Clinton does want Obama gone at all costs, even assassination

Unlike the mainstream media, I will say what those talking heads are alluding to but won’t go so far as to actually say out loud.  It’s not pretty, I’ll warn you now, but the unforgivable truth needs to be stated in plain English.

So here’s how it went down.  As a reason for staying in the race, Hillary Clinton said that her husband didn’t clinch the democratic nomination until June of 1992 and other historical democratic races had gone on that long into the election year as well. 

Then she said that Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in June of 1968 so you never know what can happen.

Here we go.

Translation:  If somebody murders Barack Obama before the election then she still has a chance.  In fact, it is her only chance.  This has to be the sickest thing I have ever heard in a political campaign.  To actually use the word “assassination” in a run for political office is probably the worst thing somebody could ever do.  To conjur up images of one of the worst periods in American history is so deplorable that I can not believe that some still support Hillary Clinton to be the leader of our country.  The “apology” that you may have seen?  Well, did you ever hear her say, “I’m sorry”?  No, because it is never her fault. Nothing is ever her fault, so she just explains it away somehow and justifies it but never takes responsibility.

For those paying attention, I have always said the the Clinton’s would do anything to win this nomination and this Presidency.  For those wondering what I REALLY meant by that, here it is. 

The Clinton’s are better connected in this world than any Mafia family ever has been.  So not only do I think Hillary Clinton wishes somebody would assassinate Barack Obama, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Clinton’s arranged it.  If anything ever happened to him, the Clinton campaign would be the first place I would look. 

Sorry, I know it sounds strong, but it is how I feel and what I believe.   Deal with it and if you don’t like what I have to say, get your own blog.

After I wrote this piece I happened to watch a late night rerun of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on MSNBC.  I realized that he said it way better than I ever could.  Here’s the link to Keith’s take on the situation.  Warning:  This is a strong and powerful oral opinion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8CsQyr6vlc

We have truly seen inside the soul of a candidate and what we see is frightening.

More back door politics for Clinton and Ickles

Here comes the broken record.  The Clintons and their “posse” will do anything to win this nomination.  The tactics used by the Clinton team are exactly what makes Hillary Clinton herself so untrustworthy and unelectable. 

Clinton’s “Delegate Guru” Harold Ickes (insert joke here) finally admitted that he has pushed, and is pushing the “race” issue when communicating with yet unpledged super delegates.  Ickes has told these undecided democrats that Obama’s affiliation with Pastor Wright is a deal breaker for democrats and will be the demise of Obama when the Republicans use the Obama/Wright relationship in the same manner as the Swift Boaters did against John Kerry.

So essentially, he is saying to super delegates that Barack Obama is unelectable because he was a member of a black church that had an outrageous pastor, who said outrageous statements with which Obama himself has already said he does not agree.  But deeper than that, it is Obama’s race that, in Ickes mind, is a “problem”.  He backed off a bit when reporters pressed the issue.

This whole thing is the equivalent of school yard gossip.  He first said that the super delegates brought up the race issue to him: “Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks,” Ickes continued. “I’ve had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them.”

Asked whether he was specifically bringing up Wright to super-delegates, Ickes said: “I’ve said what I’ve said…I tell people that they need to look at what they think Republicans may use against him. Wright comes up in the conversations.”

So know we get to the real issue of typical Clinton style politics.  When I hear the words “I’ve said what I said” but I don’t hear what was said, that’s a problem for me.  This is then followed by “I tell people that they need to look at what they think Republicans may use against him”.  So what he means is, I’ll tell those super delegates how to think and what to think about.  All of this is ended by Ickes claiming that the Super Delegates bring up Wright in the conversation to Ickes, not Ickes to the Super D’s.

So Harold Ickes is trying to scrape up every possible delegate for Hillary Clinton.  This week, some of this activity was fueled by the “real” outcome of the Texas “prima-caucus” where, while Clinton still won the big picture, Obama ended up with more delegates than originally suspected.  So Ickes, brings up race as an issue but says he doesn’t bring up race.  Kind of confusing.  But isn’t that just another tactic of the Clintons?  Confuse them enough so they don’t even know what questions to ask.

I believe that Clinton should run as long as she wants to, but only until is is absolutely, mathematically impossible.  But we’re not there yet.  I also believe that as much as democrats are supporting ONLY their candidate and will vote against the OTHER candidate in a general election if their doesn’t win, I doubt it.  It sounds good but it is an empty threat.  Our drive to get the republicans out of the White House is stronger that our disdain for any candidate in the democratic party. 

Hasselbeck reminds me of Wile E. Coyote, Walters is Senile

If you watched Barack Obama on “The View” on Friday, March 28, then I hope you will know what I mean.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck actually tried to match wits with Barack Obama and continually tried to “catch him” by asking the same question in different words about his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  It reminded me of Wile E. going after the Road Runner only to get foiled time and time again.

Well, as the saying goes, it you want to win a battle of wits, you need to actually have ammunition.  Hasselbeck’s arsenal seem to have been depleted, or never actually stocked in the first place.  She must think awfully highly of herself to think that she could get some sort of sound bite out of him that she and her right wing, talking-head comrades could latch on to and get into the next 24 hour news cycle.  I’d love to see her phone records to find out who she spoke to, or got coaching from, before the Obama interview.  She even tried the tactic of “give him a complement so he thinks I respect him, then try to make him slip up”.

I don’t mind hearing a different view point from the other side (right wing republicans) on “The View”.  But when will Barbara Walters finally realize that Hasselbeck has no talent for expressing her own independent thoughts.  Everything she says comes from something she heard from somewhere else.

Speaking of Barbara Walters, isn’t it time for her to move on as well.  Have you noticed that she has begun demonstrating the severe effects of aging.  Or maybe senility?  Half the time she can’t remember what she was talking about in the middle of a sentence.  Half the time she doesn’t know what the others are talking about.  And I feel a bit embarrassed for her when she starts tripping over her own words.

Lisa Ling was on the show on last Thursday.  At the end of the interview with all of the other co-hosts sitting right there, Barbara said how much she missed Lisa and that things had not been the same since Ling left.  Barbara followed this up with “We still have Whoopi, Elisabeth, Sherri, and Joy, so I guess it’s not all bad news”.

If I was one of the co-hosts I would have wanted to smack Barbara.  It’s not that bad?  It was as if Barbara said, “they’ll do….I guess”.

I don’t know why I care about the View and write about it so much.  I think it is because this show, and its format, provides a great opportunity for the sharing of ideas and constructive dialog.  The co-hosts have the chance to get the world talking about what’s happening in the world and provide some perspective.  But the whole thing ends up being time filled with coffee clatch gossip and chatter.  It really is a shame.

Barack’s appearance on the View was very good.  He is so good at atriculating what he says and what he means.  I also believe that because of his demeanor, he makes people feel comfortable.  None of us is perfect, and Obama would be the first to admit that.  But he is a great man, with great ideas, and if I compare him to Hillary or John McCain, I think he is the best choice to lead our country, and the best to represent our country to the whole world.  He’s got that certain something.  All Hillary really has is a standard eye roll by those listening when you mention her name.

James Carville and Hillary Clinton keep “lying” alive and well

How can you “misstate” something that is really just a completely fabricated story?

A misstatement means you had a slip of the tongue or got a fact wrong. 

However, twice in recent weeks, Hillary Clinton claims that in 1996 she went to Bosnia and landed under sniper fire.  They had to run serpentine fashion, ducking for cover.  It was so dangerous that there was no greeting ceremony and they had run to the vehicles waiting for them.

Here are the facts:  There was a small greeting ceremony where a girl read a poem, Hillary and her daughter Chelsea posed for picture, and they took a tour of a guard tower.  So does that mean that Hillary put her own daughter in danger by bringing her on a dangerous trip to a war zone?  She then had Chelsea pose for pictures with her, stood to listen to a poem, and tour a guard tower while local rebels took pot shots at her all without protection?

Not quite, according to John Pomfret of the Washington Post WHO WAS THERE, said that the area where Hillary and her daughter landed was well under the control of American forces.  They drove around in regular cars (no armored vehicles), and did not wear flack jackets.  Sheryl Crowe even performed there.

Hmm, doesn’t quite sound like the plot for Black Hawk Down, does it?  And after being caught in a lie, Hillary Clinton said “I speak a lot of words in the course of a day and if I misspoke, it was just that, a misstatement”.  This whole thing sounds a lot like her husband’s famous quote: “It depends on what your meaning of the word “is” is.

Democrats Unite! – please?

There are now rumblings among the voters that I know (mostly Democrats) who have decided that while it is time for a woman president, it is not this woman (Hillary Clinton).  They have also said and discussed openly that if Hillary Clinton were to win the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination, they would vote for John McCain rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

I find this troubling, I find it a travesty, and I totally understand it. 

I have tried for so long now to convince anyone who will listen that Hillary Clinton is a divisive figure; a person at whom people frequently and openly roll their eyes at the mere mention of her name.

I don’t know how to fix this other than to beg the remaining states yet to have a primary or caucus, and to beg the remaining undeclared super delegates, to vote for Barack Obama. 

People on both sides of the aisle, and those in between, are sick of the war, sick of the Bush policies to which McCain wants to remain steadfast, and are sick just plain sick of the Republicans and the fact that the ones in power right now are so out of touch with everything going on in society and the economy.  As a result, I don’t believe that if Obama were to run against McCain, that Obama would lose.  There is just no way that would happen.  But if McCain were to run against Clinton, many would vote for McCain just to spite Hillary Clinton.  Hell, I’m thinking of doing it myself just to prove a point.  That we would rather have 4 more years of Bush-like politics than have Hillary Clinton in the White House.

So let’s end this ridiculousness as soon as possible.  That’s you Pennsylvania, that’s you Indiana and North Carolina.  That’s you John Edwards who has yet to pledge the delegates he got to one of the two remaining candidates.  And I am talking to you, Super Delegates, who need to make a decision and make it NOW for Obama.  The Democratic Party needs to come together as a solid, unstoppable force, united to take control of the war, the economy and this country.  Otherwise, hold your breath for another 4 years of death and destruction.  We just hit 4000 dead troops today.  How many more before you will all look at the big picture.  Are you really that beholden to Hillary Clinton?  Because she’s is not beholden to you and would throw you under the train in a New York minute.

Video proof of the lenghts that the Clintons will go to.

I have been saying for a while now that I believe the Clinton’s will do anything, and I mean anything, to win this nomination and the Presidency for Hillary.  The Clinton’s do not want you to see this video and did everything they can to cover up their involvement with these dealings.  So watch this with an open mind and take a look at what they did to get Hillary to be a Senator.

While Bill Clinton is the one President that I considered to be “my President” of my lifetime, unfortunate public scandals and hallway whispers have made me, and I am sure others, question the true character of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

I wanted to make sure that I was on the right track.  In my research I came across some very questionable tactics by both Bill and Hillary Clinton that were used to help her get elected to the Senate, and hopefully (in their eyes) become President.  Take a good look at this and listen to the people who are speaking on behalf of themselves.  This video is not one person simply accusing another of something.  These are the real players who discuss what the Clinton’s did and how they covered up their devilish plots to ensure Hillary’s Senate seat, and then go back on their deal.  So both of those things bother me.  They made illegal deals, covered them up, and then reneged on them.  What other promises have they made right now (including to donors to the Bill Clinton presidential library) that they will need to honor, or go back on and cover up?

After taking a few minutes to watch these, ask yourself if Hillary, with Bill at her side, is the kind of person you want to be your next President.

Why is the 2008 Presidential election different than all others?

In the history of the Presidency of the United States of America, only 15 U.S. Senators have gone on to hold the office of President.  Of those 15, only two went directly from the office of Senator to the office of President.

Those two men were John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding.  Neither of them finished their 4 year term. 

Why is it that, for the most part, Senators did not make good Presidental choices in the minds of the voters?  Now In 2008, the only choices we have for candidates for the Presidency are existing U.S. Senators.  Some wise man once said that “being a Governor (a much more popular office to transition to the Presidency in U.S. History) is like being the CEO of a corporation.”  (I apologize because I found the quote but lost track of where I found it.)  A Governor deals with running the State, managing budgets, managing personnel, balancing budgets, making very tough decision about how the State will spend its money, and must make tough choices in tough times as to which public programs may need to be cut.  This is very similar to a CEO:  slashing budgets when necessary, being accountable to the stockholders, firing people, strategizing about what direction the company should move for long term goals and results.

Therefore, it makes sense that Governors have an easier time of being considered a viable President.  So what is it about Senators about which we need to find common ground to ensure that a Senator will make a good President?

Senators are about “the people”.  They are paid to represent the constituents of their state.  They also server on any one or more of a miriad of congression subcommittees.  There is Ways and Means, Foreign Affairs, Energy, Homeland Security, Armed Forces, etc, etc.  However, in general they don’t have any executive experience.  And they are much more a “politician” than a governor is.  That is, they must wheel and deal in congress to get things done.  Governors don’t really need to participate in the same sort of tactics.  Therein lies the problem, in the minds of voters, with Senators becoming Presidents.  Voters don’t like politics.

As quoted from Wikipedia, Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among approximately 200 committees and subcommittees. Within assigned areas, these functional subunits gather information; compare and evaluate legislative alternatives; identify policy problems and propose solutions; select, determine, and report measures for full chamber consideration; monitor executive branch performance (oversight); and investigate allegations of wrongdoing.

Woodrow Wilson once said “it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work”.  So most of the work done by a Senator is done behind closed doors.

So there is something to be said for a Senator having the experience to be president.  A successful Senator masters the art of compromise, working with their party, the opposing party, and the undecided to make progress.  A good Senator must be a solid speaker, at times relying on fact and figures, and at other times or at the same time, relying on his oration abilities to sway opinions or inspire action.  They must do all of this without creating separation, division, or negative attitudes.

Of the pool from which we have to choose a democratic nominee, there are only two left and both are Senators.  Which one fills the role of Senator the best, and which one has mastered the art of being a Senator to the degree that it will make that person a good President?

It’s time for you to decide.  We are one nation, indivisible.  So let’s not start dividing us now.

What’s the deal with a do-over in Michigan and Florida?

Florida voting is now a national joke.  I’m sure I don’t have to restate what happened in 2000, and in 2004 in Florida.  But here’s the reality.  The Democratic National Committee told Florida that if they moved their 2008 primary ahead of schedule, their delegates would not be counted.  Well, they went ahead and did it anyway.  No Democrats campaigned in Florida, the lay of the land is different now than it was in January of 2008, meaning we are down to 2 possible choices as opposed to 8 back then.  So if Florida re-votes, it would be like if you were bowling, trying to pick up a spare.  You slip and yourare allowed to bowl it again.  Well, since the pins can’t be reset to the spare you originally had, you have no choice but to bowl the whole frame over again.

If Florida is allowed to re-vote, they will then be rewarded for not following the rules.  The whole intention of telling Florida that their delegates would not count if they didn’t follow the rules was to keep them in check.  Now, since the race is so close and if Florida is allowed to re-vote, they could actually be the State that decides the nominee. 

So we went from trying to punish them and enforcing that, to shooting them into the spotlight of the Democratic nomination process, which is exactly what Florida wants.  It’s like really bad parenting.  It’s like buying your child an iPod after you punish them for not taking out the trash.  Talk about your mixed messages.

In Michigan, Barack Obama went so far as to remove his name from the ballot, not just refuse to campaign there like everybody else.  The candidates knew that Michigan’s situation was the same as Florida’s and all of the Democratic candidates agreed to the rules.  An again, to allow a re-vote would be like rewarding bad behavior.

The only idea I have ever heard that makes any sense is to add up the total number of delegates available in Michigan and Florida and split them equally between Obama and Clinton.  The candidates need the delegates of Michagan and Florida to achieve the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.  The Democratic party also needs to show unity among the party so Florida and Michigan need to attend the Convention and be counted.  If done this way, the votes will “count”, the voters won’t feel disenfranchised, and there will be no net affect on the existing delegate count.

Obama for Vice President

It is awfully presumptive for Hillary Clinton to offer the Vice Presidency to Barack Obama when he is ahead of her in delegates.  But that is one of the big differences between Obama and Clinton.  She has quite a big ego, and lives in a fantasy world where she is so popular and respected that there is no chance she won’t win.  That’s just not the case.

Another big difference between the two candidates is that Obama does not stoop to Clinton’s level of name calling and personal attacks.  Unless provoked, Barack Obama tries with all his might to rise above the fray of dirty politics.  And even if provoked, he will only go so far as to make a point, not bring ill-will, dirty tricks, and kindergarten-style foot stomping when he doesn’t get his way.  That’s a Hillary thing.

Whether or not it was a planned or unplanned mistake, Obama senior aide Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a “monster” during an interview with Scottish newspaper “The Scotsman”.  Were any of us surprised that someone in the world, regardless of what political affiliations they have, referred to Hillary as a monster.  To me, that is something that someone in her own campaign might say and I wouldn’t be surprised by that either.  It is also a comment that I have heard about her since she hit the political scene with her husband back in 1991.  Have you ever read the accounts of her first days in the White House?

Ms. Power resigned and apologized, which was the right thing to do.  But what it really proves is that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure.  The word “polarizing” is thrown around like a hot potato but what does it really mean?  It means that when you walk around your world and mention Hillary’s name, you have a 50/50 chance of getting and eye roll attached to a heavy sigh.  That is the nature of the beast, so to speak.  You won’t have the same reaction if you mention Barack Obama’s name.  You may get a reaction and those reactions might include a quizzical “I’m not sure” look, or a shrugging “I don’t know that much about him” look, but I doubt you’ll get the eye roll/heavy sigh knee jerk reaction.

Geraldine Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser, is someone whom I always considered to be a well-respected attorney, member of Congress, and former vice presidential candidate.  However, she came out recently with a comment that I found astounding.  She said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is”.

What do YOU think she is trying to say here.  Isn’t she inferring, as Hillary Clinton herself does quite often, that Barack Obama is no more than a flash in the pan who has no real qualification or credentials to be President.  I mean, it is pretty clear what she is saying here.  Recently, Hillary Clinton said the only experience he has is a speech he made in 2002.  First of all, the speech was in 2004 at the Republican National Convention.  That speech is what shot him into the stratosphere of the national political scene.  So she, herself, is playing the game of making his rise to fame sound so insignificant that she can’t even remember exactly when it happned.  At the time, I was so non-political, it wasn’t even funny.  But I remember that speech very well.

So if he is not qualified, has no experience, and has no credentials to be President, why would Clinton put the idea out there that she would certainly consider him for Vice President; a position one step from President where he would take over in the case that anything ever happened to her.

I’ll tell you why.  She talks out of both sides of her mouth, says what she thinks is the right thing to the right crowd at any point in time, and as I have said before, she will do anything, and I mean anything, to win this Presidential nomination and the Presidency itself.

Back to my original point, that is the difference between Clinton and Obama.  He has integrity and won’t stoop to any possible level to win.  I don’t think he will pull out of the race, or should pull out of the race, or accept her offer right now of stepping down to be the Vice President.   I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of nerve, but then, hasn’t she always.

I think she has made some fatal mistakes in the last week.  She talked about how both she and John McCain have what it takes to be President but Obama does not.  She thinks she is positioning herself for, and focusing the voters on, a Clinton/McCain race in November.  What she really did was create statements that will come back to bite the democratic party in November.  She only cares about herself.  Can’t you see the ads now if Obama were up against McCain? 

“Hillary Clinton herself said that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President but that John McCain is”. 

Thanks, Hillary, for helping the republicans create their attack ads eight months before the Presidential election.

A Presidential election will happen in November of 2008

I think it is time for us to rally around one candidate.  Now that John McCain has won the repulibcan nomination, we can not waste time continuing to figure out who should be the democratic nominee.

Here’s the bottom line.  While it is not impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination, mathematically, it will be extremely difficult.  And, in order for Hillary Clinton to win, the nominee process will have to go long into June of this year.  That’s more than 3 months away. 

As for Michigan and Florida, I feel badly for those voters because the “powers that were” screwed them, knowing full well there would be a backlash if the DNC rules weren’t followed.  The only solution that makes sense to me is to assign 50% of the delegates for each state to each Obama and Clinton.  If done, it won’t effect the current net delegate count, the votes will count and the human delegates from those states can attend the convention without contention, and the states will learn their lesson.  I don’t think there is any way to “re-do” the election or count votes and delegates in any other way with any equity.  Barack Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan when the original primary took place.  And Florida’s Democratic primary “decisions” were made by Repulicans.  Why spend millions of dollars and man hours to re-vote.  Just split the delegates.  This way, the voters are not “disenfranchised” and the outcome isn’t going to be too far off from what would happen anyway.

I implore the voters out there in the remaining states to vote for Barack Obama so that he can concentrate on launching the most successful democratic campaign in years, to take the presidency by storm.  Don’t let negative ads by Hillary Clinton regarding national security fool you.  She is not the only person that can answer a phone in the White House at 3am.  No matter what she says, she does not have any real foreign policy experience and isn’t there a certain level of distrust when it comes to Hillary Clinton. She is still stalling on releasing not just her tax returns, but her documents from her days as first lady.

The media reports go on and on.  The bloggers keep writing and re-writing.  The compliments of support and the one-liners that try and tear a candidate down will be written with fervor.

For the first time in many years, it seems that everybody is interested in politics.  Each person thinks he or she knows the right answer and I hear, and even participate in, arguments about foreign policy, domestic policy, the economy, and all sort of things that are basically just isuses that are personal to us for our own reasons.

As much as we would all like to think that our political ideals exists because we want what is best for the country, our families, and our friends, I’m not so sure this is true.  While it is a noble thought, and while there is some feeling of the greater good, politics is realistically about us, personally.

I want a particular candidate to win the Presidency for my own benefit.  It sounds selfish and I am sure that most people would refuse to admit it.  But we all want our own lives to be better, or happier, or richer.  And we feel for the first time in a lot of years that we finally have chance to do something about it.

We have been through sixteen years of politics that never seemed to be about us.  The (Bill) Clinton years in the end had to do with his personal character, her character, and whether or not you could trust either of them.  The Bush (the second) years have been all about the Iraq war.  For sixteen years it doesn’t seem like any happening in this country has been about me.  And so I believe that for sixteen years you haven’t thought it has been about you, either.

We are getting passionate, enthusiastic, angry, masogenistic, and racist in the name of politics.  But what is really happening here is that we see a chance to finally feel like our voices are heard.  And if they are NOT heard now, they might not get heard again for another 8 years.  So let’s not blow it now by fighting within the democratic party. 

I don’t want Democrats and the undecided voters to lose their nerve.  The republicans have disappointed us for 7 years so far.  And Hillary Clinton is starting to talk like a republican, using scare tactics regarding national security to try and jolt the voting public back intoto thinking about issues that should not be the focus-issues for this election. 

Let’s do the right thing, now.  If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination, which is highly unlikely, and then win the Presidency, every day we would wake up and feel that this is the 1990’s all over again.  Hillary Clinton is a divisive character across the nation, in the republican party, AND in the democratic party.  I believe this is not the direction we want to go.  It will be no better for this country than when George Bush won the election in 2000 and again in 2004.  It split this country is two.  And we have not had a chance to come back together again until now.  I don’t want another divisive personality in the White House.  Barack Obama is the right choice for the democrats to present their candidate to the nation as the person who will bring this country into the second decade of this century.