Hillary Clinton: A Dangerous Choice Visit Club For Growth
BLOOMBERG For Obama, Wooing Hillary Is the Easy Part: Margaret Carlson Commentary by Margaret Carlson Full article Margaret Carlson Bloomberg Excerpts: June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Most of us know what a brush-off looks like. You can be sure Barack Obama recognized the snub conveyed in this 27-word statement: ``President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States.'' Signed Matt McKenna, spokesman. Message: I Don't Care. P.S. You Are Dead To Me. In the pantheon of kiss-off adverbs, ``obviously'' ranks up there with ``frankly.'' The only way to drive ``get lost'' home harder would have been to add, ``If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call.''
LOS ANGELES TIMES What undid Hillary Clinton She campaigned as the ultimate Washington insider just when Democrats were clamoring for an outsider. June 8, 2008 Full article Los Angeles Times Excerpts: On Wednesday afternoon, Hillary Rodham Clinton visited her Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters and disclosed that she would finally concede her long primary fight. That same afternoon, a fierce storm system developed over northern Virginia and unleashed a tempest of high winds, driving rain and even a tornado. The heavenly outburst was a fittingly symbolic expression of the anger and frustration that defined the last days of a candidate who once seemed to have a lock on the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. It was also fitting that Clinton decided to fold her cards in Arlington, just across the Potomac River from Washington. Of the many possible culprits -- gender, tactical blunders, a hostile media -- behind her defeat at the hands of a previously unknown first-term senator from Illinois, the biggest may be geographical. Clinton was, more than anything else, a victim of Washington. The inside-Washington mentality that shaped her campaign from the start proved to be its undoing. To understand this, flash back to the early 1990s. Bill and Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama today, first ran against Washington, promising to shake up and reform the city's insular political system. Receiving these irreverent young Arkansans with suspicion, the capital's mandarins warned them to learn the ropes quick. "Washington has its own totems and taboos," the Georgetown hostess and former Washington Post reporter Sally Quinn wrote. "You have to run against 'inside Washington' to get in, and you have to become 'inside Washington' to stay in." REAL CLEAR POLITICS What's Up Hillary's Sleeve? By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Full article Dick Morris and Eileen McGann RCP Excerpts: Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it? The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to: 1. The Obama Stumbles Option As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months. NATIONAL POST Power at any cost Father Raymond J. De Souza, National Post Published: Thursday, June 05, 2008 Full article Raymond J.De Souza National Post Excerpts: Whatever else he might accomplish, Senator Barack Obama has prevented the restoration of the Clintons. That alone is cause for rejoicing. How did he do it? It was partly about him, but mostly about her. Many have remarked that in the identity-politics world of the Democratic Party, the first credible black candidate trumped the first credible woman candidate. That is largely true, but it is not a phenomenon of the Democratic Party alone. Americans as a whole are eager to give their support to blacks who manifest aspirations of racial harmony. Consider the last 25 years. The most popular comic: Bill Cosby. The most popular athletes: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods. The most popular talk-show host: Oprah Winfrey. The most popular general: Colin Powell. Obama demonstrated the same holds true in politics. WASHINGTON POST.COM Lou Cannon Reagan's Choice From 1976, a Question for Obama and Clinton June 3, 2008 Full article Lou Cannon Washington Post Excerpts: Gerald Ford went to his grave believing that Ronald Reagan's challenge for the Republican presidential nomination cost him the White House in 1976. In truth, Reagan sharpened Ford as a candidate, much as Hillary Clinton's campaign has sharpened Barack Obama in 2008. What damaged Ford in his effort to overtake Democrat Jimmy Carter was not what Reagan did to him in the spring of 1976 but what he failed to do in the fall. Similarly, the question now is what role Clinton will play after Obama has formally secured the nomination. The roller-coaster nature of this year's marathon contest for the Democratic nomination has many echoes of the GOP race of 1976. While Ford had the advantage of incumbency, he was to the GOP's conservative wing an accidental president who held the office only because Richard Nixon had been forced to resign. These conservatives favored Reagan, who was expected to win the first primary, in New Hampshire. But Ford upset Reagan, as Obama upset Clinton in this year's Iowa caucuses, and he parlayed his victory into a string of primary wins. Ford's nomination seemed assured until Reagan climbed off the mat and won the North Carolina primary. That began a protracted struggle, as Clinton's comeback win in New Hampshire did in this year's Democratic race. Reagan won a slew of primaries in important states, as Clinton has, without ever quite catching Ford, who was nominated at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City by little more than a hundred votes. By the time he became the nominee, Ford was a better candidate than he would have been without the Reagan challenge, much as Obama has benefited from Clinton's challenge. In 1976, Ford had never run for office beyond his Grand Rapids congressional district; while an estimable human being and an underrated president, he was a plodding campaigner and often a dreadful public speaker. His speechwriters once tried to improve his delivery by writing the words "WITH EMPHASIS" in the margin of his text. Ford, denouncing something or other as "nonsense," incorporated the notes into his speech and told a startled audience: "I say to you this is nonsense with emphasis!" NEWSWEEK Eleanor Clift Hillary, You Didn’t Win. Now Don’t Whine The sense of grievance that permeates the Clinton campaign hurts her and the Dems. May 30, 2008 Full article Eleanor Clift Newsweek Excerpts: The key to the winner winning is how the loser loses. Those cautionary words were spoken some weeks ago by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is close to both the Clintons and Barack Obama and whose hardball style of politics helped win back the House for the Democrats. However the nomination fight is resolved, it must be seen as fair by supporters of the two candidates, who have run an excruciatingly close race. If that's the goal, it doesn't help that a group of women plan on protesting outside the hotel Saturday where the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee is meeting. These women are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. But their complaint, that Hillary Clinton may be denied the nomination because she's the victim of sexism, doesn't hold water. Sexism by whom? By the press? By Barack Obama? To be sure, there have been sexist comments. Some women are still smarting over the time when Obama pulled out Clinton's chair after a debate, seeing it as chauvinist as opposed to gentlemanly. But highlighting sexism undercuts Clinton's argument that she is the more electable of the two candidates. How can she be more electable if sexism is this strong within the Democratic primaries? What would happen in November? If she's the candidate, would hordes of men see the light? THE NEW YORK OBSERVER Steve Kornacki May 29, 2008 Full article Steve Kornacki NY Observer Excerpts: In South Dakota last weekend, Bill Clinton performed a lengthy monologue on the supposed injustices that his wife has suffered in her presidential campaign, bemoaning the “frantic effort to push her out” of the race. "I can’t believe it,” the former president said. “It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out.” He ain’t seen nothing yet. REAL CLEAR POLITICS May 29, 2008 Hillary Agonistes By Robert Novak Full article Bob Novak RCP Excerpts: WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When Hillary Clinton last Friday said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June (1968) in California," she was not saying anything she had not publicly declared earlier. Yet, those words detonated a politically critical mass, raising among Democrats new levels of anti-Clinton sentiment and concern about Barack Obama's viability in the general election. After Clinton cited the murder of Robert F. Kennedy as reason for remaining a candidate for the presidential nomination, I contacted many activist Democrats -- both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama. Without exception, they felt Clinton had crossed a line and inflicted a grievous wound in the party difficult to heal. This recalls Milton's 17th century tragic poem, "Samson Agonistes" -- portraying Samson as a battler. "Eyeless in Gaza" was the poet's reference not only to physical blindness but also failure to comprehend reality. As "Hillary Agonistes," she threatens to bring down the temple of the country's oldest political party. ABC NEWS The Fallacy of Clinton's 1968 Analogy May 24, 2008 12:21 PM Jake Tapper Full article Jake Tapper ABC News Excerpts: Lost in the uproar over Sen. Hillary Clinton's invoking of the assassination of Robert Kennedy when explaining why her staying in the race won't hurt party unity is an actual examination of her comparison of the 2008 Democratic primary season to the one from 1968. Clinton yesterday before the Argus Leader editorial board also invoked her husband's race in 1992. We've already twice now looked at how her reference to how her husband was still campaigning in June 1992 is a disingenuous claim. All serious competition to Bill Clinton had dropped out in March 1992, and party leaders began rallying around him in April. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Michael Goodwin Hillary Clinton's colossal blunder simply the last straw Saturday May 24th 2008, 4:00 AM Full article Michael Goodwin NYDailyNews.com Excerpts: SICK. Disgusting. And yet revealing. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama. It could happen, but what definitely has happened is that Clinton has killed her own chances of being vice president. She doesn't deserve to be elected dog catcher anywhere now. Her shocking comment to a South Dakota newspaper might qualify as the dumbest thing ever said in American politics. NEWSWEEK Popular Vote Poison How Hillary's latest math hurts the party. Jonathan Alter May 21, 2008 Full article Jonathan Alter NEWSWEEK Excerpts: Give credit where it's due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year. But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats' chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside. Oh, and it's not true. REAL CLEAR POLITICS May 18, 2008 The Prize Clinton Isn't Owed By George Will Full article George Will RCP Excerpts: WASHINGTON -- Women, we are told by some people who say they know them, are not amused. Women, or at least those whose consciousnesses have been properly raised, supposedly think that the impatience being expressed about the protracted futility of Hillary Clinton's campaign is disrespectful. They say that if the roles were reversed -- if Barack Obama's delegate arithmetic were as hopeless as hers -- people would not be so insensitive as to try to hurry a man off the stage. But they would. And some people, claiming to speak for African-Americans, would be explaining that African-Americans find it all disrespectful. In identity politics, ritualized indignation about imagined affronts is highly choreographed and hence predictable. In America, however, nothing ages as fast as novelty, and efforts to encourage Clinton to pack it in are heartening evidence that the novelty has worn off: The female candidate is like all other candidates. This is what equality looks like -- life as an equal opportunity dispenser of disappointments. THE NEW REPUBLIC What Went Wrong? by Michelle Cottle The exclusive story of Hillary's fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it. Post Date Friday, May 16, 2008 Full article Michelle Cottle The New Republic Excerpts: Endings are rarely as joyous as beginnings--and in the case of a long, wearing, and ultimately disappointing campaign, they can be downright brutal. But they also have the potential to be educational, for participants and gawkers alike. So it is that we asked (begged, really) a range of Hillarylanders for their up-close and personal lists of "What Went Wrong?" Not everyone wanted to play. Many stubbornly pointed out that their candidate is not yet dead. But, on the condition of total anonymity, a fairly broad enough cross-section of her staff responded--more than a dozen members all told, from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers. Many answers fell into a handful of broad themes we've been hearing for months now. (She shouldn't have run as an incumbent. She should have paid more attention to caucus states. She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies.) Others had a distinct score-settling flavor. One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being: 1. Patti 2. Solis 3. Doyle SALON.COM Camille Paglia She won't go easy Full article Camille Paglia Salon.com Excerpts: May 14, 2008 | "She Came to Stay." That was the American title of Simone de Beauvoir's first book, a 1943 roman à clef about a manipulative and self-absorbed young woman who saps the energy and willpower of her admirers and plunges them into the existential abyss. Bulletin to all nations: help! Tornadoes, typhoons and earthquakes batter the globe, while the U.S. is teetering into recession and paralyzed by a stupid war it can neither win nor quit. But somehow we are locked at the hip to Hillary Clinton, who won't stop her manic tarantella until her party whirls into ruins, like the run-amuck carousel in Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." Tony Auth, the Philadelphia Inquirer's ultraliberal cartoonist, had it right last week [click here to view]: a bemused President Barack Obama sits at his desk under a 2009 calendar while Hillary, as a bug-eyed Energizer bunny relentlessly beating its 2008 drum, spins round and round the Oval Office rug. It's what Hillary's campaigning has come to: a monotonous exercise in showboating solipsism, like Shirley MacLaine as the geriatric mother in "Postcards from the Edge," hijacking her daughter's party and kicking up her heels to sing "I'm Still Here!" THE NEW YORK TIMES Op-Ed Columnist Bob Herbert Seeds of Destruction May 10, 2008 Full article Bob Herbert New York Times Excepts: The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully. Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd. “There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton. There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train. THE WASHINGTON TIMES Once-secret memos question Clinton's honesty By Jerry Seper May 8, 2008 Full article: Jerry Seper Washington Times Excerpts: A decade before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton admitted fudging the truth during the presidential campaign, federal prosecutors quietly assembled hundreds of pages of evidence suggesting she concealed information and misled a federal grand jury about her work for a failing Arkansas savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater probe, according to once-secret documents that detail the internal debates over whether she should have faced criminal charges. Ordinarily, such files containing grand jury evidence and prosecutors' deliberations are never made public. But the estate of Sam Dash, a lifelong Democrat who served as the ethics adviser to Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, donated his documents from the infamous 1990s investigation to the Library of Congress after his 2004 death, unwittingly injecting into the public domain much of the testimony and evidence gathered against Mrs. Clinton from former law partners, White House aides and other witnesses. The documents, reviewed by The Washington Times, identify numerous instances in which prosecutors questioned Mrs. Clinton's honesty, an issue that continues to dog her on the campaign trail after she was forced to acknowledge earlier this year exaggerating a story about coming under sniper fire as first lady during a visit to Bosnia in 1996. THE ATLANTIC.COM Full article The Atlantic.Com Excerpts: Barack Obama won a resounding victory in the North Carolina primary, and Hillary Clinton barely edged him out in Indiana. In a different, bygone era, Hillary Clinton's loss in North Carolina last night probably wouldn't have inspired the pundit class to pronounce her campaign finally and officially toast. After all, there's still no plausible way for Barack Obama to assemble the 2,025 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination without persuading at least a hundred or so of the famously uncommitted superdelegates to leap on board his bandwagon. And there's nothing in the Democratic Party's rules that promises the nomination to the candidate who's merely leading in the delegate count or the popular vote. If anything, it's the reverse: A system that requires the winner to marshal a supermajority of delegates rather than a mere majority, and that throws a slew of superdelegates into the mix, would seem to be designed to have close races decided at the convention, rather than by a whisker-thin majority in a voting system that, were it designed differently, might have Hillary in the lead instead. REAL CLEAR POLITICS May 06, 2008 Hillary's Bubba Bait By Rich Lowry Full article Rich Lowry Real Clear Politics Excerpts: When Hillary Rodham gave the commencement address at Wellesley College in 1969, extolling the virtues of "human liberation" on behalf of a restless generation of left-wing youth, did she have any idea one day she'd be the champion of old white beer-drinking Democrats everywhere? Oh, what tangled webs we weave. And what strange transformations are wrought by presidential primaries. Candidates are often driven by their constituencies and the logic of their campaigns into unexpected places. In 2000, John McCain -- hitherto basically an orthodox conservative -- ended up a populist reformer alienated from his party. In 2004, Howard Dean -- hitherto a wonkish moderate -- ended up an antiwar fire-breather. And in 2008, Hillary Clinton -- part of the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic party -- is representing the Democrats' culturally conservative wing (such as it is). It's only as compared to Obama, of course, that Clinton looks like a curmudgeonly traditionalist. Only he could have given her such wide openings to defend small-town mores and (gingerly) chastise a black nationalist preacher. It's not policy differences on cultural issues that divide Obama and Clinton, but differing sensibilities. May 4, 2008, 12:08 pm WALL STREET JOURNAL Clinton Courts Moms in North Carolina Matt Phillips reports on the presidential race from Cary, N.C. Excerpts: As she seeks to further shrink her opponent’s lead in North Carolina polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton started off her campaigning Saturday with a sit-down discussion hosted by a Web site geared towards women, a venue where the candidate brushed only lightly on policy positions and instead focused on her personal experiences and the importance of family. “I really believe, and I may sound, you know, terribly old fashioned about this, but I really think we’ve got to take a deep breath here and say, ‘What is it we have to do to try to re-establish the authority of adults, you know, in the home, in the school, in the society?’ Because most kids need that kind of discipline and guidance,” Clinton said. In recent weeks, Clinton has cut Sen. Barack Obama’s once-formidable lead in polls tracking voter sentiment on North Carolina’s May 6 primary. Earlier this month, the average spread of polls tracked by the political Web site Real Clear Politics was as much as 17 percentage points in Obama’s favor. But the most-current Real Clear Politics spread had Obama up by only 7 points. BLOOMBERG.COM Clinton Caught in Time Warp With Windfall Oil Tax: Amity Shlaes Commentary by Amity Shlaes Full article Amity Shlaes Bloomberg.com Excerpts: Jimmy Carter's in the news again. The former president wants a windfall-profits tax. No wait, he wants the U.S. to recognize Hamas. Hillary Clinton is the one who wants a windfall-profits tax. It seems that every year, usually just around the time Memorial Day comes into view, a politician demands a tax on oil profits. Richard Nixon's economists offered one up in 1973, arguing, almost vindictively, that they were justified in imposing a stiff levy because the tax would ``make up in some degree for windfalls which have occurred in the past.'' Carter proposed one in 1977, saying his administration ``will ask private companies to sacrifice just as private citizens do.'' A few years ago Senator Charles Schumer of New York put forward a tax in the name of funding a $100-per-family income tax credit. Hillary's Love for Pork Press Release Hillary’s Pork Requests Reveal Her True Colors Washington – Hillary Clinton talks about changing Washington, but it is clear the New York Senator has no intention of making good on her word. When it comes to keeping the congressional pork factory churning, Senator Clinton is one of Washington’s biggest culprits. The proof is in the pork: News reports reveal that Hillary Clinton has requested a whopping $2.3 billion in earmarks for the Fiscal Year 2009. This staggering number is nearly triple the largest amount of pork projects received by any Senator this year. “Although Hillary Clinton joined Barack Obama and John McCain in voting for a one-year earmark moratorium this year, it is clear the move was nothing more than political showmanship,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Senator Clinton was happy to support earmark reform when she knew the bill would not pass, but when it comes to being a leader on the issue Senator Clinton is nowhere to be found.” “Hillary Clinton defends these projects as critical to New York, but she doesn’t explain why taxpayers across the country should be forced to fund her pork projects without so much as a vote or why she thinks she knows how to spend their money better than they do. After the United States Senate rejected her request for $1 million for a hippie museum last year, one would think Senator Clinton would have learned her lesson.” No surrender Apr 24th 2008 PHILADELPHIA AND WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition The Democratic primary is set to continue for a few more bruising weeks Full article The Economist Excerpts: THERE is no spinning away the importance of Hillary Clinton's nine-point victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. The victory has not only put fire in her belly. It is also reinforcing growing doubts in the minds of the superdelegates about Mr Obama's electability in November. Mrs Clinton has now won the primaries in seven of America's eight biggest states, and its three most important swing states. Mr Obama's lead comes, in part, courtesy of a string of victories in low-turnout caucuses. The most important of the many statistics to emerge from the Pennsylvania exit polls was Mrs Clinton's 40-point margin among white voters who did not go to college. These people are the heart and soul of the old Democratic Party. They hold the balance of power in a swathe of big industrial states that the Democrats simply have to win in November to take the White House. But both polling and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are singularly averse to Mr Obama's charms, even when those charms are boosted by a two-to-one spending advantage and the support of Bob Casey, a senator who is beloved by blue-collar Pennsylvania. THE NATION Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream Tom Hayden Full article Tom Hayden The Nation Excerpts: My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal. For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth. It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore. April 23, 2008 10:00 AM CATO@LIBERTY Message to Hillary: Americans Still Make Lots of Things Full article Daniel Griswold Cato At Liberty Excerpts: This presidential campaign has featured more than its share of misleading statements about trade and manufacturing. Nowhere has that been more on display than when the two Democratic candidates have been hustling for votes in what used to be the nation’s industrial heartland of Ohio and Pennsylvania. On the eve of today’s crucial Pennsylvania primary, here is how the Boston Globe described a scene at a Hillary Clinton event in the western side of the state: “We need to still be a manufacturing nation,” she said at a rally in downtown Pittsburgh yesterday, as a woman in the crowd shouted “Right on!” “I don’t think a country that doesn’t make things can remain strong and vibrant and leading in the global economy.” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE April 22, 2008 10:00 AM Hillary in Bitterland Clinton finds her people in Pennsylvania. By Byron York Full article Byron York NRO Excerpts: This is Clinton country. A new poll from Suffolk University, out today, shows Clinton leading Barack Obama statewide, 52 percent to 42 percent. But in the southwestern part of the state, here in the Mon Valley, Clinton has a huge lead, 74 percent to 17 percent. And people here aren’t just for Clinton. They’re against Obama. At this Hillary rally, no one expresses any outright hostility to Obama, but they tell me over and over again that they just don’t like him, that they don’t care for him, that they don’t trust him. They view him as inexperienced and not ready to be president, and they think he’s selling them a bill of goods. “I could tell you I’m going build you a house, and I’m going to do everything you want,” a man named Bernie tells me. “I'm going to put everything in it just the way you want it. And then you give me your money, and you find out I'm not a carpenter.” In Wednesday's debate Charlie Gibson reminded both candidates that "history shows that a higher [capital gains tax] rate brings in less revenue. "Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?" Hillary Clinton said that she "was open to hiking the capital gains tax rate." "I wouldn't raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all," she said. This, after she promised just minutes before, that she would not raise "a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year." Yet, tax return data from the most recent year available, 2005, show that 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000. Do both Clinton and Obama need further instructions in the effect that taxes have on American families and the economy??? Will Bunch a Leftist, says this on his blog-Attytood. I believe Mr. Bunch writes regularly for The Philadelphia Daily News Here is his headline and some excerpts: "An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, collegial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this. With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy. You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues. Real Clear Politics-From: WASHINGTON TIMES Full article Walter E. Williams Washington Times Foreign trade angst By Walter E. Williams April 16, 2008 Excerpts: Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, pandering to anti-trade activists, suggest should they become president they will restrict trade agreements. Before you buy into their promised paradise, you might consider a few trade questions. Suppose you were choosing a country to live in. Would you prefer a country the world is champing at the bit to put its money into or one where the world is unwilling to invest? Let's look at the numbers. The United States is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment. According the Economic Report of the President, in 2004, foreigners owned $5.5 trillion in U.S. assets and had $2.3 trillion in sales. They produced $515 billion of goods and services, accounting for 5.7 percent of total U.S. private output, and employed 5.1 million workers, or 4.7 percent of the U.S. work force in 2004. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2006 alone, foreign investors spent $184 billion investing in U.S. businesses and real estate, the highest amount foreign investors have spent since 2000. My question to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and the anti-trade lobby: Would Americans be better off if there were no foreign investment in our country? Data separate from Mr. Williams article, but see much more related data if you click through to the remainder of his article. In addition to the jobs mentioned above 40% of the entire U.S. workforce is employed by export-related jobs at a wage 13-18% higher than the national average. REAL CLEAR POLITICS April 15, 2008 Frankly, Who's Patronizing Who? By Richard Cohen Full article Richard Cohen Real Clear Politics Excerpts: Long ago, I discovered that the word "frankly" often meant a lie was coming my way. I learned this from an insurance agent, who preceded every attempt to sell me useless coverage with a "frankly." This explains why I distrust what Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama and his admittedly klutzy statement about guns, church, immigrants and bitterness -- "elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing," she said. Frankly, I don't believe her. And this, frankly or not, is the trouble with Clinton. Obama clearly misspoke. But there are really very few moments with him where I feel that he does not believe what he is saying -- even when, as with his lame capitulation of leadership regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I can't respect it. With Clinton, on the other hand, those moments are frequent. She is forever saying things I either don't believe or believe that even she doesn't believe. She is the personification of artifice. The current fuss is an example. She has turned Obama's statement into an affront to gun lovers everywhere, which it just might be. But since when is Hillary Clinton a gun lover, a hunter or even a weekend skeet shooter? She is, apparently, none of the above -- at least she will not say when she last fired a gun. The truth, if a guess is allowed, is that she does not give a damn about guns and hunting, and when she brings up her "church-going family" and her "Our Town" values, they are expressions of treacly nostalgia and not the life of incredible affluence and situational morality she now enjoys. To paraphrase Dorothy, Clinton left Kansas a long time ago. CNN.COM April 12, 2008 Carl Bernstein’s View: A Hillary Clinton presidency Posted: 11:01 PM ET What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? Full article Carl Bernstein Excerpts: The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency. Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often. And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated. Paul Harris in Pennsylvania The Observer, Below are some statements on that subject by Paul Harris writing in The Observer on Sunday April 13 2008. "Pennsylvania is now the next do-or-die battle in that grim fight. The state goes to the polls on 22 April and for Clinton it is a must-win. If she loses in Pennsylvania, the pressure on her to quit the race will be virtually impossible to resist. 'This is a make-or-break state for her. She has to win,' said Seth Masket, a University of Denver political scientist and former official in Bill Clinton's White House. Pennsylvania is certainly friendly territory, dotted with mostly white, former industrial towns such as Bethlehem, where the factories are shut and the jobs have long gone overseas. For Senator Obama this is tougher turf. He is popular in the big cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with their large black populations, but in this battle he is very much the underdog. Yet all Obama has to do is bide his time. The number of contests left in the race is dwindling and Obama's lead is almost certainly unassailable via the ballot box alone. Obama just has to absorb Clinton's body blows. Clinton can be knocked out with a single punch. If that blow lands in Pennsylvania, the race will be settled: Obama will win the right to face Republican John McCain in November. If Clinton takes the state, then she lives to fight another day. She will have won the right to keep up the brutal battle. She can keep dreaming of a glorious return to the White House." New York Times Blog April 12, 2008, 6:09 pm Clinton Portrays Herself as a Pro-Gun Churchgoer By Julie Bosman Hillary Rodham Clinton Full article Julie Bosman New York Times Blog Excerpts: VALPARAISO, Ind. - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to co-opt Mr. Obama’s message of hope and optimism, beginning a speech in Valparaiso, Ind., by talking about how positive and “fundamentally optimistic” Americans are. “We don’t get bogged down and looking back – we’re always looking forward,” she said, as heavy applause nearly drowned out her words. “Whatever obstacle we see, we get over it. Whatever challenge we have, we meet it. We’re the problem-solvers, we’re the innovators, we’re the people who make the better future.” Barack Obama 46 Hillary Clinton 43 Apr 10 01:39 PM US/Eastern By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer Some Shifts Within Groups "The gender gap has mostly disappeared, with Clinton losing her advantage among women. In February, 51 percent of Democratic women supported Clinton while 38 percent were for Obama. Now they're statistically tied at 44 percent for Clinton, 42 percent for Obama. That is partially offset by a decline in male support for Obama, down 7 points to 50 percent, while Clinton gained 10 points among men. She is now at 42 percent. —Obama and Clinton are now statistically about even among households earning under $50,000. In late February, Clinton led 54 percent to 37 percent, but now it is just 48 percent to 41 percent. —Obama now leads Clinton among self-described moderate Democrats, 51 percent to 35 percent. Previously they were 45 percent Clinton, 40 percent Obama." FROM: MYWAY Colombia Trade Deal Splits Clintons Apr 8, 11:05 PM (ET) By CHARLES BABINGTON Full article Charles Babington MYWAY Excerpts: WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that her husband, the former president, supports a free trade agreement with Colombia that she strenuously opposes. The acknowledgment adds new hurdles to the New York senator's bid to woo Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who believe free trade agreements have eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs. On Sunday, she demoted her chief campaign strategist for his role in promoting the Colombia pact. Hillary Clinton told union activists Tuesday she would do everything in her power to defeat the Colombia Free Trade Agreement now before Congress. NEW YORK MAGAZINE Falling Out of Love With Bill Could Democrats and Republicans be finding new common ground—in seeing the ugly truth about their erstwhile heroes? By Kurt Andersen Published Apr 4, 2008 Full article New York Magazine Excerpts: For me the clarifying moment of disgust was his dishonesty concerning one of Barack Obama’s refreshing moments of truth-telling. “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America,” Obama told a newspaper editorial board, “in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. [Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think the Republican approach has played itself out, [but] I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there.” Bill (and Hillary) Clinton distorted and demagogued this bit of plain truth to try to cast Obama as some kind of crypto-Republican. The former president has since gone on to besmirch Obama as a merely black candidate (“Jesse Jackson [also] won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88”) and as less patriotic than his wife and John McCain (“two people who love this country”). Bill may believe sincerely that Hillary would make the better president. However, I agree with the suggestion that what’s driving him is not so much spousal loyalty as his own desperate narcissism, less a determination to get Hillary in the White House than to keep Obama out of it. How dare Obama say, he whined, that Reagan “had a more lasting impact on America than I did”? Indeed, an Obama presidency would be an unacceptable affront to Bill Clinton’s sense of his own historic gloriousness, for Obama is the new, highly improved version of Bill Clinton. Like Clinton in 1992, Obama is the thoughtful, oratorically brilliant 46-year-old new-style progressive who seems more pragmatist than ideologue. Whereas Clinton in 1998 was called “the first black president” in a metaphorical, mack-daddy sense—for his pleasure-loving appetites that had run afoul of the Man—Obama would be the post-ironic real thing. Obama’s speech about race was, among other things, a sublime and successful feat of political triangulation—which no doubt redoubled Clinton’s jealousy about the new guy’s stealing his act. Hillary Rodham Clinton's task of beating Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination will grow more difficult on Monday, as it has in recent days. Margarett Campbell, a Montana state legislator, plans to declare her support for Senator Obama, of Illinois. She becomes the 69th superdelegate he has picked up since the Feb. 5 coast-to-coast string of primary elections and caucus votes. Senator Clinton, of New York, has seen a net loss of two superdelegates, during the same period. That slide may harm Mrs. Clinton’s future hopes even more than Mark Penn turmoil, the innacurate story about the mother that died in child birth and Bosniagate. Trailing by more than 160 pledged delegates — those chosen in state primaries or caucuses — Mrs. Clinton has counted on superdelegates to help her overtake Mr. Obama with a late surge before the party’s convention in August. The party’s rules for proportional allocation make it highly difficult for her to erase Mr. Obama’s pledged delegate lead, even if she sweeps the final 10 contests. The New York Times April 5, 2008 Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells By DEBORAH SONTAG Full article Deborah Sontag The New York Times Excerpts: Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee. The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System. One of the earliest union endorsements received by Hillary Clinton came from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. October 31, 2007 One of the biggest endorsement prizes a candidate can receive, went to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton when she received the endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This union, AFSCME, is one of the nation’s largest, with 1.4 million members. Besides being especially powerful in Iowa, where it has 30,000 members, it is also a national force with plenty of muscle which it doesn't hesitate to use, when necessary. Hugh Hewitt Thursday, April 03, 2008 Hillary Appeals To The Gay Superdelegates Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:06 PM Hillary Clinton made a very obvious appeal for the votes of gays in Pennsylvania and the gay superdelegates in Denver. Key graphs: Full article Hugh Hewitt Townhouse.Com Excerpts: Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples "and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that."... Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. "I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life," she said. She said that when they ask her why they can't get married, she tells them marriage is a state law. She said that fact helped defeat a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings that she said would "enshrine discrimination in the Constitution." CLUB FOR GROWTH Pork Power to the People Andrew Roth Club For Growth & ScrappleFace.Com ScrappleFace.com: Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton today announced that her new ‘jobs plan’ will create steady income for 3 million Americans by allowing unemployed people to earmark Congressional spending for their own “personal pork barrel projects”. “When I’m president, every American will have the same unchecked power that I used to secure $296.2 million in federal tax dollars for projects in my home state last year,” said Sen. Clinton. “Earmark spending helps me keep my job, and soon it will provide similar benefits for millions of others without the stress that comes from finding work, or running a profitable business.” TOWNHALL.COM Hillary: Swiftboated! By Ann Coulter Thursday, March 27, 2008 Full article Ann Coulter Townhall.Com Excerpts: Hillary is being "swiftboated"! She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem. Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968. In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam. SLATE The Tall Tale of Tuzla Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET Full article Christopher Hitchens SLATE Excerpts: The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor. I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing. Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. -Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: -- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. - She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. -- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. -- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury. - And Bill was impeached by the House. -- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, The First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was Decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme, 'The Twelve Days of Christmas.' Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynahan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize 'anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the Ho use and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene Confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.) - In order to open 'slots' in the White House for her friends the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Of fice fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. Team We Can't Trust By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Friday, March 28, 2008 Full article Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Townhall.com Excerpts: Bill Clinton made a significant admission in Corpus Christi, Texas this month - saying he had decided to pardon Puerto Rican terrorists back in 1999 "based on the stuff I was given by the staff." But Ron Kolb, the citizen whose questioning prompted the ex-president's comment, rightly pointed out that the FBI and Justice Department had opposed the pardons. The clear conclusion is that it was Clinton's political staff who pushed for clemency - with the obvious goal of helping Hillary Clinton's bid to become a New York senator. Bill still denies that was his motive, of course - but no one believes it. The lobbying by Hispanic politicians from New York on the issue had been years-long; the culmination was noted by the New Republic noted back in '99: "Two days before the president announced the clemency deal, New York City Councilman Jose Rivera personally presented Hillary with a packet on clemency, including a letter asking her to 'speak to the president and ask him to consider granting executive clemency' to the prisoners." REAL CLEAR POLITICS March 26, 2008 ..."Clinton will win Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky -- states which are in line with her base; heavily blue collar, lower income, and with large numbers of older voters. Obama will win North Carolina with its large black population and concentrations of upscale professional voters, and Oregon, home to large numbers of educated, higher-income voters with a younger electorate. Also, expect Obama to win the primaries in both South Dakota and Montana. Indiana remains a wildcard since its Democratic base is more inclined toward Clinton, but it shares the Chicago media market with Obama and permits independents to vote"... ..."If she thinks it over, running for vice president has significant advantages for Clinton. It may not be as historic as being the first woman president, but it is historic. Should Obama fail to win, very few, if any, significant candidates would oppose her for the 2012 nomination. If he wins, the fastest path to the big job is still the vice presidency. Beyond that, Al Gore and Dick Cheney have made the vice presidency a real job where Clinton could pursue major policy goals including another run at healthcare. Please think it over, Hillary. You'’re a good politician, married to a master politician. In your hearts you know what is written here makes political sense." "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office," he said. "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an a occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on." "I don't think any of these people oughta be asked to resign," he said. "All these guys that say bad things about any other campaign, they say, 'Should they resign?' My answer is no; they're repeating party line. They oughta stay right where they are. Let's just saddle up and have an argument. What's the matter with that? That's what America's about, right?" Maureen Dowd has written about what she calls Clinton's "Hillary or Nobody" strategy. Stay Tuned. Washington Post.com Michael Dobbs Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II Full article Michael Dobbs Washington Post Excerpts: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008. Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down." There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events. As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996. Heavy Hitter? Not Hillary By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Saturday, March 22, 2008 Writing in REAL CLEAR POLITICS, a portion an article by the above authors begins with: "Now that Hillary Clinton's schedule as first lady has been released, her near-total lack of serious involvement in the real inner workings of the government is bluntly apparent. There are few, if any, meetings with Cabinet members, congressional leaders, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, leaders of the Irish peace process, players in the Bosnian crisis or representatives from Rwanda. All of her so-called experience is absent from her daily schedule. What's there, for us all to see, is one soft event after another, a schedule far more typical of such first ladies as Mamie Eisenhower or Lady Bird Johnson than of a future presidential candidate. This near-total paucity of participation in policy-making dovetails with our recollection of her White House role. In 1995 and 1996, she largely toured the country, speaking at ceremonial events, wrote a book ("It Takes A Village") and toured the world. During her international travels, there was no serious diplomacy, just a virtually endless round of meetings with women, visiting arts-and-crafts centers, watching native industries and photo opportunities for the local media." Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to Comments about Hillary "routinely misleading voters for political gain." "asserted that Clinton had been untruthful about her foreign policy resume, her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, her involvement in the 1993 passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and her views on the renegade primaries in Michigan and Florida." "The American people are simply not going to elect someone they think is not being honest and trustworthy," said Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, pointing to what he called a "character gap" revealed in a new Gallup poll, which found that 53 percent of voters do not perceive Clinton as "honest and trustworthy," while more than 60 percent believe both Obama and McCain are. "She would be a deeply flawed nominee," Plouffe said. "accused Obama of hypocrisy, citing his earlier promise not to "tear people down personally" during the presidential campaign. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, also told reporters yesterday that "trust is an issue with all politicians," and argued that voters perceive Clinton as better able to handle the rigors of the White House." Clinton's campaign called the attacks on her record and character "dishonest." "It's no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of the rhetoric, for all of the speeches, his candidacy is really just words," said a Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer. "the schedules released this week should not been viewed as a "minute-to-minute, exhaustive compendium of everything Senator Clinton did when she was first lady." "They are just a guide," he said." TOWNHALL.COM American Taxpayers Beware By Congressman John Boehner Friday, March 21, 2008 Full article John Boehner Townhall.com Excerpts: Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat, earmarked $340 million in taxpayer dollars. Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, earmarked more than $91 million. As recently as last week, both campaigns refused to disclose their full list of earmark requests. The pressure finally got to Mr. Obama, who released his 2005-06 earmark requests on March 13. His requests include $1 million for a hospital where his wife served as vice president of community and external affairs. While Mrs. Clinton continues to decline demands that she make her requests public, one nonpartisan watchdog group says the senator landed 360 earmarks from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, Mrs. Clinton admitted to seeking funding for a hippie museum in Bethel, N.Y. Her spokesman has stated flatly that Mrs. Clinton is "very proud" of her earmarks, which cost taxpayers more than $2.2 billion. Below, is an opinion from that blog. A picture at the top right shows a photo of a person named John Nichols, who it appears is the author of the column. His picture appears under the column heading THE ONLINE BEAT From: THE NATION. BLOG | Posted 03/20/2008 @ 1:59pm Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy Full article: The Nation. Excerpts: What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement? Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm? Hillary Rodham Clinton has proclaimed herself to be long on foreign policy experience. Hillary and entertainer Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, were on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience. She claims it makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, immediately upon taking office. Sinbad recalls nothing harrowing about it. His recollection is that on this USO tour to buck up the troops, he found a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs. He went on to say the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in Bosnia, a trip she took with Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said. Bullets, threats of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either. "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'" In Iowa Mrs. Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." Now a film shows her walking with her arm draped comfortably over Chelsea's shoulder, each with big smiles like two old college chums happy to be together again, while a crowd on the ground seems to be welcoming both of them warmly and with total relaxation dominating the entire scene. Judicial Watch News Judicial Watch Lawsuit Forces National Archives to Release Hillary Clinton’s White House Daily Schedule Records Archives to Release Records on March 19 at 10 a.m. ### National Archives to Release Hillary Clinton’s White House Daily Schedules to Judicial Watch before March 20 Archives Seeks to Delay Processing Telephone Logs “One to Two Years” ### JW Obtains Official Pardon Application for Fugitive Marc Rich from Clinton Presidential Library Judicial Watch Lawsuit to Force the Release of Hillary Clinton’s Daily Schedule Records by March 20 Hillary Clinton is viewed favorable by just 46%. Going up the scale, Barack Obama's favorables are 47%, while John McCain tops the list with 52%. Hillary's unfavorables are 52%. Barack Obama's unfavorables have gone from 44% last Thursday to 50% today. John McCain's unfavorables are 42%. Hillary Clinton 35% Barack Obama 29% John McCain 18% Markos Moulitsas founder and operator of the DailyKos in an article about Hillary Clinton today on that website says among other things in the article: "Given that candidate Clinton is a member of the DLC, voted to authorize the war, accepts federal lobbyist and PAC money, clearly thinks that a lot (if not most) states “don’t matter,” and epitomizes a 1990s style top-down form of doing politics, it’s no surprise that for all of 2007 Clinton never exceeded 11 percent support in the monthly Daily Kos users straw poll." Last week, USA Today reported that it had at last received some records from the Clinton Presidency four years after making a Freedom of Information Act request. Surprise! Surprise! Hundreds of pages pertaining to the handling of Bill Clinton's 140 last-minute pardons had been redacted or withheld by the National Archives staff. USA Today attempted to find out more about the redactions from the Archives. So the Archives said you have to talk to Bruce Lindsey. Lindsey, it seems, has a great capacity for keeping Clinton past deeds and actions from becoming public information and has faithfully done so for years with dozens, maybe hundreds of questionable actions by Bill and Hillary and the entire Clinton machine. But Lindsey refuses to reveal anything regarding the redactions. When questioners like Tim Russert ask the Clintons why they don't just OK the release themselves, they pass it off on Lindsey, although it is known the Archives get their instructions from Bill Clinton. Sound confusing? Aren't the Clintons the most skillful people in the world in precisely this type of subterfuge? Another answer of Hillary is "That's not my decision to make." Another, "it's not my job." It's amazing that her adoring and staunch followers seem so utterly unconcerned with the number of cover-ups she has engaged in over so many years. David Shribman writing in REAL CLEAR POLITICS describes the possible negative consequences for Democrats if the fighting continues as it is now doing. Mr. Shribman strongly suggests the fighting will continue up to the very last minute. Below are the three main groups of Democratic voters that each candidate is fighting for: Female voters. They have turned out in droves, with great enthusiasm, mostly for Mrs. Clinton. Many of them have been inspired by the Clinton campaign, seeing it as a vehicle for the realization of a dream they never dared have. If a bunch of men in the cyberspace equivalent of a smoke-filled room figure out a way to deliver the nomination to another man, the wounds will not heal swiftly, if at all. Black voters. Re-read the last paragraph, substitute the words "Mr. Obama" and "whites," leave the rest alone, and you'll get the idea. Blacks have been the most reliably Democratic voting group in the party coalition for more than a generation. Republicans since 1988 have been talking about a way to lure blacks back into the party of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party without black voters is a party without prospects for victory. Young voters. By now you know the drill; see the previous two items. Young people have been inspired out of their political torpor. If their candidate (in most cases Mr. Obama, in some cases Mrs. Clinton) is seen as having been robbed of a prize he or she earned, the alienation of this generation could last for a generation. That is bad for the Democrats, and it is worse for the country. This is a serious risk. Full article David Shribman REAL CLEAR POLITICS Sorry, Hillary: You've crossed the line By Charles Pluckhahn Special to The Times Full article Charles Pluckhahn The Seattle Times Excerpts: Hillary Clinton, you sure don't make it easy. Since 2005, I've written $7,100 worth of checks to the person I considered most qualified to be the junior senator from New York and, later, president of the United States. In February, I was elected a Clinton delegate in the neighborhood-level caucuses, and looked forward to trying to be appointed a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. It would have been my second Democratic Convention. In 1992, as the volunteer press secretary to the Wisconsin delegation, I led a march of happy cheeseheads up Fifth Avenue in Manhattan to the National Republican Women's Club. We stood and chanted slogans at a Republican "truth squad" that had set up camp there. It was great, goofy fun, and the Daily News thought so, too. I remember well the feeling on the last day of that convention, which nominated your husband and Al Gore. "I think we're actually going to win this election," I told my old friend, who as head of the state delegation had invited me to New York. "I don't know if I'm ready to be on the winning side!" Keith Olbermann can be seen on video raving about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks as if she was some 1930's deep south hooded Klansman. Although her remarks seem stupid beyond belief, knowing that a white person can't say boo in America, on racial matters, without the risk of exactly what happened to her, any objective person knows she has no history of wanting to see black Americans hurt in any way. She probably has done her share to advance racial matters. Several weeks ago I witnessed a terrible distortion by Olbermann of a segment by Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly had taken John Edwards to task for strongly suggesting that the reason there were 190,000 homeless veterans was due to the economy. The media started circulating the story as O'Reilly having denied there were 190,000 homeless veterans, which he never came close to doing. For the next several nights O'Reilly took great pains to say he acknowledged the homeless veterans number but said the dishonesty of Edwards had to do with blaming it on the economy when the facts revealed that drug addiction and other related problems was what these vets had in common. After all that, Olbermann did the same kind of rant he did with Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro only he still related the story completely and utterly in the sense that O'Reilly had denied the number of homeless veterans. His delivery was angry, lectury and badly distorted. Olbermann was disgusting. Mrs. Clinton will continue to backtrack from her pledge to respect the non-recognition of the primaries in Florida and Michigan, because those states violated the rules of the Democratic National Committee. She has been pushing to make those votes count or go through some kind of revision. This move of course favors her. Surprise, surprise. Hillary Clinton will keep pressure on Obama with TV ads, suggesting, as before, he's unprepared to serve as commander in chief. She succeeded in putting him on the defensive over NAFTA and a comment made by one of his advisers, regarding foreign affairs. She has also engaged in the usual Bill and Hillary Clinton "brass" suggesting she would be magnanimous enough to consider Obama could as her running mate, even though he's certain to win the delegate vote and most likely the popular vote. It's almost certainly the first time a person who is almost certain to come in second, has offered the likely first place finisher, a job as an assistant. March 11, 2008 From: Real Clear Politics Senator Clinton's Claims of Foreign Policy Experience Are Exaggerated By Greg Craig To: Interested Parties Full article Greg Craig Real Clear Politics Excerpts: When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day. When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated. Townhall.Com The Clintons' Legacy of Love By Carol Platt Liebau Monday, March 10, 2008 Full article Carol Platt Liebau Townhouse.Com Excerpts: Hillary Clinton’s victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island left many on the right gleeful at the prospect of Democrats deploying against one other the identity politics they’ve so effectively used against Republicans for so long. But whatever the advantages accruing to the GOP from the Democrats’ internecine warfare, it was impossible not to feel a twinge of dismay at Hillary’s political resurrection. For years, the Clintons have been a cancer on the body politic. Almost from the time that they emerged on the national scene in 1992, America has endured corrosive partisanship and a deterioration of behavioral and rhetorical standards that has degraded national politics. Now, it appears that the Clinton venom is poised to infect even the body that first hosted them – the Democratic Party. This week, Hillary Clinton came after her primary opponent hammer and tongs. “I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House,” she said. “Senator John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." With that argument, she made it clear that if she can’t herself run as the party’s nominee, she cares not at all whether her party wins. The maneuver was vintage Clinton. Hillary Clinton's health care promises attempt to disguise the fact that she wants to create universal health care. This would be a disaster for the United States. She claims it would cost $110 billion a year, but government programs do not just understate costs they understate them massively. Typical was the Medicare program. When first initiated in the 1960's, the House Ways and Means Committee gave its projected cost 25 years ahead, 1991 as $12-$13 billion. When 1991, came around the actual cost was $140 billion. As mind-boggling as that is, it is very normal with government boondoggles. This is just one disastrous factor of HillaryCare. We will continue to report data on this topic. Michael Barone writing in Real Clear Politics believes that because Hillary Clinton is more than 100 pledged delegates behind, she cannot catch Barack Obama in that pledged delegate race. Michael Barone believes Her only way to obtain the nomination is by winning a majority of super-delegates, basically honchos in the party, while also trying to reverse the party's decision which disqualified the Michigan and Florida delegations. Barone points out that this would be "overruling the voters in one case and changing the rules after the game has been played in the other." He further believes of a possibility-which seems like a strong one-"a Clinton nomination will seem illegitimate to many who have been swooning over Obama and streaming into polling booths because he alone offers hope." March 7, 2008 From: TIMESONLINE Hillary Clinton's weapon: the kitchen sink In politics the most determined person gets the top job - and Ms Clinton is really desperate Writing in the TIMESONLINE, Gerard Baker said: Full article Gerard BakerTIMESONLINE Excerpts: Last week, with commendable honesty, Hillary Clinton's campaign announced that in a frantic push to save their candidate from defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, they were going to throw everything including the “kitchen sink” at him. It was derided at the time as merely a sign of the desperation that 11 straight primary defeats and a host of premature political obituaries had wrought. But it turned out to be both an accurate forecast of the next phase of the campaign and a description of one of the most brilliant tactical manoeuvres since Nelson sailed straight for the Franco-Spanish line at Trafalgar. In the last days before this week's critical Texas and Ohio primaries, Mrs Clinton hit Mr Obama not only with the sink, but with most of the plumbing, the countertops and a couple of heavy duty appliances for good measure. From: Daily Intelligencer Heilemann: Clinton Fights Tooth and Nail to Raise Just Enough Doubt About Obama Full article John Heilemann Daily Intelligencer Excerpts: o Hillary Clinton did what she had to do yesterday to earn a tomorrow for her candidacy: She won Ohio (decisively) and Texas (by a hair in the popular vote, though Obama is likely to win the caucus portion of that state’s weird-ass system). It’s true that a few weeks ago, this would have seemed no great feat, so great were HRC’s leads in the opinion polls in both places. But in the face of Barack Obama’s monthlong, twelve-contest winning streak, of being massively outspent on the air and out-organized on the ground, of two debates where she did no better than battle her rival to a draw, of a slow and seemingly inexorable drift of superdelegates (and not just any superdelegates, but John Lewis, for chrissakes) to Obama — in the face of all of that, Hillary’s achievement was inarguably considerable. There are many explanations for what occurred yesterday, but let’s start by giving credit where it’s due. The Clinton campaign earned these victories. They fought tooth and nail for them, and almost entirely according to Hoyle. Say what you will about her people’s “kitchen sink” strategy, how they’ll “do anything to win.” The attacks they launched against, and questions they raised about, Obama seemed to me legit: on Rezko, on NAFTA-Canuck-gate, on his qualifications to be commander-in-chief. (By legit, I don’t mean that the Clintonites were right on the merits; I mean that the broadsides were within the bounds of acceptable political combat.) And, more than that, they allowed HRC, for the first time in a long time, to seize control of the agenda and put Obama on the defensive. Here are some thoughts from Media pundits. See if you agree Saturday Night Live did a very funny skit lobbing softball questions at Barack, for instance asking in a serious and dramatic way if he "was comfortable?" As a follow-up question and after a recollection of the first question so that it carefully and dramatically led into the original question, he was asked, "Are you sure?" The media likely felt pressure from such obvious favortism, has since started getting considerably tougher on Obama. Howard Wolfson has been referred to by some in the Media, as a thug on the Hillary Clinton team. Wolfson has pounded Media personnel and it might be working. Silencing Bill Clinton. It seems the campaign leaders and/or Hillary told Bill to butt out or maybe we should say in a more kindly fashion that he was told to "lay low." This also may have been a positive for Hillary Clinton. Senator Feinstein was on TV this past Sunday, pleading for the women's vote, and possibly getting the sympathy vote for Hillary once again. Hillary's ad about emergency calls to the White House and her so-called experience to handle it better probably did some good. Also the Tony Rezko trial started one day prior to the primary and started letting out some suggested negatives for Barack several days before. Polls have now closed in Vermont and Barack has been declared the winner of all Delegates in that state. Rhode Island is almost certainly going to Hillary. Texas and Ohio are very close. No leader in either state has any edge. We shall see. A portion of what Clive Crook of the Financial Times times in an article from March 2nd, said the following. "For the answer, one should turn (as always) to the teachings of Marx. “The secret of success in life is sincerity,” Groucho once famously observed. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” This truth about the human condition applies with particular force to politics. Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference. Elections are won and lost formany reasons, but if I had to point to just one in the present case, this would be it. It is surely telling that the most effective moments in Mrs Clinton’s campaign have been those rare times when a real person has appeared to break through: the tears in New Hampshire, the moving and seemingly unaffected tribute to wounded soldiers at the end of the Houston debate the other day. But for most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining." The New Republic Grande Un-Americano by Jonathan Chait Clinton smears latte liberals everywhere.
Full article Jonathan Chait The New Republic Excerpts: The warm glow of moral self-satisfaction that white Barack Obama voters like me have been enjoying for months has slightly ebbed in recent weeks, as the press has informed us that we are not real Democrats at all, but a bunch of pampered elites. The trend has been proclaimed for nearly a year--specifically, since last March, when Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times wrote a highly influential column depicting Hillary Clinton as the "beer track" candidate and Obama as the "wine track" candidate. As the voting has proceeded, and Clinton has held the loyalties of the working class, this analysis has spread and taken on an accusatory tone. "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary," sneered one Clinton adviser. "If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool." A union president introducing Clinton at a recent speech asked the audience if it wanted an "editor of the Harvard Law Review or a fighter for working families." Thus the strange alchemy of the campaign has transformed Hillary Clinton into Jim Traficant. Before the Clintonites get too smug about their working-class heroism, though, it's worth pointing out that their proletarian tilt seems to have come as a total accident. Indeed, the well-heeled liberals they now deride are exactly the voting base they coveted during the Clinton presidency. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters that President Clinton’s representative has issued no directive since being notified Jan. 31 by the National Archives January 31 “that they propose to release over 11,000 pages of records in whole or in part relating to the schedules of the First Lady Hillary Clinton. “To my knowledge, we have not been contacted by Mrs. Clinton or anyone else about moving more quickly with the review and release of Clinton material, specifically, her schedules.,” Perino said. “That pace is set by the Clinton representative to review the requested material once he receives notice from the National Archives … Presently, we have not received notice that the Clinton representative has reached a decision on the release or withholding of any of Mrs. Clinton's schedules.”
Her momentum seemingly at a standstill Senator Clinton lashed out against Barack Obama's foreign policy experience. Using her own perceived experience, Sen. Hillary Clinton, spoke on foreign policy Washington, D.C. She listed the shortcomings of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as "unwise, inexperienced, impulsive and indecisive — in short, a risk to the nation."Video Further Hillary Clinton said that Obama "wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation among allies in the most sensitive region of the world." ### Armstrong Williams writing in an article in Townhall.com suggested the following strategy and possibilty "...The Obama campaign is now realizing that Clinton is willing to fight nasty by pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be included and by persuading super delegates by all available means. Well, the Obama camp is not sitting idly by and allowing the Clinton's to do what they do best: continue their trail of corruption, and total disregard for rules and guidelines. The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory..." The latest Fox News Poll shows Hillary Clinton's Unfavorables Much Higher Than Her Two Opponents. John McCain and Barack Obama each had unfavorables of 34, while Hillary Clinton had an unfavorable of 47 in the same poll. Mrs. Clinton has often had unfavorables above 50%. From: McClatchy Newspapers Clinton would seek to try 9/11 plotters in established courts By Carol Rosenberg | McClatchy Newspapers Sunday, February 17, 2008 Full article: To Carol Rosenberg McClatchy Newspapers Excerpts: If elected president, Hillary Clinton would ask the Justice Department to determine if alleged 9/11 plotters currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be tried in civilian courts or regular military courts rather than face military commissions that have sparked controversy both inside and outside the United States, her campaign says. Clinton's response to questions about charges filed last week against six Guantanamo prisoners was the most far reaching of the three leading presidential candidates. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that the so-called "high-value detainees'' at Guantanamo should be tried in federal or traditional military courts, but did not say what actions he would take to move the trials. From: Newsweek Magazine Full article To Newsweek Excerpts: If Hillary Clinton loses the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, it is a good bet that she, or her minions, will cast a measure of blame on the press. Bill Clinton has already started making excuses, complaining that the media has given Obama a free ride. Though Hillary handed out chocolate Valentines to members of her traveling press corps, any embers of romance between the former First Lady and the Fourth Estate have long since died. It is also true, as Clinton spokesman Jay Carson tells NEWSWEEK, that the press is "obsessed" with Obama. Nonetheless, the bad blood between the Clintonistas and the media has less to do with any personal failings of the Clintons themselves—or the foibles of individual reporters and editors—than it does with a poisonous, and predictable, dynamic between the press and presidents that goes back at least a half century. It's a good guess that the current media darlings, Obama and John McCain, will experience the fickleness of the press before too long. The last president who liked and enjoyed reporters (some of them, anyway) was John F. Kennedy. Chief executives ever since have felt surrounded and beleaguered within months, if not days, of taking up residence in the White House. If they have seemed paranoid at times, it may be because they had real tormenters in the basement of the West Wing, ready to pounce on their hypocrisies. How presidents handle the ordeal of press coverage can be revealing of character. Some pretend to shrug it off better than others. The Clintons have been theatrical in their resentments and aggressive about pushing back. But in the realm of press relations, the most important difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or John McCain is that she has lived for eight years in the White House and they have not. The Washington Post Howard Kurtz November 2007 Full article Excerpts: They sat around a table in the dwindling days of the campaign and debated what to do about the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some advisers wanted the candidate to oppose it, others wanted him to support it if for no other reason than to take the issue off the table. In the end, Bill Clinton decided to support NAFTA as long as side agreements could be reached to strengthen labor and environmental protections. That was the fall of 1992 and now, some 15 years later, one can imagine a similar debate taking place in another Clinton campaign. This time, the candidate came out on the other side. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's slow-motion repudiation of one of her husband's signature achievements, culminating in her statement last week that NAFTA had been a "mistake," signals both the changing political environment and a different style of Clinton campaign. Forget the Third Way. Maybe the First and Second Ways weren't so bad after all. Gennifer Flowers Before Bill Clinton became president, he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, she claimed, for 12 or 13 years. Although he strenuously denied it, later, for fear of a second charge of perjury, he later testified that he had had sex with Ms. Flowers one time. Hillary well aware of the overall situation regarding Bill's philandering, and almost certainly aware of an affair with Ms. Flowers, backed up Bill's denials-in 1992-on national television. She suggested to Sam Donaldson that Bill's contacts with Flowers were just an example of how he loved to "help people who are in trouble" and "listen to their problems." Cattle Futures In 1978 Hillary Clinton made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in the highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary explained that she had learned how to do this reading the Wall Street Journal and had transacted all the trades herself. Hillary eventually realized that the public knew how preposterous this story was and admitted that James Blair, a longtime Clinton friend had actually been the person who transacted 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker. There was this coincidence. Blair was outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas-based. Tyson needed relief from some burdensome regulations and could be helped by friends in high places. Then Governor, Bill Clinton helped pass a 1983 state law raising weight limits on chicken trucks. As to the cattle futures trading, it is believed that Blair must have made sure profitable trades went into Hillary's account and Blair absorbed the trades that were losers. ### Another Gem by Don Boudreaux Andrew Roth George Mason economist Don Boudreaux recently sent the following letter to the Financial Times: Hillary Clinton needs a language lesson. She favors only trade that is found by government to "benefit[] our workers and our economy" and that promotes "rising standards of living across the world" ("Full Transcript: Hillary Clinton Interview," December 3; my emphasis). She then asserts that "There is nothing protectionist about this." Oh please. Protectionism exists whenever, wherever, and whyever government artificially raises its citizens' costs of buying imports. Protectionism has forever rested on the false notion that government officials know best how consumers should spend their money. And it attempts today to hide its ugly face behind the smiling mask of allegedly noble intentions, such as those mouthed by Sen. Clinton. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux Hillary criticized for press strategy Washington Times By Christina Bellantoni November 23, 2007 Hillary Handpicks News Outlets Full Article Excerpts: Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to local residents during a town hall meeting Monday in Knoxville, Iowa. Mrs. Clinton rarely holds press availabilities or takes questions from reporters who cover her campaign. When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to get a message out, her presidential campaign handpicks news outlets. Or, in some cases, bypasses the media entirely. The New York Democrat's third-quarter fundraising blowout was leaked to the Drudge Report. She made sure an Iowa newspaper printed her comments that she found Sen. Barack Obama's answer to a foreign-policy question "irresponsible" and "naive." She also uses her "Hillary Hub" campaign creation to break news. The strategy allows Mrs. Clinton — who rarely holds press availabilities — to avoid taking questions from reporters who cover her campaign and who might have detailed follow-up queries to her carefully planned policy announcements. Hillary's Experience. Appearing in an article in REAL CLEAR POLITICS, Tony Blankley has some interesting questions regarding Hillary's Experience. Excerpts: If I were advising a candidate who was running against her, I would lay into her loudly and often with a challenge to her claim of experience. If she actually was managing the national economy from 1993-2000 from her perch as wife of the president, let her release White House documents showing her active participation in such management. When I worked in the Reagan White House, I wrote hundreds of memos on my areas of responsibility. There was a paper trail. If Hillary actually was doing what she implies she was doing, there will be a long paper trail of memos that she either wrote or commented upon. For example, some of the documents stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Berger, Hillary's national security advisor (I suppose, following Hillary's claim, Bill's appointees also should be considered hers) are believed to be documents written by others with presidential comments in the margin. Let's have Hillary release all the national economic management documents written by her economic advisors with her comments in the margins. Let's see the option memoranda with her decisions indicated or even her own memoranda addressed to the president on the topic. At the minimum, let's see the memoranda produced by economists from the first lady's staff on the topic. But of course, this is all risible because back during her husband's presidency, she never even claimed to be involved in managing the national economy. Isn't it time for The Washington Post to do one of its excellent deep research pieces in which they review in detail what substantive issues Hillary was deeply involved in from 1993-2000? Other than keeping an eye on Bill, let's find out at what else she actually has experience. Full article Tony blankley Real Clear Politics Earlier in the week, The Hillary campaign acknowledged, it had planted specific questions ahead of time for audience members to ask. Upon acknowledgment, a campaign spokesman said it would not happen again. Now a man named Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says "he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding." According to Fox News Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline. Mitchell told Fox the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen Barack Obama, who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress. Mitchell said he refused to ask the question. The questions were planned in advance in Newton, Iowa. In an article from SCARLET AND BLACK By PATRICK CALDWELL It was stated: According to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said. Very recently Hillary has received at least $2,000 from M. Yaqub Mirza, M. Omar Ashraf and Omar Barzinji, according to recent records. Federal agents raided the homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11. This, as part of an investigation targeting the so-called Safa group, a Saudi-backed conglomerate of Muslim businesses and charities. According to Investors Business Daily (IBD): "Mirza is said to act on behalf of Saudi millionaire Yassin al-Qadi, who's been designated an al-Qaida financier by the U.S. government, according to WorldNetDaily, which broke the story about the donations. It wouldn't be the first time Saudi money has found its way to Clinton coffers. In fact, the "Royal Saudi Family" is listed as one of the top donors bankrolling Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock." Hillary's platform seems to favor many of the same issues favored by Jihadists. ### Rasmussen Poll 10-28 to 10-31 Clinton 43 Obama 20 Edwards 12 Former Clinton Adviser Dick Morris lists in detail some of the big government policies which he believes Hillary Clinton will attempt to implement even though she say much about this while campaigning. Roll back the Bush Tax Cuts. She says on the wealthy, but Democrats always get confiscation propaganda underway selectively then expand it programs as time goes on. Husband Bill promised a middle class tax cut leading up to the election, and very few days of taking office office, whammo, middle tax increase, social security tax increase, gas tax increase, Medicare tax increase. Raise the top bracket from 35% to 39.6%. Raise the capital gains tax, possibly back up to 20% or maybe even let it go up to the top bracket rate of 39,6% Roll back the Death Tax reductions, meaning the taxes will come due on a much lower amount. Continued... ### From: Bloomberg.com By Kevin Hassett Excerpts: Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats came into power this year promising meaningful earmark reform to a U.S. electorate that was rightly disgusted with Congress's free-spending habits. Today, earmarks continue to be out of control, and the predictable result is that the Democratic Congress is now even less popular in national polls than the Republican one before it. There is an underappreciated angle to the story of how lawmakers steer federal funds toward their pet projects that may yet swing the next presidential election. Democrats have been so busy preparing the coronation of Hillary Clinton that they have failed to train a critical eye on her record. When it comes to earmarks, an issue that voters responded to more than any other in the last election except for Iraq, her record is about as bad as it gets. If Dennis Hastert was the king of earmarks, Hillary Clinton was his queen. Republicans had their ``bridge to nowhere.'' Hillary has her knitting mill. Full article Hillary Queen of Pork Please don't consider this an endorsement of Thompson, but it is a funny joke. Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. Fred, the conservative Republican, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. Hillary, the liberal socialist, was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5. ### A suit has been filed against a federal agency to obtain records of Hillary Clinton stored at the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act request on April 5, 2006, to obtain records of Mrs. Clinton during the period she served as first lady. ### In pardoning Marc Rich and the 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, Bill Clinton is almost certainly guilty of the most egregious and brazen pardons in the nation's history. It's not just that they were brazen and undeserved but they were done in both cases to do nothing more than advance the careers of the Clintons. Even in the case of Richard Nixon, it can be argued that the nation was better off to get on with its business rather than what might have followed. That position might be very arguable, but it could be made with much legitimacy. The Clintons however should be stone silent on the Libby case. But they're not; they have no shame, nor have they ever had shame. They are so steeped in lying, deceit and covering up, they are able to shamelessly just go on with an utter lack of integrity.They truly are devoid of integrity. What so many people detested about Bill Clinton was that he was a lifetime liar and deceiver. This is not reckless talk, the kind put out by mental midgets like Al Franken and David Corn who throw the word liar around every chance they get when discussing President Bush, Bill Clinton proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not only a lifetime liar but an irrefutable lifetime liar. So now both Clinton's are shooting off their mouths-outraged over the Libby pardon, when Hillary said "I can't recall 57 times when testifying and of course her disgusting non answers to the missing files that showed up in her possession after two years, yet they are outraged over Scooter Libby. Trying not to be disgusted with the hypocrisy of the Clinton's is just too difficult. The Gallup News Service reporting on the Upside and Downside of Hillary Clinton had g |
