A discussion of various thought on issues and subects that cross my mind. This can include: Politics, Economics, Race Relations, Stock Markets, Investing, Music, Poetry, Current Events and probably more. Comments, whether disenting or in agreement, are welcomed.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
When the Clinton ledger hits daylight
$492 million in 11 years. That is a heft sum of money, just under $45 million a year. Talk about an annual pay that dwarfs the imagination. And almost all of it comes from overseas. And some think that the world has stopped investing in America.
Of course this is not investments in America as in the stock market. This was not money put into real estate or any other investment. Unless you call the Presidency and top level American politics an investment. Which obviously more than a few do.
All of this has been revealed now that former President Bill Clinton has divulged the 205,000 names of those that donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation (it only took 10 years to be told). And when I say donated I mean a lot of money.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million, Amar Singh, Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, Nasser Al-Rashid, Lakshmi Mittal, Harold Snyder, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, Mala Gaonkar Haarman, Lukas Lundin, Victor Pinchuk, all gave gave $1 million to $5 million. And of course there is also Denise Rich, who gave the foundation at least $450,000. She just happens to be the wife of Marc Rich - recipient of a President Clinton pardon.
Some other names that bring up questions include Frank Giustra who gave $31.3 million following a 2-day visit by Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan that resulted in his gaining control of uranium mining in a astounding move in the mining industry.
Amar Singh is an Indian politician that has spoken with Senator Hillary Clinton recently about nuclear arms on behalf of his nation.
Suzlon Energy makes it's money in creating wind turbines, the number one energy initiative of Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who owns stock in that industry).
China Overseas Real Estate Development - which gave between $250,000 and $500,000 is interesting. Especially for those focused on how much China has bought into the U.S.
Perhaps one of the oddest donations to me is that of COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico for some $10 to $25 million dollars. COPRESIDA was created by the Dominican Republic government to fight AIDS. Considering the relatively poor nation's funds, why would they donate so much of their budget to a foundation instead of to AIDS drugs, researchers, or promotions focused on awareness and prevention?
In a similar vein a question would be the $10 to $25 million from Children's Investment Fund Foundation - a group that is dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India. Would that same money not be better spent in Africa and India on food, clothing, building secure homes, clean water and so on directly?
But looking at all the major donors, and looking back on the timing of many of the investments - excuse me, donations - the question quickly becomes if Hillary Clinton can be an objective Secretary of State. Her long term involvement in the gains of her husband, and the governments he has 'worked' with cause pause. Like how will Pakistan trust her neutrality when Indian interests provide her and Bill Clinton so much money. Or when thinking about Marc Rich the question of whether she can be bought arises.
The Secretary of State is supposed to be without agenda, beyond the message of the President. Somehow this does not appear to be within the capabilities of Senator Clinton. Something that was apparent to me throughout the Democratic Primaries.
But a Democrat-led Congress, with a President that is as liberal as the Party has, and a Democratic Party still looking to smooth the ruffled feathers of 18 million of their voters, is likely to overlook almost anything. Not that this in any way is to the benefit of the nation.
The polispeak is just incredible. Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Senator Obama during the Democratic Primaries. She made claims that he was inexperienced, sexist, and merely getting votes because he is Black. Her 3am political ad highlighted how unsafe America would be in his hands.
Now she wants to flip the view and say that Obama is great. That he is perfect for our security and the economic crisis. Keep in mind that Senator Obama has done nothing to improve this crisis. He refused to work on the issue, preferring to campaign rather than secure a good deal for the public.
Senator Obama would have allowed the first version of the bailout that would have funneled the repayment to ACORN and not the citizenry. He was so uninvolved that the President had to call him to the White house to get a better deal. And all the while he defended Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – who both were asleep at the wheel on this crisis. And he was the 2nd highest paid Senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And let’s not forget that she, along with Senator Biden, stated that Senator McCain would be a better President than Obama. Or did she forget that?
Why is Senator Clinton not the Vice Presidential candidate for Senator Obama? Could it be the racial attacks the Clinton campaign made against Obama. Could it be the consistent refusal of Bill Clinton to acknowledge Obama’s worth as President. Could it be that Senator Clinton tried up to the last minute to steal the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama.
As for Hillary Clinton as the Majority Leader, that’s about the only thing that could be worse than the current Democratic leaders. Imagine a Pelosi and Clinton team. Can Congress get negative approval ratings?
Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton? That would just be insanity. Considering her desire for power, just imagine the laws she would corrupt. Though it’s likely that Bill Clinton would never worry about another sexual harassment case again.
How likely is it that Senator Clinton will run again? 100%. She never completely ended her attempt to become President this time until the Democratic nomination. Actually she has been taped at meetings (supposedly to raise money for Obama) where she is talking up herself as a future President. Bill Clinton has continued to shoot down Obama. And it’s well known that they prefer him to lose so she can jump forward and say 'I told you so.'
As for
“Bloom where you are planted”
Where is Hillary from? Not New York State, and it reflects in her lies to the people of Upstate New York and the jobs she promised to bring if elected (in fact the number of jobs in Upstate have decreased by 30,000 since she has been elected).
Hillary isn’t from Arkansas either. Not that she did much for anyone there. In fact she held no political office until New York. So if she means bloom as in making astronomical returns from absurdly little money during a relatively quiet stock market or Whitewater, then I supposed she bloomed a lot.
Suffice to say, Senator Hillary Clinton is a horrendous choice for any political position. The only positive besides her not running for President now is the thought that she may be voted out of office before 2012 and never heard of politically again. Unlikely but we can hope.
Senator Obama should watch his back around Senator Clinton
Does anyone remember the old cartoons where a boomerang is thrown away and when it returns it hits the thrower? You may not recall the cartoon, but if you want to see it in reality all you will have to do is watch the Democratic National Convention.
The boomerang is Senator Hillary Clinton, and it looks like Senator Barack Obama is about to get hit in the head.
Senator Clinton it seems is not done with her attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama. She tried to keep fighting after Senator Obama closed the Primaries on her, failing to congratulate him on his win and requiring several prominent supporters and politicians to make her back down. She has only recently started to try to back-handedly support Senator Obama.
And former-President Bill Clinton is still finding ways to put down Senator Obama every time a microphone is put in front of him.
Note how he refuses to say that Senator Obama is ready to be President – something he has said about every Democrat that ran in the Primaries (especially his wife) except Obama. So much for healing wounds created during the Primaries.
And now we learn that both Clinton’s will be speaking at the DNC. Just as the full ballots of Florida and Michigan are included now (which was promised they would not) and the Clintons are quietly keeping their supporters hopes alive.
If this isn’t a boomerang coming back to hit you, then the only other thing I would call it is stabbing Obama in the back.
And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.
But if Hillary gets the nomination expect riots. It would be the equivalent of Rosewood in a political sense. Every African American, and more than a few people of color, in this nation will call this the single greatest act of racism in perhaps our lives. And they will be right.
And if Hillary Clinton fails to get the nomination, and continues to back-handedly support Obama, while her husband plants seeds of doubt at every media opportunity he gets – there will be no difference than if she stole the nomination. And some people think the Clinton’s were a positive force for Blacks. How positive does their treatment of Obama feel?
Senator Hillary Clinton may be a woman, but she acts more like Iago (or Jabba the Hutt for those less familiar with the classics) to me.
Does anyone find it interesting that Senator Hillary Clinton, via husband former-President Bill Clinton, now claim that they have the most votes any Democrat has ever received before? The timing is almost laughable.
First the Clinton machine claimed that they would win with little trouble. The pundits agreed. Then in November 2007 Senator Obama gathered some steam and Senator Clinton got caught playing all sides of an issue (whether she supposed giving illegal aliens driver’s liscences in New York State – she answered yes, no and maybe in less than 2 minutesin a national debate which I have posted on).
Then the issue became the fact that Senator Obama was just playing race and was a minor character because he won in South Carolina. Race was a major issue, and gender was a common back drop. Both were reasons the Clinton campaign believed they would prevail.
Then as Clinton lost states 2 to 1, the argument became that she was leading the Super Delegate vote. She pressed that Super Delegates would know that she was the better candidate and she would win.
Then when she lost the Super delegates she now claims she has the majority of vote. Of course to get that math right you have to give her every vote in Florida (ignoring the votes that Senator Obama received) and all the votes that were in Michigan (ignoring that she was the only name on the ballot and the fact that 40% of Michigan picked uncommitted rather than vote for her).
Is it interesting that she now claims that the voters in Florida and Michigan need to have their votes counted, when a year ago she agreed and pledged to penalize them – when she thought she didn’t need the votes? Does this sound desperate at all? Isn’t the ship sinking, and not only is the captain going down, she is trying to take the crew and passengers too.
The Democratic Presidential nomination has be filled with racism, gender bias, polispeak politics on vote rules, religious fear and hatred, and desperation all centered or initiated by Senator Clinton and her campaign. Can any Democrat truly say this is the kind of President they want? That you would ignore all the negatives and vote for her anyway?
The more this race has gone forward the more I have to wonder how the Democratic Party will survive, and if it should. When the best that the Party can offer is Clinton and her tactics (which currently seem like poisoning the well because if she can’t win no Democrat should), or Senator Obama who has no real plan stated, but has snippets of ideas that are protectionist/isolationist and failed policies of the past?
I really have to wonder is any Democrat now available really going to lead the nation to a better place considering the issues that face America. And I don’t care about the “Bush is bad”, “Bush has ruined America” crap that some toss about. President Bush is leaving office, thus that is the end of his policies. America is still free, and there has not been another attack on our soil. He may not be a great President, or overly smart, but he did what was needed at the time (and some of what wasn’t too). Instead of looking backwards, look ahead and tell me what can the Democrats do to improve the situation.
Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor discussing America
Well the first part of 4 videos on Bill O’Reilly and Senator Hillary Clinton is now done. It’s taking forever to get all the videos downloaded to YouTube.
Here is the first part of their conversation
Now here are my thoughts:
One of my biggest problems with what bill O’Reilly didn’t ask, in any point of the interview, is why Senator Clinton lied to the American public. I am directly referring to her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, and her lie about being a key figure in the Ireland Peace talks. In both cases her every utterance was a fabrication intended to puff up her abilities, create an impression of experience, and gain voters that do not follow the political news as much as someone like myself. And in each case her lies were refuted by first-hand witnesses of high regard.
Another point that I thought should have been brought up was the fact that Senator Clinton has been more than happy to take advantage of the Rev. Wright media barrage leveled against Senator Obama. Yet she was given a pass on a far more serious issue. That being her association with a known criminal, Norman Hsu, and her campaign’s acceptance of $1 million that was stolen – which her campaign tried very hard to not give back. If an association with a pastor that has no political power, and is not up for election, is significant how is it not important that she received stolen monies and harbored a fugitive?
I know that these 2 items are constants in my conversations about Senator Clinton’s nomination run. But I find them critical indicators of what kind of President we can expect her to be. And in both cases we do not see an equivalent, relevant action or situation among any of the other Presidential candidates.
But directly pertaining to the video are the following:
First is the “sudden” decision to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. There has been an open invitation to all the Democratic candidates to appear on the program since November 2007 as I recall. They all denied to appear, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (which might have been on Hannity & Colmes I’m not sure).
But with Senator Obama currently reeling from the major news media motivated (led by Fox News) Rev. Wright debacle, and Clinton emphasizing the racial aspects of the Democratic nomination since November, she decides to make the move. Remember that she contacted O’Reilly. If this is not an example of counting polls and being calculating I don’t know what is. And it’s completely in line with her past actions (ie the Hot Coffee bruhha) of jumping into headlines for the sake of self-promotion.
But since Rev. Wright is a personally important issue for Bill O’Reilly, which I continue to feel has minimal importance to the actual issues a President should be voted for, this was the first question. And Senator Clinton was allowed to not be asked why some of her prior pastors made similar comments to some of those that Rev. Wright has made. Or why she has not had a pastor or church since Bill Clinton left the Presidency. That kind of makes her opinion on being in a church (the same one for 20 years) moot.
She also mentions that she does not believe the US could be behind AIDS. While I do agree, I am not 100% on this. And no reasoning American should be. Why? Because America has done a similar thing in the past. Tuskegee Experiments. 2 words that no White pundit or politician wants to utter.
The fact is that America harmed African American men, and the Black community, for 4 decades. That’s the equivalent of my lifetime. The end of this human experimentation, something that is universally denounced among nations across the globe, was a mere 30ish years ago. And if America could do this in my lifetime once, potentially affecting the fathers and grandfathers, uncles and/or brothers of you my readers, why would they not do it again? Some of those involved in running this ‘experiment’ are still alive and could influence policy. Were it not for the whistle-blowing on this, America would never have known. What prevents the Government form doing this secretly again, and this time keeping quiet because of the devastation? America dropped the 2nd H-bomb on Nagasaki after seeing the horror of Hiroshima, partly because the Japanese were ‘nips’. Thus how can anyone say that AIDS was 100% not possible in a nation that has shown what it can do to those not exactly like the majority?
For Senator Clinton, this is 100% impossible. And you know it must be true because she loves to make speeches in front of African Americans on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday. Though she does nothing to denounce the racially motivated and incendiary comments of her husband. I wonder what influence he has on her views of Black Americans and why she hasn’t distanced herself from him?
[By the way, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that ‘surprise’ Senator Obama is seen as sharing the views of Rev. Wright – at least in part. But pundits are amazed as everyone, regardless of political party, agrees that there is no evidence in his voting record, actions, or conversations. Yet it is the major news media that has plastered nothing but Rev. Wright for 3 weeks now. That wouldn’t influence voters, could it?]
Moving on we come to oil and energy. In particular the fact that Senator Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon created by Senator McCain. Shocking that she would approve of a plan someone else made that has polled well. Suspending the 18 cents federal gas tax is popular, and hypocritical.
Senator Clinton has shot down drilling in ANWAR, which would have at least lessened the current problem had we done this years ago. In addition Senator Clinton is anti-nuclear power (voting against it 7 times). Considering that she is against these alternatives, and promoting ethanol - which is less effective than gasoline, increases the cost of food globally, and potentially is polluting the Gulf of Mexico not to mention unavailable in about 45 states in the nation – one has to wonder how committed she is to fixing the energy crisis.
Of course this was a wonderful time for her to jump on the “oil companies are bad” stump polispeak. One of the mantras of ultra-liberals all big business is bad. They make too much money and need to be penalized. So much for the American dream.
Senator Clinton does not mention the fact that the profits of oil companies fuels this economy. From jobs, retirement funds, mutual funds, the stock market, and the value of the dollar oil companies are a big part of a stable economy. Take away their money and you hurt America directly. But that’s something anyone who has run a business might understand – Clinton has never run anything.
That say nothing of her thinly-veiled intent to socialize business in America. If she were to take money from, or cap profit of, oil companies what industry is next? And what level is the limit? It’s a slippery slope that ends with businesses essentially being employees of the government – that’s called socialism and in its most extreme communism.
Lastly in this segment we go to healthcare. Universal Healthcare is again her big issue. Senator Clinton failed to get this passed the last time she was around the Oval Office and this is her mulligan try. In her explanation to Bill O’Reilly Senator Clinton has left out a key component of her plan. Everyone pays for Universal Healthcare, it’s free to no one. And if you don’t pay you will be penalized. Thus it is very realistic that those who need the most help will not only still be unable to afford it, but that they will owe money because of the penalty for not having healthcare insurance. Nice plan, huh.
Another question that was not addressed well is her response about running this program. She avoided the fact that already California and New York States are in debt some $20 billion mostly due to healthcare costs (minus a hefty 20% discount for fraud which is more than believed actual). This is inefficiency of the Government as much as increased costs. And Senator Clinton had no answer.
The Government cannot run the Post Office efficiently – and it’s cost goes up routinely without an increase in performance. The Veterans Administration is so bad it would be laughable were it not so sad. Name a DMV that you think is either efficient or inexpensive. And let us not forget that the Government routinely buys hammers and nails for in excess of $500 each (and I do mean each nail) and has not run a profit in decades. [By the way, the profit that was claimed by the Clinton Administration was a lie of fuzzy math the Government employs. What was done was that the Clinton Administration valued the growth in the stock market, averaged it, and projected it forward 5 years. Based on that math the Government was in a surplus by the end of the 5 year figures, and they spent money based on being even at the end of 5 years. Of course the bursting of the bubble led to the “sudden” deficit that happened instantly as Gore lost the election. Try to run your business like that.]
So given these everyday facts, and that Senator Clinton promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs yet provided a net loss of 30,000 since being elected Senator, do you think she can manage costs? Do you think a(nother) Government run program will be cost effective?
Yes Senator Clinton spoke well. Yes she kept composed under the pressure that Bill O’Reilly provided. But if you listen to what she said, understand the environment in which she said them, and facts she avoided mentioning you might come up with a loss. American needs a President that is cool under pressure. But we also need a President that has a plan that IMPROVES the nation in more areas than not. This first part of the interview does not encourage me to believe Senator Clinton has that plan.
Will Senator Hillary Clinton denounce Bill Clinton?
In yet another display of racial insensitivity and polarizing commentary we have former President Bill Clinton making statements yesterday and today. Now I want to make something clear up front, that every pundit I have read so far has avoided on this latest issue (and which could be applied to previous ones).
If the comments of Bill Clinton, husband of Senator Hillary Clinton, have no influence or connection to the actions and policies of Hillary how can the words and/or association of Rev. Wright – former pastor to Senator Obama – be relevant to Barack?
Former President Bill Clinton said in South Carolina
More recently he said
He goes on to say (which I have not been able to locate on Youtube) in the same comment
So who exactly is using race as a weapon and a tool of polispeak in this Democratic nomination race?
And Senator Hillary Clinton has yet to be asked the following questions:
Do you renounce and reject the comments of your husband?
Does your husband have influence on the way you make decisions?
Do you think your spouse’s comments accurately reflect the way you see America?
These questions were certainly asked of Senator Obama about his wife and Rev. Wright. So why has no pundit or reporter asked her this?
The Democratic Presidential nomination race has long ago devolved into a question of character and associations. The actual issues important to liberals and Democrats haven’t been spoken about in a month or so. That being a given, I ask why is the polispeak game not being played equally when the weight and importance given to what a former President is normally covered extensively? Why is the former President making comments, on behalf of Senator Clinton, where he is looking to avoid “take any sh#&”? Does that not imply the statements are merely being made to get a certain spin, and not the truth?
This may have come out too late for the Pennsylvania Primary, but it is not too late for future primaries and the Democratic Convention. Be assured that if Superdelegates ignore these words and select Senator Clinton I will be mentioning this constantly up to the election. Because, former-President Clinton, I have reviewed the question and comments you made. And I’ve come to my own conclusion.
I suggest that you copy this and send it to you loacal superdelegate if you agree. Because I at least feel that all candidates should be held to the same standards, and I really want to hear how Senator Clinton would answer these questions.
Senator Obama "bitter", and the other Presidential candidates
So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.
Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.
There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.
That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].
So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.
But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states
Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.
We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?
But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).
Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?
Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.
So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?
Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.
Hillary Clinton wanted to join the Marines, or was it the Army - 4.4.2008.1
So is it another lie coming out of the Hillary Clinton campaign, this one voiced by former-President Bill Clinton and virtually impossible to prove false. IF it is a lie, then it’s one of the better ones.
Opportunistic? Factual? Well let’s just check a few facts.
From what can be determined, Senator Clinton attempting to join the Armed Forces was mentioned once before, and only once before. That was back in 1994. And at that time she was purported to be trying to join the Marines. This was found dubious by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
In addition this move to join some branch of the military took place just before October 1975, when she married Bill Clinton. How many brides-to-be do you know that jaunt off to the local recruiter asking to join up?
So we are left to wonder how true these statements, that were never uttered beyond these 2 times, are. One would expect that if they were true we might have heard about it during the 2 elections for Senate that Hillary went through. In the preparations and debates of 2007 it was never mentioned or alluded to. In the primaries and caucuses it has been unmentioned.
And we know this of the Clinton’s, things are not always as they state them.
From the famous re-definition of IS, to invisible snipers firing air bullets, to Hillary’s seldom used power to invoke peace during talks in Ireland – from a separate room from the discussion while having tea, to her ability to agree, disagree, and be indecisive all at once on the same question. The Clinton’s are remarkable in their power to reword and remake themselves in every situation they face.
But unlike her “misspoken” comments about Bosnia (polispeak for blatant lie that was caught publicly), this recollection and the prior comment in 1994 are basically impossible to disprove.
So it’s up to you. Do you think that this lawyer and wife to be, who had vehemently been against the war and military 3 years earlier, was willing to give up all those things to suddenly join a military that had few women and wanted fewer?
If so I have a bridge to sell you, if not what reason would you give to vote for a person willing to lie to the American public solely to gain the most powerful office of America?
For those in Pennsylvania that will be voting soon, think on this. Hillary did not go to Arkansas, where the Clintons had a long history in politics to be elected to Senate – she went to NY State. She won in part because she promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs – in fact the area has lost 30,000 during her tenure.
Then ask yourself, what law has Senator Clinton passed? What cause has she championed and made change for? Not what has she made a speech about, but a real change or law. [Yes Senator Obama has done nothing as well, but he just got into the Senate, Hillary is in her 2nd term.]
Then ask yourself one last thing. Character is a major part of any American President. It factors into everything they do, and how they are perceived at home and internationally. Part of a persons character is judged by the company around and supporting that individual.
Around Senator Clinton we find:
Mayors that refuse to allow our soldiers returning from Iraq to enter their airport
A husband that lied to the entire nation and committed adultery
Support from an organization that insults our soldiers and their commitment to America
A 15 year fugitive from the law that provided her campaign $1 million of stolen money that they didn’t want to return
A Governor that violated his oath to the court and the people of his state, broke the law, embarrassed is family, created on his wife, and imperiled the smooth operations of his state
A business man that made his money on the back of promoting stereotypes about Blacks, objectified women, and stooped to making racial attacks about her opponent.
If so then vote for her. But if not, go out and make your voice heard clear. Vote whatever you believe, but be involved. If not you may be sorry for what you will have forced on you.
Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth
In the past day events have unfolded to fuel the fire for those that question the supposed ‘experience’ of Senator Hillary Clinton. With these events, the probable loss in Mississippi, and the growing complaints of the public against the Clinton campaigns plans to assume the votes in Michigan and Florida, not to mention the potential of Super Delegates voting against the popular leader Senator Obama the Democratic Party is approaching chaos.
It started with the comments of David Trimble. He may not be a name many in the U.S. know, but in Ireland there is no question of who he is. He was a key figure in creating peace in Ireland, ending the terrorist attacks of the I.R.A.
Senator Hillary Clinton made a claim on national television that she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. It was seen around the world, and those involved in the process were quick to correct the record.
The 3 am call doesn’t seem as sure in the hands of Senator Clinton does it? Worse yet, she blatantly lied to the American public for your vote. She lied about what she did, and took credit for what her husband did. In writing that’s called plagarism.
If you think that was just an enthusiastic overstating of her actions accompanying the former-President Bill Clinton you may be thinking about her work in Bosnia. As was stated by Senator Clinton, it described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call.
That sounds impressive if you didn’t know that there were 2 other people with the Senator. And in the words of Sinbad, a comedian and one of those people with her in 1996,
In fact he goes on to mention a very logical thought about how dangerous any of the places then-First Lady Clinton went to were,
“What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'”
That tends to make sense. How pleased would the American people be if then-President Bill Clinton sent his wife into an active warzone and she died? How politically stupid would that be? At what point would the Secret Service be willing to allow her to be in that kind of danger?
So again it would seem that Senator Clinton has lied to the American public, and presented less reasons why we should believe that she has “35 years of experience” when she has never served more than 8 years (her current amount of time as NY Senator) in public office.
So I will ask this, do you want an inexperienced liar as the Democratic nominee and potentially President? Women, do you really want this woman to represent the best interests for you? African Americans, do you believe that she is looking out for our interests? Hispanic/Latinos, do you think she will live up to any of the claims she has made?
If you don’t believe me, just check the site and you will find the posts and links. Or search the net. These are all facts of what she has done, and my opinion. Remember, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Senator Clinton seems to be pretty far from innocent or clean to start.
If that doesn’t matter then get out there and vote for her. If it does, then definitely go out and make your vote count. Because the alternative appears to be a woman that will say anything to get a vote and become the most powerful person in America and I believe the world.
It’s only in politics where one candidate can complain about the actions of another while using racial attacks, smears, and religion (all indirectly) to attack their opponent. It’s only in politics where a candidate could possibly count on the public completely forgetting pervasive and continuous attacks and claim that they in fact are the victim.
To date the Clinton campaign has been directly linked to multiple dirty tactics against Senator Obama. No matter what you may feel politically you have to notice these facts:
The Clinton campaign forwarded emails claiming that Senator Obama is a Muslim – which is false.
The Clinton campaign alleged that Senator Obama was a drug dealer in his youth – which there is no proof of, nor ever alleged prior. Obama has long ago admitted that he used drugs in his youth, and that such action was a low point in his life and not something that youth should do.
The Clinton campaign has focused on the full name of Senator Obama – his name is Barack Hussein Obama. And what does that mean? If his name was Buck Rogers would that imply he has knowledge of the future? Does a name his parents gave him mean anything about his life? Does yours?
The Clinton campaign highlighted the connection of Senator Obama to a slumlord – A past association to a client of the law firm Senator Obama worked at. His prior association (including receiving donations to his State Senate election) all occurred without Rezco ever being accused of violating any law. This is confirmed by all the Chicago newspapers looking for any wrongdoing over months of research. (By the way, Clinton did associate with and accept $1 million in stolen money from known fugitive from the law Norman Hsu).
And the latest item (not that the above are the only examples, I just picked the most popular ones)? The Clinton campaign will neither confirm nor deny that it has published a photo of Senator Obama, dressed in the garb of a tribal elder while in Kenya. The implication is obvious. It’s an attempt to feed into the religious prejudice of this nation, specifically focused on Muslims since the 9/11 attacks.
It does not matter that Senator Clinton, and President George Bush have both worn similar garb as a matter of respect and honor when visiting nations in Africa and the world?. Does that mean that President George Bush is a Muslim? Obviously that is a laughable concept, but why does it change context when applied to Senator Obama? Because some small-minded, bigoted, racist, uneducated, potentially inbred, blights to humanity can’t get past color of skin and a faith they likely know nothing about. And Senator Clinton is counting on those votes to get her the nomination.
Of course Senator Clinton has not directly made any of these statements. She has consultants that compare Senator Obama to Nazis, minor aides sending out the emails alleging a false connection to Islam, a senior aide implying drug dealing, and of course Bill in South Carolina and beyond.
Funny how none of these things are her fault. That for a candidate known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign she is so out of control when they consistently (for over 6 months) smear, lie, and prejudicially and personally attack Senator Obama.
So when I hear Senator Clinton cry out that she wants to “debate about your tactics and your behavior” I have to ask, does her mirror somehow obscure her own actions when she looks at it? I wonder that if her moral compass shows these kinds of tactics as the high road, what is the low? And if there is no line to cross in just attempting to get the Democratic nomination, what line would she also cross if elected President?
I would suggest that those in Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas all consider this before voting in their Primaries on March 4th. I hope everyone votes, but know what you are voting for.
Senator Clinton fights for Ohio, Texas Primary wins
For those that thought Senator Hillary Clinton was going to just give up in her bid to become the Democratic nominee, stop celebrating. In moves that are ranging from complete racial ignorance, to actual issues she is trying to reverse her position on, Clinton is holding on with claws firmly dug in. But this is not a surprise considering the extent of her total campaign.
Let me deal with the actual issue that Clinton believes is unfair. When former-President Bill Clinton was in office he pushed to create and pass NAFTA. That is fact. While he was fighting for this, the then First Lady Clinton, advocated the plan and supported it. That too is fact. Today, now Senator Clinton says
While that is true, one would believe that based on the actions of Senator Clinton at the time, were that she was in the Senate she would have voted for it. Plus, this is another item that targets the flimsy actual experience that Senator Clinton tends to co-opt from her former-President husband. She just doesn’t like it when people point at facts and say that her opinion flips along with poll numbers and her objective at the time, in my opinion.
Another example of the inability of Senator Clinton to take criticism appears when she has her healthcare plan criticized. The Clinton health plan does require everyone to be covered. To do so, if you are not covered you will be penalized. And the penalty planned by Clinton is to go after the paychecks of offenders. Note in the quote below that “more affordable” is not completely affordable. This is all fact.
So if you cannot afford healthcare under the Clinton plan, and I mean when you get your paycheck, you will lose money from your check because of it. Now to be fair when you file taxes, once a year, you will get a tax credit and subsidies will exist. So I would imagine that the tax credit will cover the cost of healthcare for a year, hopefully since that is not clear. That still leaves you with a loss from the penalty you accrued up until you filed the taxes. If you received a rebate in the first place, as taxes will be going up and there has never been a tax increase in the 40 years I have been alive for that did not affect every American.
When Obama points to this negative impact of the Clinton healthcare plan, he is accused of being unfair. Oh, did the Clinton campaign leave out the fact that the ads Senator Obama used to criticize this plan have been out for over a week, BEFORE anything was ever said by them.
Senator Obama expands lead after Wisconsin vote, Clinton in trouble
Senator Obama has swept even more states and continued his streak of victories with 58% - 41% crushing win in Wisconsin and an embarrassing 76% - 24% clobbering in Hawaii. While the final tally has yet to be finalized Washington State stands at 50 - 47 with 57% of the vote counted. This makes the number of states won by Senator Obama 24 to Hillary Clinton’s 11, and increases his popular vote margin and the delegate count.
As it becomes more apparent that Senator Clinton cannot gain the Democratic nomination, something that far less than a year ago pundits expected to be a given fact, the internet is beginning to rally to Senator Obama. Consistently the internet, along with the predominance of major newspapers and television/cable news, has been quite liberal and Democratic in their political preference. That preference has long held that Senator Clinton must be the choice of the nation. But with the continued inspirational performances of Senator Obama, the tide has changed.
I for one am amazed that it took so long to happen.
Without regard to personal political affiliation or beliefs, Senator Clinton never had a chance of winning a Presidential election. The reasons are tumultuous and towering. Beyond the baggage that is the Clinton Presidency legacy, there are the numerous scandals that Senator Clinton has had individually. Add to this her outright lies (like my favorite – that she has 35 years of experience which is only possible if you co-opt all the years of public service that her husband was elected to) and derisive attacks and you get the reason why Rasmussen predicts an 80%+ chance of Senator Obama winning the nomination. And all of this does not take into account the 47% dislike that the nation holds for Senator Clinton.
At this point only elderly (65 years of age and up) white voters stuck with Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary in any significant numbers. And I expect that even this group will erode from her shortly, because
[In fact neither were in the Senate at the time, but when President Bill Clinton was passing NAFTA then First Lady Hillary Clinton was a huge supporter of the bill and the President. And if we are to go and accept that her time as First Lady is part of her “35 years of experience” then NAFTA must be part of that as well.]
Nor has it prevented the win at all costs strategy that the Clinton campaign is known for.
This is on top of the fact that the Clinton campaign agreed, with all other Democratic candidates at the time, on the penalties placed against Florida and Michigan in September 2007. But today they are trying to engineer the removal of those penalties to bolster their own flailing hopes.
Given all this, with 2 debates to come and the March 4th Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, I have to question why any continue to support Senator Hillary Clinton. Looking at all the comments and facts, without emotion or preference, I am at a loss. Perhaps one reason those 65 and older are voting for Senator Clinton is the fact that she is White and they are part of the generations that lived in a United States that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s an aspect that I have not heard discussed, for obvious reasons, but it has been a failed tool (race) used since the South Carolina Primary, so it’s worth asking.
For those that still are unsure of whom to vote for in Texas and Ohio (the major delegate states in the next set of Primaries) the question to ask may be one that Senator Clinton asked of Senator Obama
“What has he done? What is his experience?” – as presented in a Fox News clip of Senator Clinton making a speech on February 20, 2008
The same should be asked of Senator Clinton. And when that answer comes up with an equal nothing consider this. She has been in the Senate longer, supposedly with 35 years of experience and has nothing to show for it. Add that to her attempts to break rules she has agreed to, personal racial attacks, her flips on issues important to Democrats (like her vote and support for the war in Iraq), scandals and 47% national disapproval rating.
So I ask, why would a Democrat vote for her over Senator Obama? I’d like to know.
I had an interesting conversation last night with a guy on the current status of the Presidency and the up-coming election. It’s a conversation I’ve had many times and I think needs to be discussed in a broader manner.
The crux of the conversation dealt with the anger this one guy had with President Bush. In his opinion, which I have seen mirrored in the media and on many blog sites, President Bush has driven the nation into the ground, broken laws, and involved us in a war that we have no place in. In this opinion America has been lessened by the actions of President Bush.
I disagree.
First I suggest that there is a separation that needs to be made from the emotion some carry with the actual effects of President Bush. While he may not be liked, that is not the same as what he has done being bad for the nation. Much like President Nixon, who was massively disliked in the 70’s, time and a review exempt of emotions shows that he did many things that were in the best interest of America and he was in fact a decent President.
President Bush finds himself as the second President to be involved with an openly disliked war. The fears of mothers and loved ones for the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is no small thing. But that does not mean that President Bush has done something wrong. Nor does it mean this is not in the best interest of America in the long-term.
America needs oil, a moderately peaceful Middle East, and a beachfront against terrorists that would kill every American man woman and child for no reason other than they exist. And as I mentioned in conversation, if this were likened to a bar fight the Democrats want to shout “I am done, I give up” then turn and walk away. Those same Democrats want to ignore the fact that in the middle of a fight, your opponent will likely not stop, and given the chance as you walk away back exposed will strike you over the head with a barstool. Just because some want to stop fighting, our enemies so not.
Perhaps some would prefer to fight terrorists on American soil. Perhaps they would be more motivated in attacking our enemies after they have taken down our skyscrapers and killed our children in schools and school buses. Some are disheartened because in attacking these vile individuals there is a cost of some innocents, as is true in every war.
But I say that I do not want to risk the hundreds or thousands that would die in America. I do feel badly for the tens of Iraqis and Afghans that die as a result of hiding, abetting, and/or ignoring those that attack America. But I feel far worse for the thousands that died in New York. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I love America far more than I do any other nation.
Some say President Bush has taken America down a dark path. I disagree. I would say that America has not changed course since arguably WWII. Less debatable is that America is still tracking the same direction that we have been on since the 1980’s. Every President, Democrat or Republican, has not deviated from this course. Some Presidents have just had worse media coverage, and more difficult events to deal with. (And with all honest and lack of emotional predetermination the next President will follow in that direction as well)
President Clinton attacked Iraq. America was the police force of the world during his administration. The Tech Bubble was created during his fiscal watch, and the resulting crash was caused by his in/action. President Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to live and kill thousands of Americans, and he lied to America directly. But I don’t see the passion for the laws he actually broke; and I do hear compassion about the actions he took that allowed Saddam Hussein to kill thousands of Kurds, cost thousands of Americans their jobs and homes, and embarrass the nation in front of the world.
All of this is not to say I agree in a blanket manner with President Bush. He deserves criticism for his actions in Katrina (or more accurately failure to act), and scrutiny on the powers given by the Patriot and other Acts.
America is at a crossroads. The decisions at the feet of the next President are huge and long-lasting in their impact on every American life. But to blindly pack every problem facing America on the back of one President is to potentially open the door for the next President to fail at various points even more regrettably.
Clinton 'consultant' now comapring Obama ads to Nazis
This is a real new low. Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, again of course, has now compared the actions of Senator Obama to the Nazi Party. Is there anything that the Clinton campaign will not say, or perhaps do, to try to ensure that Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination?
So far the Clinton campaign has called Senator Obama a terrorist, a drug addict, a drug dealer, a proponent of slum lords, a minor figure in the Democratic party, living in a fantasy land, a candidate of African Americans and thus biased and ineffectual, and now a Nazi. The only things left to say is that he’s taken candy from children, and is the long lost twin of President George Bush.
That is not to mention that along the way the Clinton political machine insulted African Americans, created a racial divide in their own party (though currently attacking Senator Ted Kennedy), and insulted the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King just days before his birthday holiday. That says nothing of past scandals, or the lies over her experience. She has claimed 35 years of experience, 16, and so on. In fact she has only been a Senator (the only elected office she has ever held) for 7 years to date.
The ‘rogue’ supporters are not the fault of Hillary of course. She has no control over these people. Even though she is known for her micromanagement of her campaign.
And of course the multiple scandals during this Presidential nomination process are secondary issues. The money from criminals at large, the donations from Wal-Mart that she publicly decries, the need to stand on her gender crutch, her inability to provide simple yes or no answers to questions, and her absolute need to have former-President Bill Clinton deflect negative attention away from her and give her a pause to regroup.
Again I am forced to question her. I have tried to be neutral until Feb 5th. But I must ask Democrats, do you want someone that will bend rules and use every smear they can come up with as President? What kind of President do you think someone that does all the above, plus so much more in the past, will really be?
Is the Nevada Caucus the tip of the iceberg for the Clinton campaign
As for the other issues of the day, the Nevada Caucus has taken a new turn now that a judge has allowed the sites in casinos that was originally agreed to months ago without a word of protest. Obviously the main culprit in this 11th hour action seems to be the Clinton campaign. Much to the protests of former-President Bill Clinton.
While there is no question that the teacher’s union led the call for a change, there is no question that this only happened after Senator Obama gained the largest Union in the state as a supporter. That of course was not good for Senator Clinton. The timing is poor considering this was a given back in March of 2007.
Did you notice something else in the video? Did I hear President Clinton state that he thought Nevada Democrats were to stupid to understand a detailed plan they agreed to almost a year ago, and that they only just gained the understanding to question this in the last 2 days? That sounds like an insult to Nevada Democrats. A big one.
But it goes hand in hand with the whining, and dirty tricks that the Clinton campaign has been engaging in since late 2007.
So far there has been attacks on Senator Obama’s religion, admission of drug use and it’s negative impact on his life, race, Iraq war record, experience, and international policy plans. Of course most of the most damaging items have been stated by staffers and supporters, completely independent of Senator Clinton. When lightning strikes once it’s coincidence, but when you watch it hit 5 times you have to wonder.
Is this going to affect the Nevada and South Carolina results? Well so far we have seen that 40% of Michigan voters chose uncommitted over Senator Clinton. 70% of African Americans came out to vote against her even though it would provide no benefit to any other candidate.
While the race in Nevada seems to be close in polls so far, I have not seen any that are asking what minority voters are thinking. Hispanic/Latinos are about 24% of voters there, and Blacks are 7%. Recent negative attacks based on race seem to have had a critical backlash so far, but how it will play out with this new event is unknown.
And in South Carolina, there is a definitive effect showing. There is a roughly 11% lead for Senator Obama and it seems obvious why.
So President Bill Clinton is fustrated and upset. The Clinton campaign seems more ruthless and willing to do anything to win than ever before. And Senator Obama seems more like a real choice and competitor among Democrats.
I’m really not trying to pick a side in the Democratic nomination, but the Clinton campaign does make it difficult at times.
But you can say how you feel about it all here, and definitely when you vote. But unlike your vote you get to comment as often as you want. So let’s hear what you think.
