is not supplying them, it is because Congress fails to provide for them. They hold the purse strings. Humvees have been in short supply throughout the war.

Turns out the Captain was a Lieutenant at the time and that they had trouble getting items related to grenade launchers and .50 cal machine guns and only in training (though we might never really know if this is true because he remains anonymous). Obama made it sound as if they could not get supplies and that they had to get Taliban weapons in order to fight. Soldiers have always scrounged for equipment on the battlefield and if they capture weapons there is no reason not to use them. However, that is a far cry from saying they needed to get the enemy’s weapons in order to fight.

Obama acts like it is easier for our troops to use AKs and get ammunition for them than it is to get ammunition for our own weapons. Where does he think we would get ammo for those weapons, from Taliban supply? I would also like to know how, if we don’t get ammunition, we were able to get these AKs that we are using. Did we walk up and ask for them? If we are using their weapons there is a good chance that we took them in battle so we had to have ammo to do that. As for our ammunition, it becomes scarce on missions but the supply of it from the logistical system has not been much of a problem.

The last thing Obama said was that; “it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. That was a consequence of bad judgment.” As stated Mr. Obama, the Commander in Chief does not equip the men and women of the armed forces. They are equipped by the Congress who votes for budgets that send them ammunition, uniforms, Humvees, and any number of other items needed to prosecute the war. The President signs those when they get to his desk. I would like to know how it is that you think George Bush failed to properly equip our soldiers…

…when you voted against the war funding bill that would have supplied them. Matter of fact, both Obama and Clinton voted against it (“Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill”). What makes them think they are qualified to be Commander in Chief when they are incapable of taking care of the troops? It is easy for Mr. Obama to say that this Commander in Chief did not properly equip the troops but the reality is, both Democratic candidates were the ones who failed to provide for the men and women of the armed forces. The president does not provide for the troops, the Congress does and these two have failed miserably in that regard.

Barack Obama is leading in the delegate count and Hillary is desperate to win Texas and Ohio. She is touting credentials that would make her a better Commander in Chief than him. They both failed to provide funding for the troops but want us to believe that they would be the best to lead them. As for Obama, his statement was very misleading and many of the people watching that debate had no idea that he had stretched the truth in order to portray something that was not quite true so that he could slam President Bush. It is interesting that Obama slams Clinton for being part of the old establishment and then he tells a story that had Bill Clinton deception in it.

It all depends upon what the meaning of is, is.

Picking Obama or Clinton to lead our troops would be a consequence of bad judgment. Neither has ever served in the military and it shows.

On a side note, a bunch of the Obamamaniacs follow him like he is a cult leader. They chant for him and think he is wonderful. They want us to accept him as a great man who can lead and they want us to ignore his use of drugs and alcohol in his youth. They tell us that does not matter after they spent all that time telling us that George Bush was not fit to lead because of his drug and alcohol use in his youth…

As for being qualified to be Commander in Chief, John McCain has more qualifications in that department than both of these two combined.

Others:
Flopping Aces | Cop the Truth | The Jawa Report | Hot Air | Hot Air (2) | Datatroll | The Political Inquirer | The American Pundit | A Blog for All

Tags: debate, exaggerations, Hillary, no military experience, Obama, stretching the truth

Hillary is Pimping the Pimping Out Remark

Feb 9, 2008 Political

A great deal has been made about the comment that was made by David Shuster of PMS NBC when he said that it appeared as if the Clinton campaign was sort of pimping out Chelsea. This caused a firestorm among the liberals who are uninformed about the newer meaning of those words. They insist that Shuster was calling Chelsea a whore. I can see how they would make that mistake since the Clintons have been whoring themselves out since they started in public life. Everyone knows that the Clintons are available to the highest bidder. Regardless of what the Clinton whoring class thinks, the reality remains that Shuster meant she [Chelsea] was being used.

The interesting thing is that the Clinton folks say they did not know what the phrase “pimping out” meant which I find interesting because that is all they do. Case in point, Hillary is pimping the attention to this to make PMS NBC look like a bunch of sexist pigs so she can score big with the women, especially the feminists who are always itching for a reason to bash a man. Unfortunately, it was probably a man who had to explain what pimping out meant.

Hillary is certainly pimping out the who issue (using it for those who still don’t know) by sending a letter to PMS NBC. Ti Hillary, it was not enough for her to have received an apology and for Shuster to get suspended. The letter does not exactly make it clear what she wants but it makes very clear that Hillary is pimping this for all it is worth. She states that she found the remarks offensive (even though none of them knew what they meant) and she wants everyone to know she was a mother first. She stated that she is in public life and can take the heat but that it is unfair to attack her daughter who is only helping with a campaign.

For the record, Shuster did not attack the fragile flower known as Chelsea. His statement was about Hillary. He asked if Chelsea was being pimped out [by her mother] in some weird sort of way. That is not an attack on Chelsea, it is a statement about the campaign and what it looks like to him. But the Clintons were never ones to let the facts get in the way of anything.

If I ran PMS NBC I would not have suspended Shuster or made him apologize (same with Chris Matthews for that matter). However, that is a decision made by the company and it is within their rights though it is certain that the decision was not made based upon right or wrong, only on how the company might lose money if “thick skinned” Hillary decided not to participate in debates.

What I would do if I ran the network is tell Hillary Clinton she is free to participate if she wants or to not participate if she does not want to but that the debate will go on with or without her. I would let her know that the network is in charge of how it is run and not a political candidate. Then, if she did not show I would give Barack Obama the debate time to answer questions and allow him as much time as he wanted to attack Clinton. All those attacks would go unanswered and then Hillary would see what hardball really is.

I cannot stand these people. They are such hypocrites. Hillary talks about the appropriateness of words used when she drops F bombs all the time. She and her husband have floated inappropriate word choices throughout this campaign and apologize if they receive backlash. They are using a comment about using someone to their advantage. In other words, she is pimping the pimping out remark.

Educated people who pay attention to our culture know what this phrase meant. I would say however, that the campaign had a legitimate argument if the comment was made about Bill Clinton because when you talk pimp in reference to him it is about sex.

Source:
The Politico
Related:
Political Punch

Tags: debate, Hillary, mommy dearest, msnbc, pimping out