A Tale Of Two Speeches

First, Clinton.

It was all about her less than veiled innuendo that the election was stolen from her. She got the most votes. She won the most important states...etc...etc...etc. She cannot let go. Her speech was as classless as the Clintons have been througout this campaign. Not once did she even mention McCain, the real opponent, because in Clinton's mind, it is not John McCain that is the enemy, it is Obama. It was all about her and how she is stronger. Her speech was not given to uplift or unite the Democratic Party, it was to wound Obama. If there is any doubt that she won't help Obama, tonight she sealed the deal. She is against Obama. She will do what she can to wound him so she can say, in the end, if he loses, "see, I told you." Nothing said that more than her plea to her supporters to go to her website and leave their thoughts. The politics of triangulation at it's Clintonian best.
I wrote early on in the election that Primaries are about finding the best person for the Party, and early on, Clinton made it clear she is not running for the Party, she is running for herself, and she is willing to destroy anyone that gets in her way, including the Democratic Party.

Classless.

Now Obama.

The contrast of Obama's graciousness towards Clinton, his stated respect for her hard work at the beginning of his speech stands out in diametric opposites to Clinton's gracelessness, her classless, polarizing speech is profound.
Obama's speech was what we, we can do together to make the United States a better place. Obama's speech hit hard on McCain, the real opponent in the race, but not before Obama, deserved, praise of McCain's heroism and service to the United States.
Obama showed he can give as good as he gets in his speech tonight.
Obama's sound and reasoned postion on Iraq showed me he gets Iraq, but he also knows we cannot continue to allow the lack of political prgress to continue.
Obama was uplifting, hopefull and inspiring. What a change from the last 7 1/2 years of Bush fear and bullying.

Classy

I'm going to read what other bloggers have said now...'night!

Delegate Count

For anyone that thinks Hillary Clinton is honest, has integrity - deserves to be President, one only has to know that Clinton insisted that none, none, of the Michigan delegates be counted for Obama. Her reason? Because he was not on the ballet. That's right, because Obama was not on the ballet, Clinton and her supporters said Obama should, therefore, not have any delegates. Because Obama was following the rules, the rules that Clinton signed and agreed to, he did not place his name on the ballet in Michigan because the rules said Michigan would not be counted. But Clinton does not care about rules, she only cares about herself[ish].

Clinton goes on about how everyone's votes should be counted, but back in December and January, the Clinton campaign was telling another story entirely. She was perfectly happy to stop counting votes in February when she thought she would have the nomination. My question is, why did Clinton think it okay to stop counting votes back in February, but not now? Of course the answer is easy, it's because she thought she had the nomination in the bag; when she realized she didn't have the nom in February, she moved the goal posts and suddenly saw some light that said all the votes should be counted...now that she needed more votes. Clinton's actions speak to her lack of integrity and honesty.

Clinton's actions during this whole delegate mess shows how she does not deserve to be President. America needs a President that we can trust. Clinton has shown she cannot be trusted, and that is why she should never be President of the United States.

America deserves better than Hillary Clinton.

"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin',"
- Donna Brazile.
emphasis mine

Some Quetions For Clinton

John Arovosis has some questions he feels the media need to ask Clinton:

1. Your own campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told MSNBC last night that you will lose to Obama in overall pledged delegates. So the only way for you to win the nomination is by the superdelegates overruling the will of the people. That will cause a civil war in the Democratic party (I'll be helping to lead it). It will likely cause blacks to leave the party, possibly forever. It will disenfranchise the youth vote. The Netroots will likely declare war on you.
A) In what imaginary universe do you see the superdelegates risking a civil war for you?

B) How are you going to win an overwhelming majority of the remaining superdelegates, something you need in order to overrule the vote of the people, when the overwhelming majority of them are endorsing Obama?

C) Why are you willing to accept a civil war in the Democrat party in order to win the nomination? Doesn't that make you a traitor to your party?
2) The DNC has said that this drawn out nomination is hurting their fundraising and limiting the number of ads they can run against John McCain. You can't win, and by drawing out the nomination, you're hurting the DNC's efforts against McCain. Why does that not make you a traitor?

3) A congressional candidate and a senate candidate have both told us that your name on the ballot in the fall will be an immediate 5 to 8 point penalty in the polls for their races. This is because you are so hated by the right that your name on the ballot will inspire every lunatic to vote, and they will vote a straight party ticket, hurting every Democrat running. Explain why we shouldn't care that your nomination will devastate Democratic races across the country? Then explain why this doesn't make you a traitor?

4) A congressional candidate and a senate candidate have both told us that the drawn out nomination is hurting their fundraising, as donors focus more on the presidential election, but also as some major donors are not willing to spend money on the general if your name is on the ballot (because your name on the ballot will doom Democratic races in more conservative states). You can't win, and you're hurting Democratic fundraising across the country. Why doesn't this make you a traitor to your own party?

5) Groups like EMILY's List, AFSCME, and the American Federation of Teachers are still wasting large sums of money on independent expenditures to support your doomed candidacy. That money could be better spent on candidates who actually have a chance of winning, rather than a candidate who has already lost. You are literally taking money away from campaigns that need it. Why does this not make you - and EMILY's List, AFSCME and the AFT - traitors to your own party?

6) Because you're insisting on staying in a race that you've already lost, Obama is forced to spend money and time dealing with you, rather than dealing with John McCain. You are literally helping John McCain in this race. Why does that not make you a traitor to your party?

7) An increasing number of Democrats - Democrats who once liked and defended both you and your husband - now hate you, and are saying that the Republicans may have been right in everything they've ever said about you. Why are you willing to destroy your credibility and reputation in the Democratic party for a race that you've already lost?

via Americablog

Willfull Suspension Of Fact: West Virginia Edition

When confronted with the facts, people don't listen. *sigh*

Twenty Minutes From The Past

I posting this video for a couple of reasons:
1) I think it is impotant to see what one man thinks of Obama four months ago and how what he said then still pertains now.
2) He brings up issues about Clinton that now, more than ever, are coming further to light, e.g., character, integrity.
3) Rovian tactics. Four months ago, he saw the direction that Clinton would probably go. She did and has and contitnues to do so.
4) See how Obama has resisted the way "politcs are played" and kept his integrity, his vision, his idea of change. See how Obama has not changed his message (yes, there have been a few bumps in the road, I know), while Clinton has embraced the tactics of Karl Rove and George Bush and attacks with Rovian glee.

I ask that you take the twenty minutes to watch this video and think about what Clinton is doing now. And while watching this video, it is my hope you will see why I, and many like me, see Obama as the best person to be President of the United States.

Do we really want someone like Clinton, a person that so easily adopts the tactics of Bush/Cheney/Rove, to be President?

We cannot afford the kind of person that has so little integrity and character to be in the White House again.

It really is time for change.


oops, forgot to post where I got this video

Would You Like A Card, Senator Clinton?

"Yes, I'll take the race card"

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

via USA Today
There is a pattern emerging here, it's called race-baiting.

And what the hell does she mean by "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"?
Actually, the implication is clear.

Very Presidential.

Quote Of The Day (in bold)

You'll understand why it is the last part of this quote that made me chuckle.

A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be a Democratic nominee by June 15. He could not bring himself to say the words "Hillary will drop out by June 15," but that is clearly what he meant. I kept saying, "So, Hillary will drop out by June 15," and he kept saying, "We will have a nominee by June 15." He stressed what a reasonable person Hillary is.

-Lawrence O'Donnell
via Huffington Post

Reasonable? Does a reasonable person need to stress their reasonableness?

Game Changer

"This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country -- probably even a lot of the world -- is looking to see what North Carolina decides."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton

The game, it would seem, has changed. The question is, does Clinton know this?

N.C. And Indiana

Whooosh! That sound you hear is, maybe - you never know with the Clinton machine, of Clinton's hopes REALLY dashed last night. I was a bit nervous about Indiana, but Obama pulled through better than I thought he would. I was thinking he might have lost by 8 or 9, but 2? That's extraordinary. And N.C? Wow. if there was ever a blowout...well, there it is.
Both camps are spinning the night. Was the Rush Limbaugh effect what put Clinton over "the top?" Who knows, but it is safe to say when Clinton has to loan her campaign money, again (6.4 million), her campaign is in deep trouble. That is, I think, a total loan of $11.5 million dollars. If the health of a campaign is denoted by the money from donors, Clinton is in trouble.
It is my hope Clinton bowes out and let's the Demorats start planning the General Election strategy. But I won't hold my breath on this one. Clinton is a combination of the The Black Knight from The Holy Grail and The Terminator. She has a habit of going and going and going - too her deprement.

This is more than a scratch for Hillary.


Needless to say, I am happy with this today.

The Price Of Pandering

It seems the "gas tax holiday" McHillary are proposing would cost [Wahsington] state $126 million and 4,300 jobs. I don't have the numbers for California (where I live), but I have a feeling it's a weee bit more.

Way to help the economy McHillary!

But have no fear, Hillary doesn't care what economists think, she only cares about what will get her elected. That's integrity you can take to the bank!

Of course this gas tax pander has no chance of getting done, and McHillary know this, but they will say anything to get some vots.

Fill 'er up!

Heh!

Speaking The Truth

It is refreshing to hear a Presidential candidate speaking the truth rather than pandering, *cough*ClintonMcCain*cough*

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.
----------
While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

via Thomas Friedman
emphasis mine

40 percent of global solar production down to 8 percent. We need change, not pandering. We need leadership not sillinessstupidity.

Clinton Has A Problem With The Truth, Part XXVII

INDIANAPOLIS — It's a story Hillary Clinton loves to tell, about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

And it's a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but didn't.

If she were president, she says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband. "Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories," Ed Dixon of Valparaiso said in a letter to a local newspaper after a recent Clinton visit. "Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen."

"They would have us believe Bush was behind this sale," added Fred Sliger of Valparaiso in another letter, "when in fact the Clinton administration rubber-stamped this along with the sale of numerous other high-tech secrets to the Chinese. …Let's get the facts straight."

via McClatchy

Bring Out Your Dead Debate!

Man, that was awful and I don't mean for the candidates, for ABC.

If ABC actually thinks they presented and intelligent debate, someone should really be fired...maybe Charlie Gibson? For the first hour, the questions were completely substance free and of the 'gothca' variety.

The loser of this debate? ABC.

Was I the only one that got the feeling everyone was on life support during the debate? It took a solid hour for both candidate to wake up.

Now onto the substance (what there was of it).

Between the two, Obama clearly showed he was tired and beaten down.. The relentless questions for the first 45 minutes were overwhemingly thrown at Obama about he's an unpatriotic flag hater; his minister is a racist; he thinks small town people are rubes ("do you think you are more patriotic?" - what kind of question is that? Those kind of 'gotcha' questions that the MSM seem to think are relevent to this race does a diservice to the electoral process..

I thought it was interesting how Clinton just went right in and pounced on Obama, while Obama, when Hillary was finally asked about Bosnia, defended her. Character

Clinton did much better, but she was treated with kid gloves for the hour, or so. Her liteny of lies was completely glossed over. That is not to excuse Obama (he will face the same relentless questions if he is the nominee). Obama finally hit his stride after the first hour, or so, but he cannot let himself stumble like he did in the future.

Any question about the MSM treating Obama better than Clinton is clearly not true.

In sum, this was a terrible debate, but not because of the candidates, it was because of Charlie Gibson and his relentless gothca questions.

and the quote of the night

I'd forgotten that for months now Charlie Gibson has been asserting that $200,000 is a solid middle-class income, blissfully unaware that just 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more. You could be richer than 96 percent of your fellow citizens, but still just folks to Gibson. Obviously that's not on a par with being bad at bowling or anything on the "out of touch" scale, but it's still disappointing to learn that even our salt of the earth working class multimillionaire television news personalities aren't utterly infallible.

via Matthew Yglesias
Remind who is out of touch, again?

Oh, and Charlie? That whole vice president thing? That was changed by the 12th Amendment.

Clinton's True Colors

That's it. If Hillary's agenda is to lose the White House for the Democrats in '09, I fear she has done it. I never thought I would ever say this, but if the super delegates decide to place Clinton as the Democratic nominee for President, I will have to sit this election out. I cannot in good conscious vote someone with the kind of ethics of Hillary Clinton. If someone like me, a lifelong Democrat, has decided to sit this election out, I wonder how all the younger voters Obama has brought to the Party feel? Do you really think they will vote for Clinton? Do you think the Democrats can take the White House without the voters Obama has energized?
If people have yet to wake people up to the type of person she is, then her latest ad shows her true colors in all it pathetic glory.

Hillary has shown that this nomination is not about taking the White House for the Democrats, it is about her. And only her. Screw the Party. If she can't have it, no one will.

I didn't think anyone could sink lower than this. She really is disgusting.

The Republicans must love Hillary. She is writing all the attack ads, spending all the money to destroy Obama so the Republicans don't have to.

Quote Of The Day (Okay, 2 Quotes)

"I really don’t understand why the Republican Party very clearly decided what they were going to do [about the Florida and Michigan delegations], and the Democratic Party can’t decide."
-Hillary Clinton

Actually, Senator Clinton, the Democratic Party did decide what to do. They decided to strip those states of all their delegates. This decision was made through the proper procedures, at the proper time, by the proper decision-makers -- including your own adviser Harold Ickes, who voted "yes" on the delegate-stripping plan. The decision was clear and straightforward: if Florida and Michigan didn't move their primary dates, they'd lose their delegations. Period. That was, and is, the decision.

You initially accepted this decision because it was politically necessary for you to do so -- after all, you couldn't be seen as the only candidate not currying favor with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Now, you are refusing to accept that very same decision because it is, again, politically necessary for you to do so, as you can't "win" without those "delegates" who were "elected" in those states' illegitimate "primaries."

To make matters worse, you are dishonestly and absurdly cloaking this cynical Machiavellian maneuver under the guise of democratic idealism, arguing that there's some sort of moral imperative to count the votes of citizens who chose to participate in "elections" that everyone knew were non-binding beauty contests. Better yet, you're making this argument while simultaneously advocating the importance of a "popular vote" count that excludes all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (whose caucuses didn't report raw vote totals, only delegate counts), and all Obama and Edwards supporters in Michigan (whose candidates weren't on the ballot).

And now, on top of all that, you have the unmitigated gall to gripe that your party "can't decide" what to do, when in fact they decided long ago precisely what to do, and you acquiesced in that decision until you realized that you couldn't win without changing the rules in the middle of the game -- i.e., that you can't win without cheating.

You are truly a piece of work, Hillary Clinton.

-Brendon Loy
Emphasis mine

Clinton (Bill This Time), Bosnia Mistatement Happened Because Hillary Was Tired

It's like a mantra with the Clinton's. Now Bill is claiming Hillary's "mistatement" happened because "she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia."
via TPM Election Central

Hillary must have been exhausted on 4 separate occasions when she "mistated" those circumstances.

The Clinton's ease with, ahem, stretching the truth has become a joke (if it were not so serious).
If we have learned one thing over the past 7-plus years, it is that we need to be able to trust our leaders. We must have confidence that our leaders will not lie to us.
What does it say about the Clintons when time and time again, we are told lies? How can we trust them to tell us the truth when they can't even tell the truth even after the truth is known?

Trust.

Penn's Out. Should Be Out More

...so says Paul Begala

I'm not going to lie to you, there's a lot of pressure among pro-Clinton labor leaders, but also non-labor leaders who've been unsatisfied with Penn's strategy, who've been disappointed in Penn's conflict of interest and there's still a clamor to eliminate him entirely from that campaign.

And, and I don't think the Clinton campaign has done that yet. I think Penn is still very much involved.

via Ben Smith

Why do labor leaders not like Penn? Well, Penn's company has a union busting unit.

One that might be of interest to liberals thinking about whether to support Clinton is "Labor Relations." In this section, Senator Clinton's top advisor's company says, "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating ... That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation."

You're kidding me. Hillary Clinton's top pollster runs a public relations firm with a unionbusting department. Has anyone, you know, told the unions?

-Mark Schmitt by way of Ezra Klein

IT IS ABOUT TRUST AND JUDGEMENT

There is a disturbing pattern with the Hillary Clinton campaign when it comes to, as the media calls it, exagerations. I call them lies.
We have heard the lie about Tuzla:

The lie that she was against NAFTA

Irish Peace?

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.

via Telegraph

And the latest? Health care:


I know I sound a bit like a harpy when I, ahem, harp on, Clinton, but haven't we had enough exagerations from our current President to allow someone that so cleary finds it so easy, so like breathing, to lie? We need somenone that will tell us the truth. Someone that will treat the American people like adults. Hillary Clinton shows that she doesn't trust the American public to handle the truth - just like George Bush treats the public. Barack Obama has shown time and time again that he thinks the public can handle the truth.
Now all politicians exagerate. I include Obama. The difference is Clinton lies. Her exagerations are so large, so profound, one has to wonder how she will handle herslf if she were to become President. I'm reminded of what Bill Clinton said when he was running for President, "You do what you gotta do". It seems Hillary is carrying the torch for the Bill by doing what she feels she's gotta do. And what she's gotta do is lie, evidently.

Quote Of The Day

From Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic talking about how Mark Penn (Clinton's campaign manager) met with Columbian officials to discuss ways to move the Columbian Free Trade Agreement through Congress - the same trade agreement Hilary Clinton says she opposes.

I've asked several Clinton aides and advisers for their reaction. Some declined to comment. Others responded with pejoratives, but since I don't print anonymous pejoratives as a policy, I will refrain from sharing them.

One of the toughest tasks for a political journalist these days is to try and find someone in Clinton world who is willing to defend Mr. Penn or his sense of political optics.

via The Atlantic

This is another example of how Hilary's left hand doesn't know what her right hand is doing. Or, worse, she doesn't care.