Hillary and money seem to be like oil and water - they don’t mix unless you shake really, really hard.
Her campaign is 10.3 million dollars in debt. I wonder what she would do with the US treasury.
Just saying.
It appears that Bubba is not liking the looks of the campaign these days - he really wants to sleep in the White House again.
“It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,” one superdelegate said.
According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how “sorry” she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a “Judas” for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
“Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,” a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media’s unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
“It was very, very intense,” said one attendee. “Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns.”
It is interesting though to see so many Clinton people push away from another Clinton administration.
“Hillary and Hypocrisy, live together in perfect harmony. Side by side on the campaign keyboard, oh Lord wait and seeeeeee…”
I thought one of the worst, yet memerable songs in music history was a perfect match for one of the worst, yet memerable campaigns in elections history.
Planted questions, Corkscrew landing, Tears, 3 AM, indicted fundraisers, and now this:
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned about $200,000 on the board of a Long Island subprime lender that charged prepayment penalties - a practice that Clinton, a critic of the subprime industry, now seeks to eliminate.
Williams, who took over the reins of Clinton’s campaign in early February, served as a director on the board of the Woodbury-based Delta Financial Corp. from April 2000 until the firm declared bankruptcy in December, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records.
She was recruited by former New York City Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, a Delta consultant. Her assignments were to create a new code of “best practices,” and to improve the company’s crisis management operation in the wake of state and federal predatory lending probes that resulted in a $12 million payout to borrowers.
Just, wow.
Nothing up his sleeve.
Barak Obama has had a relationship with Reverend Jeramiah Wrightsince the 1980’s - since before Obama went to Harvard. Barak had to have sat in that church dozens upon dozens of times. If you search hard enough, you can find many of the bulletins containing the sermons of Reverend Wright. This bruhaha is not based upon a single sermon of a cranky retiring pastor. Reverend Wright spoke of these topics often and Barak Obama could only have known this.
Now, Barak Obama is trying to see how stupid you are.
“Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” the senator said.
Why not 20 years ago? Why not leave that church 5 years ago? Why not leave that church now? That particular sheapard is gone, but the sheep he fed are still there. If the pastor is hateful, but beloved, what does that say for the congregation?
Don’t be bamboozled by Obama double-talk.
I kept wondering why we call these political battles, races. I mean, it isn’t about speed. But then Barak Obama confused me.
COLUMBUS, Miss. – In a fiery speech, Obama pushed back hard against charges by Hillary Clinton and her campaign that he is not suited to be Commander-In-Chief, and expressed disbelief at the Clintons’ suggestions that he be vice president.
“Now first of all, with all due respect, with all due respect,” Obama began, “I have won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I have won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So I don’t know how somebody who is in second place, is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place.
“I mean, I am just wondering, because if I was in second place I could understand it. But I am in first place right now. So that’s point number one.”
He went on to point out how Clinton could consider him as his VP when she and the campaign have been saying that he is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief.
“But there’s a second point,” he said. “This is an interesting point. I want you guys to follow me on this. President Bill Clinton, back in 1992 when he was being asked about his selection for Vice President, he said that the only criteria, the most important criteria for a Vice President, is that that person is ready, if I fell out, in the first week, that he or she will be ready to be the Commander-In-Chief.
So, it is called a race still - but maybe it should be called a marathon. You win this primary race by your endurance to Hillary’s crap. Maybe?
Don’t take this post as any capitulation on my part regarding John McCain - not yet anyway.
I am angry. I’m not angry at John McCain - he is what he is. I am angry at the Republican party. I think our party is selling our ideals out for the sake of seats on committees. Now, I am watching “respected conservatives” selling those same ideals out and it makes me wonder. Am I wrong? Did I miss something in Conservatism 101? I don’t think so, but it’s possible.
At the same time, I am much encouraged by the tossup states for the upcoming Senate races. Encouraged enough to think the next president is going to be fairly ineffective in taking the country any further to the left in the coming four years. The House will probably stay Democrat controlled, but the Senate is a good start.
These are the things which uphold my decision - to date - not to support John McCain. And it is my decision, so Neal Boortz can kiss my grits. I am tired of people not in the Republican party telling Republicans why they should accept something outside of Republican ideals. I and others who think like me are going to change this party - not abandon it. You can call our thinking on this asinine if that floats your stick, but this is not your fight. This is our family feud.
Which brings me full circle, doesn’t it? What is the most effective way to be agents of the kind of change our party needs? We either support McCain and then fight him tooth and nail when he wins or we don’t support him and fight Hillary Obama.
McCain has been offering a lot of promises to garner the conservative vote and I don’t believe a word of it. We know what Hillary Obama is all about. No way they get my vote. Yet, do I overcome my ambivalence toward McCain - suck it up and drive on?
Well, this brings me to something I have been talking about for a couple of years. I think I got the idea from Cobb, but it immediately made sense and it grew on me. You see, the thing with all of us conservatives is very passionate right now and that might not change. But we’re going to get in a voting booth in November and we will be given a binary choice - zero or one. When you are in that mode - decision time, make or break - all of the emotion is gone. All of the angst is irrelevant. You will decide based upon what is in the core of your mind - survival. If you are a liberal, most of your survival instinct is already gone, so don’t try to understand this.
Hillary Obama will shrink America’s relevance and hard-won gains in the war on terror. They will lead our nation to the largest military cuts in history and laud over it. They will open us to more attacks abroad and prey on weaker Americans by creating more government dependency at home. They will work hard to make sure no one ever has the ability to get as rich as they are, because that’s what modern day “progressive” ideology is all about.
I know in my heart that John McCain is a poor choice for America on so many issues - maybe all of them - except one. He won’t let America roll over and die.
I am still a Maverick Voter - I’ll make my decision closer to November.
On Redstate - read the analysis and conclusion by Pejman Yousefzadeh. Here is a snippet:
My emphasis in this and other writings when it comes to political discussions has been on policy. I want a candidate who espouses small government, federalism, free markets, free trade, a brave and unabashed message of capitalism and consequential, weighty and creative solutions to the many foreign policy and national security dilemmas facing the United States.
Fredstate?
To my way of thinking, today is too early be speaking publicly in favor of a particular candidate. That is, if the field of candidates was inspiring and I felt the topic needed much deeper consideration.
However, the field of candidates is not particularly inspiring - to me there is only one clear choice. Unlike others, I don’t have a label to put on why I choose to support this candidate. I am not going to address this from a nostalgic, “we need a guy like Reagan” point of view. Those we chose to lead our nation should be chosen for what they will do for our future, not what someone else did in the past.
I choose to endorse Fred Thompson. There are other candidates who have traits I admire, but Thompson is the only candidate who demonstrates political courage; candid and clear policy statements; and a sense of authority. He is the only candidate who appears presidential.
Another issue for me, which I recently wrote about, is the ability of the candidate to consolidate the GOP base and conservative democrats and independents, and still appeal to the more centrist GOP voters. Huckabee can’t do it - he has no “brand recognition”. Romney can’t do it - he has no consistency. McCain certainly can’t do it - he’s hyphenated his name with some of congress’ most liberal members. Giuliani can’t do it - he doesn’t have the respect of the GOP base. I know I am leaving a couple of people out here, but the rest are not electable.
Fred Thompson has a consistent record on the issues I find important:
- Spending
- Social Security
- Border Security
- National Security
- Abortion
Fred Thompson represents my policy values, and supposedly the values enumerated in the GOP national platform. So, to get this started off right and to make sure everyone knows where I stand. I formally announce to you:
Fred Thompson for President
Howard Fineman of MSNBC made a candid statement about the GOP chances this fall and GOP leaders had better listen. He is spot on!
GOP will lose next fall unless it can reunite the Reagan-Bush coalition
The indicators have been present for some time that the GOP is losing grip on its identity. The 2004 GOP platform and the actions of many GOP lawmakers do not coincide.
Many of you are going to jump right in with “Bush this and Bush that” but you’ll be wrong. George W. Bush is a heavily advised president, and in many cases has been ill-advised by leaders who have taken up a pragmatic approach to Republican party politics.
As Republicans head into one of the last televised debates before the voting starts, the cracks in their Reagan-Bush coalition not only are showing, they’re getting wider. The ideological ala carte candidates – Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani – are generating buzz; the one-size-fits-all conservatives – Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson – have yet to show they can unify the party.
I find neither Rudy Giuliani an ideologue, nor John McCain a conservative. However, Mr. Fineman makes a cogent point when he says this election is going to be won or lost by a GOP candidate based upon bringing together a splintering, dissatisfied base.
While many talk about a candidate who will be able to work with the Democrats to get things done, the RNC and GOP leadership should be focused on a candidate who will work - period - in the minds of voters from those three groups Mr. Fineman mentions - evangelicals, libertarians, and hawks.
With the country split so evenly in numbers between Red and Blue, you can’t afford to have one Republican or right-leaning independent (who are generally so because they felt betrayed by the GOP and left) opt-out of the election process - and phone calls telling Republicans how much you hope they’ll come out and vote is not what they are looking for. They are looking for a reason to support a GOP candidate.
Daily Reads
What are we doing?
