Days after a major African American AIDS organization complained that the US government is focusing too much of its resources on fighting AIDS abroad instead of at home, former President Bill Clinton announced that his foundation would spend more time and attention on fighting the disease among Americans. (more…)
Although Senator John McCain seems to understand that the US budget has to be balanced, meaning that the federal government has to spend significantly less than it has done for the last couple of years, he seems to forget that one actually needs a plan to accomplish this. (more…)
This bears restating:
Hillary Clinton has actually done a great service to women, if she doesn’t ruin it all by whining that her defeat was due to sexism. She has in fact shattered the glass ceiling by being completely, plausibly presidential, and even believable as Commander in Chief. She has also shattered the glass ceiling by being rejected (and narrowly at that) for her character, not her gender.
Former President Clinton recently said that he’s never seen anything like the Obama/DNC full-court press to get Democratic super delegates to commit to Mr. Obama. But The Jed Report has a interesting post about the 1992 Bill Clinton vs. Jerry Brown Democratic primary race that belies that assertion. To an extent, the same thing was going on during Bill’s breakaway win over Brown.
Bill Clinton says that there’s a conspiracy against his wife Hillary’s attempt to secure the Democratic party’s nomination. Strange as it may seem, he’’s right about that.
President Clinton:
“I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” Clinton said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by “ABC News.”
After months of bobbing, weaving and excusing, the Clinton’s released their tax returns. They are apparently almost twice as rich as was previously thought, with over 108 million dollars made in the last 8 years alone.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the more mathematically inclined bloggers to explain it to us, but I can’t see why they waited so long. They are filthy rich, but that has never bothered voters in their presidential candidates. They have business dealings with some company in Dubai and somewhat shady issues with a consulting company and their own charity, but if shady economic issues mattered, the Clinton clan would have fallen long before.
Someone once said this:
“If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. “
Well the final results are in, and Obama has won Texas, by 5 delegates. Of course, the person who said the above should be discounted. After all, you know what those rabid Obama-bots are like, right?
In case you haven’t heard, two people have been fired and a third disciplined at the State Department, for allegedly snooping into Obama’s passport file. At present there’s no indication of what their motivations might have been, but though an investigation is under way, it could be that they were merely curious. Secretary Rice has personally called Obama to apologize for the intrusion into his privacy, which is nice of her.
Apparently this is a big story, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why. Anyone want to explain it?
Dave Winer wonders:
What if you were a criminal President?
President Bush wants to give the phone companies immunity.
Who would you like to give immunity to?
What crimes are you willing to excuse?
Interesting question. Here’s one answer: If I were a criminal president, my wife might be running to be the Democratic party’s nominee in the 2008 election.
I remember when I was little, I used to love watching WWF wrestling, with it’s amazing stunt-work and outrageous soap-operas. I remember that sometimes, the “girlfriends” of enemy wrestlers would “fight”, in the stead of their men, before, after and sometimes even during the main fight. (more…)
This is exactly the sort of thing I’ve been fearing - and expecting - from the Democratic party - the foolish idea that western nations should throttle back on economic and technological development to fight the will-o’-the-wisp of climate change:
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday. (more…)
I have a confession to make to my fellow conservatives: I don’t hate Bill Clinton.
Don’t get me wrong. I have a pronounced animus toward his policies, what he stands for generally, and his scorched earth, take no prisoners, political attack dog style of politics.
But I have to admit to a sneaking admiration of Bill Clinton, as a man.
(more…)
What should Bill Clinton’s role in the election be? What does his country need from him? Here is the answer to these burning questions:
When you told us you didn’t inhale, with that little twinkle in your eye, we believed you and loved you even more.
…
I know you want your wife to win. A lot of us want a Democrat in 2008. But you’re getting mean Bill. That twinkle in your eye is starting to look more like crazy eye.
Ed Morrissey notes that the media do a stellar job of ignoring the Hillary Clinton Health Care Memos, or “Hillary Papers” as Ed calls them. His conclusion: “The silence from the Fourth Estate is deafening. It screams either cowardice or collaboration.” (more…)
They will raise money from whatever source, regardless of the reputation and intent of the giver.
They will play whatever dirty trick on their opponent that they think they can get away with.
They will call their opponent whatever name they can think of no matter whether they divide their party in the process by doing so or not.
They will employ whatever strong arm tactic available to harass, threaten, and annoy their opponents.
(more…)
The “Hillary Clinton Health Care Memos” show that the Clintons were willing to destroy everyone in order to push through their health care reforms. (more…)
Bill Clinton believes that the US should help the PKK and protect it from Turkey. After all, they’re good terrorists. (more…)
Guest author Ed Morrissey takes a closer look at the donors of the foundation of the Clintons. Can one buy their loyalty? (more…)
CNN’s Political Ticker reports that former President Bill Clinton has said that one of the first things Hillary Clinton would do if (when?) she becomes president is to send both her husband and his predecessor George H.W. Bush on a mission to talk to allied and other countries as to restore America’s image in the world.
“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” he said. (more…)
Want to know what Hillary’s campaign song is? Watch the video below.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BEPcJlz2wE]
This is, as Joe Gandelman writes, “a masterful use of American culture:” it is a great parody on the final episode of the Sopranos. The Caucus - rightfully - calls it “the best campaign spot we’ve seen this season.”
Meanwhile, the Gun Toting Liberal - who seemingly opposes Hillary quite strongly - does not seem to get the reference to the Sopranos. Regarding the carrot, no unions exchange GTL writes:
If you happened to have watched the YouTube video above, you’ll have noted in the so-called “spoof” that President Bill Clinton is disappointed to learn his lovely wife has pre-ordered carrots for him instead of the onion rings he would have much preferred as Hillary explains with a grin, “I’m looking out for you“…
Well, guess what? I don’t WANT our next President to “watch out” for me, I want out next President to uphold the Constitution, which provides for only a handful of items, including a NATIONAL DEFENSE (as opposed to a national preemptive, Western-styled Democratic implantation force) and to promote LIBERTY (where the word “Liberal” was derived from, by the way). If I want to eat a damned ONION RING, I don’t want our next President force-feeding me a damned CARROT because it is healthier for me. I want a PRESIDENT, not another “Mom”, or “Dad”.
I have not watched the final episode myself yet because we are way behind here in the Netherlands, but - luckily - The Caucus explains:
The Clintons even have a little fun over the onion rings - Mr. Clinton picks up a carrot slice, longs for onion rings but the senator tells him she’s only looking out for him. How’s the campaign going? he asks. She replies, just like A.J., “Focus on the good times.”
Besides, Bill is Hillary’s husband. Where I am from, we want spouses to look after each other.
Ann Althouse - always trying to find a reason to attack those she does not like - has some “problems” with the video:
1. Not everyone gets HBO, so you’ve got a cultural reference that’s a bit elitist. And some people wait for the DVDs, and they rankle at spoilers. But maybe everyone’s supposed to have heard about the ending by now. Still, it might rub you the wrong way, to assume familiarity with “The Sopranos.” And lots of Americans don’t even approve of watching a show that is permeated with violence, obscene language, graphic sex, and the subjugation of women.
2. Do we really want to think of Bill and Hillary sitting in for Tony and Carmela? Tony is a monstrous criminal and Carmela willfully blinds herself to his horrible flaws so that she can keep living in a highly desirable house. Are these good associations for Hillary?
But wait, the mentally disabled Althouse has more:
3. Bill is a much better actor than Hillary, and this heightens the sense that she’s a pale substitute for the old President we can no longer have.
4. Bill says “No onion rings?” and Hillary responds “I’m looking out for ya.” Now, the script says onion rings, because that’s what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the “O” of an onion ring is a vagina symbol.
Can someone please buy Ann some prozac?
She will undoubtedly say that this fourth reason was ‘a joke,’ (which she always does if someone criticizes her for writing something idiotic) but her other arguments are not very strong either. Perhaps quite some Americans agree with her view, but - like it or not - people watched the show nonetheless. If you ask people, they will most likely say they object to this and that, however, when you are not there, they watch the show anyway.
Seemingly something Althouse needs to learn: people lie. They all pretend to watch the most intellectually challenging shows on cable while in fact they are (or were) watching Sex in the City, Desperate Housewives and, yes, the Sopranos.
In the end, the ad was - get this Ann - funny. That is all it was, it was funny. Hillary shows that she has a good sense of humor (unlike some deranged individuals who - for some reason - are still allowed to call themselves ‘professor’), Bill is right there, standing by his wife, and they use popular culture to their advantage.
Two biographies of Hillary Clinton have just been published and both paint a negative picture of Democratic Senator for New York, and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Two new books on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offer fresh and often critical portraits of the Democratic presidential candidate that depict a tortured relationship with her husband and her past and challenge the image she has presented on the campaign trail.
The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of the books comes across as a complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton’s brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive, and occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way. The books portray her as alternately brilliant and controlling, ambitious and victimized.
The Clinton campaign has nervously awaited publication of the books for fear they would include a bombshell revelation or, at the very least, revive memories of less-savory moments in the couple’s rise to power. The books, both by longtime journalists and both obtained by The Washington Post yesterday, include a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions.
“A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted. While in Arkansas, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed one woman alleged to have had an affair with her husband, contemplated divorce and thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband’s indiscretions.
“Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband’s 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers “until she is destroyed.” Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.
The running for Governor just to piss Bill off is indeed new to me, but I have to say that it sounds a bit awkward to me. She would not have stood a chance. She could have destroyed Bill’s career of course, but that would also have meant the end of her own career. Now, if there’s anything Hillary Clinton would never consider doing, it’s throwing away her chances of becoming America’s first female president / having a remarkable political career.
More:
The book also suggests that Hillary Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in 2002 before voting to authorize war. And it includes a thirdhand report that the Clintons had a secret plan after the 1992 election in which he would have eight years as president and then she would have eight years, although last night a key source disavowed the story.
Now that would truly have been amazing: 8 years Bill, followed by 8 years Hillary.
The sad thing is, Hillary didn’t have much experience in politics back then, she needed the experience as a Senator. In other words; that story too sounds a bit… awkward.
Will Hillary’s past come back to haunt her? Quite possibly so. It seems to me that the Republicans will use it against her… again. The question is whether the American people will fall or those attacks… again. Hasn’t the subject been exhausted?
There is one major advantage (for the democrats) in nominating Hillary: her dirty laundry has been out there for over a decade.
Literally.
Hillary for children
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9U0ZNteqdw]
As Jules Crittenden remarks, this is truly “touching and commendable.” I am not sure about Jules, but I really do mean those words. Hillary Clinton is a remarkable lady, the downright hatred many conservatives seem to feel for her is amazing and undeserved. She is a caring, intelligent, ambitious Lady who deserves our respect. Whether you’re conservative or progressive or moderate, you have to admit that Hillary Clinton is a good person and a talented politician.
Rasmussen reports:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of American adults agree with New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s call to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 31% are opposed.
That is, of course, great news for Hillary Clinton. There is, however, also bad news:
However, the country is evenly divided when it comes to Clinton’s recent statement that she would appoint her husband as a roaming Ambassador to the world. Just 45% believe that having former President Bill Clinton fill this role would be a good idea while 42% disagree. Former President Clinton is viewed favorably by 57% of Americans.
On both topics, Democrats are overwhelming supportive and most Republicans are opposed. However, those not affiliated with either major party view them quite differently. By a 2-to-1 margin (58% to 29%), unaffiliateds support calls for higher taxes on the wealthy. At the same time, just 38% of unaffiliateds say appointing Bill Clinton as a roaming Ambassador is a good idea. Forty-six percent (46%) of unaffiliateds disagree.
The question is, for Hillary and Bill, can they be convinced that Bill is the right man for the job?
While most Americans (and Democratic Presidential hopefuls) support the notion of raising taxes on the wealthy, the issue is challenging politically. Two-thirds (67%) of those who earn less than $60,000 a year believe that raising taxes on the wealthy is a good idea. Support for this policy falls to 49% among those earning more than $60,000 annually.
That makes sense, doesn’t it? It doesn’t have anything to do with justice: if everyone has to pay 30% income taxes, then, someone who earns $100,000 a year already pays more than those who earn, say $50,000. As such, having a flat tax would be the ‘right’ thing to do, common sense dictates, or at least, that is how those who earn quite a lot perceive it.
Selfish? Perhaps (I agree with that view though).
On the other hand those who earn less than $60,000 are perhaps even more selfish. They not only want to pay as little taxes as possible, they want other people to pay more. The first group of people is not advocating taking money from anyone, while the second group is. If they believe that the government should take care of certain things, they should equally carry the burden. Of course they won’t do that, because doing so would mean that have less money to spend.
Selfish? You bet.
It never ceases to amaze me how generous people are with other people’s money.
Also: it is very dangerous, in any society, for the majority (middle class) to believe that it is quite alright to take and take and take from those who have more. A lack of respect for the right of property hurts freemdom tremendously, since it’s the very foundation of the liberty we enjoy, or are supposed to enjoy.
|
|