So, the story is:

Both Obama and Hillary talk about renegotiating NAFTA if they are elected. Only, Hillary doesn’t really mean it, so she calls Canadian diplomats and tells them to take it with a grain of salt - it is only political posturing. Then her campaign blames the Obama campaign for contacting the Canadians.

Hmmm - this is the same Barak Obama who is not supposed to have the experience and the connections with foreign governments that Hillary has? Who would Obama be reaching out to exactly?

“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

First the lie about her intentions for NAFTA. Then the lie that she had anything to do with contacting the Canadians. This is the candidate to be the first woman president?

Another rumor - but probably leaked to get a reaction for viability. Why else would an email between a campaign finance co-chair and a campaign director be made public?

John F.X. Graham, one of Hillary Clinton’s National Finance Co-Chairs, thinks that the New Jersey Senator would make a great choice if Clinton wins the Democratic primary.

Graham fired off an email this morning to Clinton Campaign Manager Terry McAuliffe listing politicians who would make good vice presidential material, including the choices most often brought up: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Joe Biden. But Menendez, a Clinton campaign national co-chair, would be the “most intriguing” choice, Graham wrote.

Graham said that, like Richardson, Menendez can appeal to the increasingly important Latino voting bloc, but has universal appeal as well. And Mendendez’s Cuban heritage makes him well received in Florida’s predominantly Republican Cuban-American community.

Graham also (reportedly) writes that “Richardson” doesn’t sound exactly Latino. Well, that’s correct, but neither does “Bob”. Why does this matter, except as a means to pander. I guess Leftists really do spend a lot of time thinking about race.

Enjoy!

Click to listen!

Fun with Hillary! MP3

Interesting how Democratic political debates and leftist blogs have the same tone.

The headline reads - Clinton, Obama engage in bitter debate

Yet, this does not look like debate to me. What do you think?

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when “you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies “when you were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

A lot of name calling and personal attacks. Tit-for-tat issues regarding the candidates campaigns, rather than substantive discussion about policy. Just the sort of thing the Leftists gobble up.

Narcissistic spats instead of policy debates - this means the democrats are involved in a popularity contest this election cycle.

Only hours before the caucusing begins, the field looks like this:

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton

Obama was at 31 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers, Edwards at 27 percent and Clinton 24 percent. No other Democrat was in double digits.

I don’t believe John Edwards has any chance to be nominated for the general election - which to my mind really puts Hillary in perspective. As the time to actually choosing nears, all the rhetoric, emotional entreaties, and general cheerleader stuff,  disappears from peoples’ minds. Now folks have to actually think about making a binary choice. 1 or 0 - what is it going to be?

I celebrate the defeat of Shrillary by anyone. If it is not  by Barak Obama in the primaries, then I’ll settle for by Fred Thompson in the Fall.

In a recent jab at Barak Obama meant to underscore her limitless experience in Congress, Hillary Clinton said:

• “The next president will be a steward of our economy at a time when the bills from eight years of neglect and mismanagement are coming due.” She also took another apparent shot at Obama, saying that “Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.”

So, let us look at Hillary - The Steward of Our Economy:

• The issue is the $1 million in federal money backed by both Clinton and New York’s other senator, Chuck Schumer, to create a memorial for the 1969 counterculture music festival Woodstock in upstate New York.
• Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005
• Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness
• Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending
• Clinton’s 2004 votes scored her 8 percent approval from Citizens Against Government Waste, matching her 8 percent lifetime rating. “Hillary Clinton’s 2004 rating, the 19th worst in the entire Senate, was far below average for a Senate Democrat,” according to CAGW president Tom Schatz. “Senate Democrats had an average rating of 16 percent in 2004 and 19 percent lifetime. The entire Senate’s average rating in 2004 was 40 percent.”

And some proposed spending:

• Hillary Clinton’s campaign spending proposals have already amounted to $756 BILLION in NEW government spending!

Hillary Clinton is a BIG spender, when it is your tax money she’s shopping with.

Hillary is having a tough time with a policy decision regarding giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants. It seems, she is not quite sure what her policy should be:

First, Hillary is for the measure, if Governors are for it. Maybe.

October 16, Hillary supports Spitzer’s actions to spark action at the federal level to bring illegal immigrants out of the dark.

October 30, Hillary states Spitzer is proposing the illegal immigrant driver’s license because President Bush has not signed any bills into law bringing about immigration reform - omitting that her party, which controls both houses, has been unable to present such a bill to the president. Then she retracts her support of the measure in the same debate. then she supports it again.

October 31 - she Supports the measure

November 2 - she supports it generally, but doesn’t know all the details

November 4 - She’s not for or against it, but she supports Governor Spitzer’s efforts because it is President Bush’s fault.

November 13 - She supports it depending on what state it’s in.

November 14 - “As President, I will not support drivers’ licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”

What is most interesting to me is she acknowledges in the November 13 interview that there are a great number of people in her home state who are not there legally. If she knows they are breaking the law, why does she not call for the law to be enforced? Isn’t one of the first rules of life in our society that if you don’t like a law, you change it - not break it? Is that not her first duty to the constituents of her state?

In this case, I think the meaning of the questioner is very clear. She holds no respect for Hillary Rodham Clinton and finds her to be an enemy.

What is unclear is how John McCain was made to look by a particular media outlet. First, let’s take a look at the whole verbal exchange.

[youtube WLQGWpRVA7o nolink]

I am not a fan of John McCain’s politics on several issues, but I don’t think he deserves to be impugned in the media for this. How is he being impugned?

Take a look at this video and compare it to the entire exchange above.

[youtube 2BnA_uPz7d8 nolink]

It is obvious this video was manipulated to make John McCain look bad. If you listen to the original, he was trying to find the best way to handle the question as respectfully (to the bitch) as possible. The video that America will see on TV doesn’t show that.

Then if you listen to the whine given by the anchor that “maybe some people are offended by a woman being referred to as a bitch” - after she opens the discussion as a “this is a funny, huh?” topic - it is pretty clear the media is not only trying to stir the pot, but will define what the pot looks like.

To the news anchor’s hypothetical about the offensiveness of the question asked to John McCain - This is not an instance of some gangsta rapper using a term because of an inate disrespect for women. It was said by a woman with all the dignified vehemence that a woman can express for another woman she doesn’t like. The only person who should be offended is HRC - but she should be very careful about how, if at all, she responds to this.