A Second Hand Conjecture

Boy, this was an awfully interesting exchange. Democratic strategist Mark Penn, absurdly invited by Brian Goldsmith to argue the press has been soft on Sarah Palin, instead slams the media for counterproductively biased and vindictive coverage:

(more…)

1 Comment »

Toby Harnden weighs in with his thoughts on the Palin effect. All interesting, all very astute IMO.

Of particular interest is Toby’s argument that McCain commands enough public respect for his experience and expertise, that he has no concerns about being eclipsed by Sarah. Because of that, he’s perfectly comfortable to ride in her publicity tailwind, legitimately without a fear that voters could fall into doubt about who is in command.

This is of course correct and it’s enormously important as a contrast between the candidates. That’s because this intrinsic stature gap is precisely what Barack Obama didn’t have (or suspected he didn’t have), when he declined consideration of Hillary Clinton for his own vice presidential slot. Something that’s regarded today even by Joe Biden as a considerable mistake.

No Comments »

Joe Biden says Hillary Clinton would have been a better pick than himself. A little amusing naturally, but I’m impressed by the candor and humility of it. Fine characteristics for a serving vice president who is expected to exert substantial influence on foreign policy.

No Comments »

Tom in Paine has a blistering take on the MSNBC commentariat’s demands for the intervention of Hillary Clinton against Palin, as a kind of childhood psychodrama: “The more you listen to them the more you realize that instead of supporting Obama, a package of Pampers will do.”

No Comments »

I was searching for an image on my backup drive today and came across a cache of header graphics I’d thrown together for posts over the years. The diversity of subjects was kind of interesting as a gallery. Here’s a few rather random selections:

The HIV Epidemic:

Eurabia:

Slobodan Milosevic:

(more…)

3 Comments »

Politico notices that the initial attacks against Sarah Palin from the Obama campaign have been, well, fumbling and badly considered. They volunteer some help to the befuddled Obama Nation, by suggesting that Palin’s respect for Hillary Clinton’s complaints of sexism is, um, a little recent. True, but new or old, was she right in women’s view? A nettlesome matter there for Obama.

No Comments »

A majority of voters approve of Obama’s selection of Joe Biden in CNN’s first poll after the tap. Unfortunately for Obama and his new Veep, the choice appears to have further angered and alienated Hillary’s sad little village. Thus, Obama has dropped into a 47-47 tie with John McCain.

For her own political future, Hillary has a lot of work to do in her convention speech. If Obama loses a close election to McCain, Hill’s already been prepped, painted and polished to serve as the party’s new Ralph Nader scapegoat. If I were Hillary, I’d throw everything I had behind Obama starting now.

1 Comment »

(photo: WBEZ Chicago Public Radio | site)

Obama’s newish McSame style attack ad mocking McCain’s “original maverick” slogan is fairly good. As Ken Wheaton notes, all the time McCain had to spend trying to convince the GOP he was a loyal Republican, unfortunately produced a lot of pro-Bush statements on videotape. Also, I like the Rovian touch of attacking McCain’s strength: experience.

(more…)

2 Comments »

After speculating upon Hillary Clinton’s strategic thinking with respect to the Democratic nomination, James Taranto concludes (emphasis added):

To summarize, Mrs. Clinton maximizes her chances of becoming president if she (1) does enough damage to Obama to snatch the nomination away from him, (2) failing that, does enough damage to him to bring about his defeat in November, and (3) gets herself on the ticket, whether he wins in November or not.

Some will say Mrs. Clinton is being disloyal to her party if she undermines Obama’s chances of winning in November. But maybe she just practices a different kind of party loyalty. After all, if you can be a patriot while hoping your country loses a war, why can’t you be a loyal Democrat while hoping your party loses an election?

It is an interesting question.

1 Comment »

Taylor Marsh thinks that Obama would have supported war in Iraq on Hillary’s grounds in 2002, even though he’s on record at the time opposing it. A matter well dealt with by Oliver Willis…even if thereby he had to confess his masochism for reading Marsh. Funny.

No Comments »

Wow. They beat the crap out of this elderly school teacher, because she chanted for Hillary at the Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting: video. (via FDL). I suppose that’s one way to put down internal insurrection. Not a very good one though in a building full of cameras.

1 Comment »

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Vowing to vote McCain, an outspoken, paranoid and hopefully drunk Hillary supporter gets tossed out of the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting, raving about race and CIA surveillance: video.

4 Comments »

Nice picture.

No Comments »

I haven’t had much time to grace the pages of ASHC lately, but I was skimming through Memeorandum and just couldn’t resist saying something about this little screed:

Wright issue will haunt conservative media elite

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has denounced his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many of his critics, especially those who call themselves conservative, are happy he has put the dashiki-wearing, American-criticizing former Marine in his place.

See, these same voices, many that are allegedly Christian, have reacted with glee by calling Wright a prophet of hate and a race baiter.

They hold themselves up to be so concerned about their fellow brother and sister, yet if you looked at their personal lives, I doubt you’d find many with African-American friends and associates (and I doubt their staffs are the most diverse in the world, but that’s another story).

But be careful what you ask for.

Martin goes on in this vein for the entire spleen-spewing piece, and basically warns conservatives that because they “gleefully” targeted Obama’s association with his (now former) pastor, they should expect the exact same treatment from liberals.

Because the article is so target-rich with fiskable material it’s difficult to say just which bit is more absurd than another, but Martin’s good-for-the-gander warning is no doubt top five. Particularly since it completely ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton pushed this issue as much as any “conservative,” that Obama’s mercurial explanations for his choice of pastor created much fodder for the press (and wasn’t well received by the voters), and that Wright himself kept the problem front and center. It also ignores the fact that liberals have been caterwauling about people like Hagee since McCain accepted his endorsement. In fact, Martin’s attempt to head his critics off at the pass completely undermines his point by tacitly acknowledging that liberals have already tried to tie the Hagee albatross around McCain’s neck:

Now that Wright has set the so-called standard for what isn’t acceptable for religious leaders, let’s see these same critics take their own kind to task for making absolutely outlandish comments.

But don’t stop there. Demand that candidates don’t seek counsel from them. Demand that Republican candidates not go to their churches and sit in their pews and accept their contributions. And if elected, make sure those same candidates don’t allow them access to the White House or halls of Congress. Turnabout is fair play, and that means guys like the Revs. Pat Robertson and John Hagee should not be sought out for their endorsements, and should be removed from any committees associated with a candidate or a political party.

Oh, I can’t wait to get the e-mails from folks who will say, “Yeah, but Obama was a member of the church.”

True, very true.

But if the marker is now saying anything unacceptable to the masses, then that should be the standard for any pastor: white, black, male, female, conservative or liberal. And any candidate, member or not.

I’ve read many of the columns and listened to the shows of these so-called conservative patriots, and few, if any, have said a word about conservative white pastors who have called for the overthrow of the government for not following Christian values (the late Francis Schaeffer, a little “g” God on the Religious Right), or who have called for the destruction of the Islamic religion of a number of Americans (Pastor Rod Parsley) and folks worldwide.

Martin’s analogy makes no sense, of course, which is why he simply waves his hand at the fact that Wright was Obama’s pastor for twenty-some years. That’s an inconvenient fact for his rant, so it’s mentioned without being addressed, and instead he tries to turn it into a racial issue. Martin is trying to set up the meme that Rev. Wright became an issue not because of his racist and anti-American utterings, but because he’s black. The problem, however, is that picking up an endorsement from a crazy, anti-Catholic preacher is just not the same as sitting in the church of a crazy, anti-American, white-hating, marxist-loving, Farrakhan-embracing preacher for over twenty years, not to mention personally choosing him as your spiritual mentor. The former says something about the state of politics for sure in that a candidate is essentially required to pick up such an endorsement in order to get the job. The latter says something about the candidate’s judgment and choice of company and nothing about the state of politics in general (although, I believe it does say something about being in politics in Chicago).

What’s really laughable about Martin’s, however, is his closing warning:

But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors’ oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, “Please, watch what you say. I don’t want to have to denounce you on national television.”

To my media pals who are part of the conservative media elite, we’ll be watching. And listening. Let’s just see if you’re as willing to tear apart one of your own.

That’s like warning the seals that the sharks are out to get them. But Martin is a journalist so I guess something that’s been happening all along seems like news to him.

UPDATE: QandO links (thanks, McQ!) and in addition to displaying the many spelling errors in my post (now fixed) adds this admonition:

Watch for variations on this [racial] theme to continue to emerge from the left as the right continues to hammer the Wright/Obama connection.

McQ’s right that Obama backers will push this meme when convenient simply because of the general fear that people hold of being called a racist. On the one hand, it’s good that it has become so socially unacceptable to be a bigot, but on the other it is a shame how some people broadly employ the epithet, without regard for the consequences, simply to score cheap political points. In any case, expect the cry of racism to emerge whenever Wright is mentioned in the context of Obama’s lack of judgment.

6 Comments »

Hmmm, oil states controlling production to just barely meet 35.6% of supply so they can keep prices high. That’s bad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_OPEC_can_no_longer_be_a_cartel.html

“We’re going to go right at OPEC,” she said. “They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at,” she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

“That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly,” she said, saying she’d use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

But, wait till you see her plan for health care.

No Comments »

I agree with one of the commenters over on HotAir…

How DARE they call us Indianans. We are called Hoosiers for some gawd damn reason, so call us that when you’re insulting us.

I dare him to come here and say that. It would be a tossup if he were beaten or laughed at. Mostly we’d probably laugh at him, and maybe tar-n-feather him. That’s what he deserves.

UPDATE:

Alright, seems to have been either a hoax, or a dirty campaign trick.

But I will stand by my tar-n-feathering for anyone who got Bill Clinton elected… or nearly any career politician.

One has to ask though, who ultimately benefits from an anti-Clinton attack based on doctored footage?

Maybe this is actually a reverse attack. Now that the ad has been shown to be faked (and quickly,) Hillary will gain some sympathy, because obviously Obama and his crew are using dirty tricks to attack Hillary. So, maybe Clinton operatives put out such an attack, simply because it could be easily defused.

Or, most likely, an army of one decided that this was a good ploy. Occams razor and all…

No Comments »

Joe Tobacco is now a registered Democrat. Reading this I am thinking he is having some second thoughts.

No Comments »

The sin of omission that Hillary is committing with the re-telling of the Indiana plant moving to China (while not mentioning that it was sold to China during her husbands tenure,) is starting to gather some light. The following story was linked by the DrudgeReport today.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/35337.html

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.

I’ve been following this since the 24th when I finally got around doing some investigation of the claims she made in her ad. And even noted that Senator Bayh of Indiana is complicit in her sin of omission.

And what is their excuse for not being concerned with the purchase in 1995…

Because “there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States,”

In other words, they promised not to move production out of the US.

Update:

Instapundit linked to the same story also.

And the story made the Special Report w/ Brit Hume last night on Fox News.

The Rollin’ Rollin’ Rollin, keep this wagon rollin’ Update:

More coverage,

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2008/05/01//news/top_news/doc7832950a3328e7fb8625743c0004a528.txt

Kevin Griffis, Indiana spokesman for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, said Hillary Clinton’s comments about Magnequench were part of “Washington game-playing” in which “people are willing to say anything to win an election.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24315615/ < -- includes some push back from the Clinton campaign...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4757257&page=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/abc-digs-into-clinton-tra_b_99473.html

“In 1995, when this group bought Magnequench, there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States.” But as ABC recounts, the Congressional Research Service reports that the state-owned Chinese company that Clinton allowed to purchase Magnequench “promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/29/hoosier-daddy.aspx

Hillary’s chutzpah in flagging this issue is compounded by her criticism of the sale on national-security grounds (“They’re building up their military. They want to compete with us every step of the way. And we’re basically helping them.”) In the late 1990s, Republicans in Congress decided that U.S.-approved technology transfers to China under Clinton were creating a disastrous national-security breach, and conservatives tried to stir anxieties about imminent U.S. surrender to the Middle Kingdom to defeat presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000. Now, to win Indiana, Hillary Clinton seems to be saying that the wingers were right all along about that no-good husband of hers.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/01/abc-corrects-clintons-indiana-tale-blaming-bush-closed-factory

Interestingly, the hometown paper did carry this on the 17th of last month. But it hasn’t received national attention until now. Hmmm, wonder if the email to the Obama campaign had anything to do with it???

No Comments »

Here’s an ad some of you may not have seen. But now (wonder of wonders) since Indiana is a battleground state in the Democratic primary, it’s been getting plenty of air play during the local news programs.

Hillary Clinton:
Right here over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military’s smart bombs to their targets.
They were good jobs, but now, they’re gone to China.
And now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts.
George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.
As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here, and to turn this economy around.
I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message because American workers should build America’s defense.

Seems like a simple enough case, doesn’t it. Bush and the Republicans failing to do what she would do.

But wait till you here the kicker about this.
(more…)

10 Comments »

Given the discussion at this post about Obama’s condescension, I suggest Tom Maguire’s roundup of the coverage of Obama making the mistake of speaking his mind about the rubes who he needs to vote for him:

I can’t believe that in all those Harvard classes they never emphasize that you can’t tell the rubes what you really think of them. Surely they aren’t relying on the common sense of the elitist snobs passing through to figure that out themselves? Didn’t work!

For those not in the know, here is what he thinks, or at least wanted this audience to believe he thinks:

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I really don’t have a problem with the guy, or, as McQ points out, that Obama’s claims of being some kind of “new” politician are a load of horse hockey. Marketing is the stuff of campaigning. I do have a problem with supporters who actually believe that load of BS.

Hmm, I do like this quote from Tom as well:

Bayh skips past the odd tension between Obama’s own opposition to free trade and his apparent belief that free trade opponents are embittered economic losers; maybe Barack opposes free trade on behalf of Michelle, who is struggling to get by on only $400,000 per year.

Heh, well so much for talking straight and holding a position from principle. Given his employment of Austan Goolsbee I think Obama is a free trader, he just doesn’t want us to know. Whether that should make one more likely to vote for him or not I have no idea. What is better? Wrong or insincere?

Update: McQ picks this theme up and goes a little deeper.

No Comments »

I have no idea who’s going to win the election this year, but as I attempt to handicap the race I’m drawn to the old saw that the person with whom most people would rather sit down at a local watering hole and knock back a few tall cold ones with will be the eventual winner.

Going back through the elections that I can remember, this bit of conventional wisdom rings true:

(1) Reagan vs. Carter — A movie star versus a moralistic, beta male. Not even a close call on this one.

(2) Reagan vs. Mondale — Ditto.

(3) Bush vs. Dukakis — Clearly, the guy who seemed like he’d look better in a tank was going to be the one you’d want to take Jaeger shots with. Dukakis made the mistake of proving who that was.

(4) Bush vs. Clinton — The guy who plays saxophone and has a reputation for womanizing is pretty much a lock here. And really, who wants to drink with their grandfather?

(5) Clinton vs. Dole — The grandfather rule applies again, even though Bob Dole’s wit would come close to making up for it.

(6) Gore vs. Bush — Even though Bush doesn’t drink anymore, I would rather hang out in a bar with him than Gore any day. Even so, Gore does have a good sense of humor, so he wouldn’t be all that bad. The American electorate seemed to agree that this was pretty much a push.

(7) Bush vs. Kerry — I can’t think of anything that would be fun to do with John Kerry. Enough said.

So, if the old saw is true, then who amongst the current class is the person who you’d most like to have a beer with? In my mind, that’s got to be Obama.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that Clinton and McCain would be interesting to talk to over a few beers, but Obama just strikes me as the one who would be easiest to get along with in such a situation. He seems much more comfortable in his own skin than either of the others, he’s much younger, and he smokes. That’s bar material if you ask me.

John McCain would thrill you with stories, I’m sure. The guy really is a legend as far as I’m concerned, and there’s not a doubt in my mind that it would be a fascinating evening. But, the grandfather rule applies here as well. War stories can be riveting, but that’s not necessarily how I want to fill my evening out. Plus, McCain’s known to have a temper, and angry drunks are just no fun.

Hillary seems like she would be a total bore. The only way things would get interesting with her, is if she got tipsy enough to start dishing dirt. But she’s entirely too controlled and controlling to let that happen, so I’d expect it would be a pretty boring outing.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that, if the old saw really does work , and Obama can survive the primary season, then he will be our next president.

Agree? Disagree?

18 Comments »

Temporarily for Obama… Maybe.

So far as I can gather Obama is a big question mark, who’s been ‘present’ for the voting of many important issues, but who refuses to take a stand on them.

But I can think of one thing that would make me vote for Obama.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they could see no circumstance in which she would withdraw unless she lost Pennsylvania on April 22. Two senior advisers and one close ally said they would urge her to quit the race if she lost Indiana two weeks later, on May 6…

Some of her associates said Indiana was now a must-win state for her. A defeat there would make it even more mathematically improbable that she would win the nomination and undercut any boost she might achieve from a victory in Pennsylvania.

But is that even the right strategy?? Would trying to ensure a Hillary win drag the process out, causing even more damage to both Democratic candidates and the party itself??

Other opinions would be appreciated…

1 Comment »

Ever since John McCain effectively wrapped up his party’s nomination, I’ve been thinking that it might not be such a great thing for the Republican ticket. Because Obama and Hillary are still battling it out for the Democrat nomination, and will continue to do so all the way to the convention in August, they are maintaining extremely high profiles. McCain, on the other hand, has made little news for a couple of weeks now (at least, none that was positive), and it’s hard to see how that will change any time soon. In addition, the rather lopsided voter turnout in favor of Democrats during this primary season, is an ominous sign for Republicans. From now until the respective conventions, it seems pretty likely that McCain will be taking a back seat to the Obama & Hillary show, something that will greatly affect his campaign’s momentum, and may hurt his chances in the Fall.

On the Democrat side, there may be some mixed blessings as well. Hillary has been pushing Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries so that their delegates will be counted in Denver. Currently discussions are being held to decide how such do-overs might be accomplished (HT: HuffPo):

The media is abuzz with stories on how to resolve the impasse over how — or even whether — to give the Michigan and Florida delegations seats and votes at the summer nominating convention, after the national party banned them for moving up their state primaries. And there seem to be as many possible solutions as there are interested parties.

“But though the states, the party and the candidates have all suggested that they have no choice but to find a solution and that they are open to another round of voting, much remains to be settled,” wrote John Broder in Friday’s New York Times. “Among the issues are what kind of contests to hold, when to hold them, how to allocate the delegates and, critically, who picks up the multimillion-dollar tab in each state.”

Some solutions to the money problems are being proposed by Hillary supporters:

The Michigan Democratic Party says it is happy to hear that Govs. Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania have pledged to help raise millions of dollars to stage new primaries in Michigan and Florida.

The governors, both supporters of Hillary Clinton, said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half of the $30 million it would take to give voters in the two states a chance to choose between Clinton and her rival Barack Obama.

Michigan’s Governor proposed holding “firehouse primaries”:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Thursday she envisions a do-over Democratic presidential contest in Michigan on a Saturday in June, with somebody other than the state’s taxpayers picking up the tab.

The governor, in an interview with The Detroit News, referred to the contest as a “firehouse primary” — more expansive than a party caucus but not a full-blown affair like a traditional, state-financed primary. People would have to declare themselves Democrats in order to participate, and the contest would be run by the Democratic Party, not the state.

And Florida Senator Bill Nelson is pushing for a mail-in vote:

Democratic Party officials here are close to completing a draft plan for a new mail-in primary that would take place by early June, a proposal that seeks to give Florida delegates a role in the party’s presidential contest, several people involved in the discussions said Tuesday.

A spokesman for Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who has been pushing for a mail-in contest, said Mr. Nelson expected the Florida Democratic Party to finalize details of the complex plan as soon as Wednesday.

Whatever the method, a re-vote appears to be inevitable at this point. But is that really a good thing for Hillary? First of all, because of the proportional system used by Democrats to divvy up delegates, the eventual outcome of these do-overs probably won’t make any real difference to the relative standings of the candidates. Obama will probably continue to hold a lead in the overall count, although Hillary could narrow that gap. Either way, neither can win enough delegates to seal up the nomination, and it will be the superdelegates who will be the deciding factor at the convention.

But what will Hillary do if she loses this time around? Obama didn’t campaign in either state, and wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. He also didn’t have the momentum that he has now. If his position as the (statistical) front-runner causes voters to switch their allegiances, Hillary could find herself even farther behind, and with even less of a claim to being the “national candidate.”

And consider the fact that, despite not running, Obama still picked up 33% of the votes in Florida (Clinton 50%; Edwards 14%), and in Michigan, where Obama wasn’t even a choice, Hillary only managed to pick up 55% of the vote with Undecided coming in a strong second at 40%. IN a one-on-one race between just Hillary and Obama, it’s not at all certain that Hillary can pull of the wins, which she desperately needs if she wants to make a serious case for her candidacy come August.

So it’s mixed blessings all around, and the only clear winner appears to be Obama. Not only his getting the benefit of the national spotlight, he may be in a position to steal one or two states from Hillary, and even if he fails in that endeavor it doesn’t hurt him.

UPDATE: For another take on the effects of the long, drawn-out Democratic Primary, see McQ:

As the two contenders for the nomination batter and bruise each other in the coming weeks, it appears that more and more supporters of one candidate will find the other candidate an unacceptable alternative if their’s loses. And that is a huge boon for John McCain, who a surprising number on the left find to be an acceptable Republican.

2 Comments »

Two Messiahs. One Religion. McQ considers how this might become a problem for the Democratic Party:

There is indeed a faction on the left who want a Gore presidency badly. And for a variety of reasons, one of which, of course, has to do with global warming and their belief that we’re on an irreversible road to ruin unless we do something expensive and do it now. Al Gore would facilitate that. He’d also rescue the Democratic party from itself.

The only problem is you can’t have two messiahs in the same religion.

Heh.

I’d be all for Al Gore to show up at the Democrat Convention, provided that there was real, three-way Highlander meets South Park showdown (complete with Obama singing “Blame Canada“). Heck, I’d GO to the convention to see that.

No Comments »

“Why are the letters ‘NIG’ on the child’s pajamas?”

Asks a commenter — “Tom” — on my post about the new Hillary Clinton commercial, the one that shows several children sleeping and then Clinton taking a national security phone call in the middle of the night. You can see the commercial at the link, and the pajamas in question are on display during seconds 11 and 12. On pausing, staring, and thinking, I believe these are pajamas that say “good night” all over them, but the letters “NIG” are set apart by a fold in the fabric.

Althouse is right to draw comparisons to the infamous “RATS” commercial featured in the the Bush v. Gore election (as she does later in the post), and it is interesting that the MSM does not seem to treat the two scandals with any parity. But I think that where the “RATS” was pretty obviously intentional, the “NIG” is no more than conspiracy theory fodder.

Frankly, I think that Jimmie has the best answer:

My first observation is that Hillary Clinton isn’t just racist, she’s predjudiced against Neanderthals, too. In the same frames where the alleged “NIG” appears, you can clearly see the word “OG” upsidedown above it. It’s reinforced by another “O” before the upsidedown “G”. What does that tell you?

Well, obviously Hillary Clinton thinks Barak Obama is a primitive cavedweller, too. How else could you possibly construe the careful placement of those three letters? Sure, they could have dressed the kid in Captain Caveman pajamas, but that wouldn’t have been subtle enough.

Ah, but there’s more! At the 20-second mark, the lines that converge on the sleeping child’s head clearly form the letter “V”. And on the blanket you can plainly count four dark stripes. Hmmm….V four…AHA! “V for….Vendetta!” Is Hillary Clinton saying that the black man would bring us to the brink of a police state with his black and primitive ways? And that he would focus his cruelty on the heads of our children? Well, of course she is. What other explanation could there be.

For the irony-impaired, Jimmie is being very, very (very) facetious.

Patterico finds little ado here as well:

This is, of course, exceedingly silly. The only interesting question is whether Big Media will run with it or not. The answer: possibly. Since it hurts Hillary and helps the Messiah, why not?

Once the subliminal craziness starts, my friends, it never stops. I am now receiving e-mails detailing alleged Jewish references as well:

Opening shot: light allegedly resembles Star of David.

:04 — six-pointed stars on the girl’s pajamas.

:19 — design of sheets resembles a tallit or an Israel flag.

A blue and white tinge to the opening scenes supposedly references the blue and white flag of Israel.

Once you go looking for subliminal messages, you’ll see them everywhere. But it’s fun to discuss.

As per usual, Tom Maguire finds gold where others have failed to look:

I can’t wait to see the nuanced responses from the media and the Clinton and Obama sides if/when they tackle this. However, there is no Republican involved and the topic is racially charged, so I predict a Move On moment.

Let’s just be grateful this didn’t happen in an ad run by McCain, or sidewalks would be unsafe as libs leapt from tall buildings and psychologists lined up to explain that media professionals don’t make mistakes like this.

Unfortunately, it’s only March 1st. We have nearly seven months before the Republican and Democratic tickets are set. If it’s this looney now, how bad will it be this summer when we’re mired in the familiar “slow news” doldrums? On the bright side, the media may wear itself out before the Fall, and have nothing left to offer for their late October surprise.

Ugh …

Longest. Campaign. Season. Ever.

No Comments »

While scanning across Instapundit today I came across this (my emphasis)

“When Hillary tells you that she has lots of experience, she doesn’t really tell you what the experience is, but you’re supposed to imagine what it must have been. She must have been sitting in the Situation Room when the Joint Chiefs of Staff were making their judgments about how to proceed in Iraq and elsewhere. . . . she’s talking about sleeping with the president for eight years as if that’s prepared her to run the country.”

I hate to be catty, but from what I understand, she doesn’t even have that.

No Comments »

All that Pejman has to say is correct. Ignore at your own peril.

And the fat lady is already belting out her arias.

No Comments »

Multiple times I have lauded the exceptional blog Booker Rising, masterfully managed by my friend Shay Riley. If you are looking for a wealth of information about the black community, a wide variety of viewpoints, articles and comments on related issues, then Booker Rising is a must-stop for you.

Shay has a feature called “Quote of the Day.” National leaders, celebrities, politicians and more are quoted here.

Today, however, Shay has a very special guest. Anyone doubt that this lady has wisdom beyond her years?

“I think the next president should lower taxes so people have more money to buy food and stuff, know what they’re doing, and give me liberty or give me death! Mommy likes John McCain, and voted for him [in the Illinois primary earlier this month] so I guess I would vote for McCain. I think Barack Obama looks fine. That woman [Sen. Hillary Clinton] gets on my nerves because she is always crying.”

No Comments »

The Politico notes a rather amateurish effort from Hillary Clinton:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of “shameful offensive fear-mongering” by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

McQ lays waste to the latest tactic from Hillary’s campaign:

In fact, this picture has been circulating among blogs for a couple of days and it really shows nothing but another in a long line of politicians doing what politicians do when they go to visit foreign nations. Recently, for instance, we saw George Bush in a Saudi robe.

McQ follows up with a series of pictures revealing just how silly and stupid this tactic is. Personally, I think it shows just how desperate Hillary is , as Peter noted before, since her chances of securing the nomination are exceedingly unlikely at this point. According to Intrade, Obama has a better than 80% chance of winning the nomination (80.5 bid/82 ask), while Hillary is mired around 20% (19.5 bid/19.9 ask). Meanwhile, Clinton’s RCP average is trending downwards, while Obama’s is on the rise. And then today, liberal pundit Jonathan Alter takes a look at the writing on the wall and advises Hillary to quit before the Texas and Ohio primaries:

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she’d drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I’m hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary’s political career. She won’t, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she’s in so much trouble in the first place.

Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn’t. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That’s how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

Tenacity is an admirable trait in a fighter, except when coupled with egotistical selfishness. As her campaign circles the drain, expect more ridiculous attacks from Team Hillary.

5 Comments »

That’s the only question left after her and Barack Obama’s debate tonight, which took place about a mile and a half from my house.

I can’t believe I’m watching, in real-time, Hillary Clinton get smacked around with the campaign schtick her opponent has knicked from her own husband. The ‘92 election was Bush Sr.’s to lose until Governor Bill and his sidekick Al started talking about the people’s desire for an unspecified “change.” The “the courage to change” theme was so effective that just before that election, Bill had gotten to the point where he would use the word three or four times per sentence—just like Obama’s doing now. And Hillary is just sitting back and taking it for some inexplicable reason.

Instead, she should have a pod of campaign volunteers looking for Obama lines “plagiarizing” Bill Clinton. That would make headlines. And instead of her stupid Xerox line in tonight’s debate, she should have suggested that if Obama was going to continue to “borrow” his sound-bites, maybe Deval Patrick should be running for President.

It’s starting to look like the Vodkapundit is right:

This is the hillary Clinton who had some bloggers — including me — buying into this counterfactual nonsense that she’d prove to be “the most uncompromising wartime leader in American history?” Oh, please — she can’t even stand up to Barack Obama.

Perhaps all this time it’s not been Barack but Hillary for whom there is no “there” there.

3 Comments »

Obama the Confident:

Barack Obama’s campaign, riding a wave of 10 straight victories in the contest for the Democratic nomination after wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii, today urged Hillary Clinton to bow to the inevitable and accept defeat.

Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, dismissed her camp’s hopes of making a comeback when the power states of Texas and Ohio hold their primaries on March 4, and said Clinton would be unable to bridge a widening gap in delegates.

“This is a wide, wide lead right now,” Plouffe said in a conference call with reporters. “The Clinton campaign keeps saying the race is essentially tied. That’s just lunacy.”

The argument from the Obama camp appears designed to paint Clinton as a nuisance candidate — much like Mike Huckabee who has continued to fight for the Republican nomination even though it is mathematically impossible for him to catch up to John McCain’s lead in delegates.

Shaun Mullen writing at The Moderate Voice takes a look at the delegate race and agrees that Clinton is unlikely to prevail as eventual candidate, but finds Plouffe’s comments to be mere … Plouffery:

I’ve been killing a goodly number of brain cells lately trying to figure out how Hillary Clinton can keep from driving off the electoral cliff, but I keep shooting blanks.

For one thing, the mathematical deck is now stacked against her. She needs to win the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4 by huge margins, but that looks increasingly unlikely, while a big win in Pennsylvania on April 22, where she doesn’t even have a full delegate slate, would be too little too late.

With voting over in all but 14 states, Barack Obama leads Clinton 1,336-1,251 in delegates, according to The Associated Press’s count, with 2,025 needed to secure the nomination.

[...]

So what’s a cooked goose to do?

Certainly not concede, as Obama’s campaign manager suggested in an atypically silly remark. What Clinton is left with is stealing and attacking.

Stealing as in trying to manipulate the superdelegate count and get delegates seated who are pledged to her from Florida and Michigan. Because of the longtime connections that she and Bill Clinton have to the party establishment, she would seem to have the inside track on this.

Atypically silly or not, I think it’s indicative of how much Obamamentum the campaign has right now. I think Mullen’s right as rain about Hillary needing the superdelegates to pull this thing out, as well as at least some of Obama’s pledged delegates and/or getting the Michigan and Florida contingent seated. While the race isn’t anywhere near final, I do believe it’s Obama’s to lose.

Even so, advising your opponent to just quit at this stage is a bit much.

No Comments »

In my most recent post, I referred to the cool cash that at least one of the Democrat candidates is spreading around her community.

Cash abounds in the Democratic world! My liberal friends squeal about the money that they believe transfers from Republicans to big biz. It’s true – and that is part of why many of us who want small government desire such. If the money doesn’t come in, it can’t go anywhere.

If you think that Republicans are the only ones who like to throw money around, however – please quickly be disabused of this notion.

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

My thanks to Duane at Black Informant for the link.

No Comments »

..don’t quite work:

photo: Alan Chan

No Comments »

Are you one of those who says there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates?

If so – well, viva la difference.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year’s spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

No Comments »

Hillary is Tracy Flick.

HT: All of it

No Comments »

After reading this, boy; do I want to disown being a woman or what? (Warning; do have an air sickness bag nearby prior to clicking on the link!)

Looking at the choices, we began, by rote, to reach up toward the candidate we liked the most, or respected most deeply, or felt was the most competent, or had settled on as the lesser of two evils.

And then, our hands stretched out, we froze. We realized, in a moment of quiet joy – we could vote for a woman.

Someone like us. A woman as equally derided as loved, yes. A woman full of flaws and virtues, yes. A woman who, like so many of her generation, seems to have worked harder than any man to arrive where she is.

A woman who, as we would see in the news later, made a questionable wardrobe choice that day. A woman who probably longed to talk to her husband and daughter as she spent the day with strangers.

A woman who seems to believe that we can do better, for ourselves and for each other. An imperfect woman, just like us. A woman.

And so, we wept – one tear wiped briskly away, or floods shed, not so dissimilar to how she had cried herself, just a few weeks ago. And we had the thought, so rare in America these long, difficult days, of patriotism, thinking: Look how far we’ve come.

1 Comment »

Do you want the best possible result? Sure; don’t we all?

When I play bridge, we frequently say: “I didn’t get the best possible result. But – I got the best result possible.” Sometimes, the best possible result is impossible to get. And – you don’t always get what you want.

These very important lessons are highlighted in this spot-on essay from the Weekly Standard: The Inconvenient Truths of 2008.

Each party’s base has two inconvenient truths it doesn’t want to hear. For Republicans, those truths concern immigration and the culture war. Most of today’s illegal immigrant population is here to stay (along with their descendants) and will pay no significant price for getting here outside the legal channels. No presidential candidate can change those facts. On the issue that matters most to conservative Christians–abortion–the political phase of the culture war is over. The right lost –a pro-life initiative failed in South Dakota in 2006: If it can’t win there, it can’t win anywhere. Well, maybe Utah.

For Democrats, the relevant subjects are Iraq and federal spending. Discussions of the Iraq war in Democratic primaries have a bizarre quality: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama speak as though the war is a lost cause. It isn’t–unless one of them wins the election and pulls the plug, a scenario that Iran’s proxies no doubt await eagerly. As for spending, the federal budget (and federal tax revenues) will leave no room for large, expensive, New Deal-style health and education programs. For the foreseeable future, domestic policymaking will have more to do with arranging incentives than with dispensing largesse: Think welfare reform, not Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

If Republicans fail to understand their unpleasant truths, they will lose in November, and lose badly. Democrats might win even if their heads remain in the sand: It’s a Democratic year, as a comparison between the two parties’ fundraising, turnout, and vote totals in the primaries to date suggests. But they will lose the chance to have the kind of public debate that shapes government policy–meaning, the kind that is based on truth, convenient and otherwise.

Will we elect a leader who tells us the truth – even if those truths are not what we want, and not what we want to hear?

Sad to say, the candidate who most often tells unhappy truths may not turn out to be the candidate who wins the most votes. Elections are not always won by truth-tellers; deception sometimes carries the day. John F. Kennedy, whose presidency is often invoked these days, won a close national election by describing an imaginary gap between the Soviet Union’s arsenal of missiles and our own. If something similar happens this year, if the next president wins by promising limitless spending with limited taxes or a costless retreat in Iraq, voters should not blame the winning candidate. In politics as in markets, customers rule; we usually get the leaders we want. The trick is to want the right leaders. We might start by asking who tells us the truth–even, or especially, when it hurts.

You get what you pay for. What will we be purchasing come November?

No Comments »

photo: Steve Kaiser

Have you ever taken a moment to read some of the many Huckabee blogs that have sprung up over the past months? They’re really quite strange. For instance, here is a snippet from a Blogs 4 Huckabee post on Ann Coulter’s infamous endorsement of Hillary Clinton:

If the Democrats win, the American people will flock to the Party of God. As it is, 8 years of moral, sensible government have made the American people complacent, and ripe for the lies and distortions of a deviant candidate like Hitlery.

As usual, Coulter’s one of the smarter analysts out there. (I do wish she’d strap her chest down, but otherwise I also find her a very moral, and very alluring, woman.) Where I tend to disagree with her is her failure to endorse Brownback. I’m not sure America can stand 4 years of Hitlery, even if it’s followed by another 2 decades of Republican dominance. We’re still languishing under a recession caused by Bill Clinton; do we really want a Hitlery recession added onto that? We’ll be in the Great Depression in no time if we keep letting Democrats rule us.
(Blogs 4 Huckabee)

Probably the most disturbing element of this is his using the term “Party of God” in a sincere and supportive way to describe the GOP. “Party of God” in Arabic is literally “Hezbollah.”

But where do you even proceed from there? Moral yet alluring? A recession caused by Bill Clinton in 2008, Ann Coulter as the smartest “analyst,” with her only fault being a failure to endorse Sam Brownback of all things? Yes, this is pretty much beyond criticism, and well into the realm of opinions which are simply too bizarre to seriously comment on.

1 Comment »

Is the Iraq War hurting John McCain’s candidacy? By “hurting” I’m referring to his struggle to be the true conservative candidate who unites the party. Despite his clear lead in the primary race, McCain has not been able to capture the Christian right (who predominantly go for Huckabee), nor has he been able to win many races without the help of independent voters (strict conservatives breaking mostly for Romney). Indeed, Republicans don’t even seem terribly motivated this election season, as nearly double the number of Democratic voters went to the polls on Super Tuesday compared to Republicans (14.7 million vs. just 8.9 million). Meanwhile, the conservative and libertarian intelligensia (as well as yours truly) have been sniping at McCain from the right, including right-wing diva Ann Coulter who declared that she’ll vote for Hillary (yes, Hillary!) over John McCain. So, what’s going on here when even the hated Hillary Clinton can’t seem to force a consensus amongst the Republican Party to vote for the Maverick?

Amidst the internecine fighting on the right over the McCain “inevitability” train, something has been forgotten: there’s a discernible, even palpable, glimmer of hope on the Iraqi horizon. If Republican voters were as concerned about the Iraq War now as they were in 2004, then McCain would be winning hands down at this point. Since the only positive reason anyone can put forth to vote for McCain is his stance on the war in Iraq [Ed. -- OK, there's this too], it stands to reason that any diminution in the war’s importance as an election issue correlates to a decrease in support for McCain’s candidacy.

In other words, as Republican voters become less concerned about how the war will turn out, they place more importance on other issues — e.g. the economy, abortion, earmarks, values, etc. Because McCain is not perceived as being reliably conservative on all these other issues, he faces greater scrutiny from opinion-makers seeking to advance the small-government, conservative (or libertarian) agenda, and Republicans in general feel free to focus on issues that are closer to home for them personally. Much like Peg suggested as the reason for Rudy’s campaign fizzling out, McCain’s lackluster support amongst the Party base seems to be greatly affected by the decreased urgency and anxiety of the Iraq War, and worries about terrorism in general.

Taking this hypothesis to its logical conclusion, is it possible that Bush’s successes with respect to the GWOT, including the relative post-surge calm in Iraq, will be the undoing of a Republican presidency? Are we on the verge of the Republican Party faithful, who are not only “not in love” with McCain, but also threatening not to “fall in line”, blaming Bush for the loss of the White House? These are strange political times indeed.

2 Comments »

Have you ever met a politician who didn’t make promises that could not be delivered? I haven’t, either.

Of course, there are promises… and then there are promises.

If you are someone with an adjustable rate mortgage who has run aground, then you might like Hillary Clinton’s promise to freeze interest rates for five years. If you’re all the rest of us, however….

The Clinton proposal is a blunt tool applied too broadly to problems that are, in principle, contained and specific. Only 3.1 percent of prime (good credit) ARM loans are seriously (90 days or more) delinquent. The disconcerting delinquency rate of 16 percent is for the subprime sector–which is alarming, to be sure, but 84 percent are not seriously delinquent. Over the last three years there was an unusually large volume of aggressive lending activity with flaws at several levels. Some borrowers were led into loans they did not understand. These people deserve some concern. Other loans were made to speculators who do not live in the homes and were betting that house prices would continue to go up. The inhabitants of these homes deserve our concern, but the investors do not. It is now clear that there were too few checks and controls to assure reasonable loan underwriting practices (for example, no escrow accounts for taxes and insurance) or even good recordkeeping.

An accurate assessment of the current mortgage problem would probably reveal no more than 700,000 loans with distressed borrowers. Why, then, would the U.S. government rewrite eleven million loans, or even all 3.4 million subprime mortgages? Any intervention should be targeted at the borrowers who are truly in trouble, especially those who were likely duped by unscrupulous mortgage lenders. The numbers suggest these victims are disproportionately poor, young, and African American. Looking forward, the government needs to take steps to make this market more transparent and make it easier for borrowers to make good choices. But it would be irresponsible to do this by ruling millions of legal contracts null and void.

Senator Clinton’s policy amounts to a command-and-control approach to economic policy in which the government announces prices and tells suppliers what to produce. Undertaking such an intervention can only raise interest rates on mortgages (and maybe other interest rates as well) as markets attempt to incorporate risk premiums to cope with possible future interventions. Promising the American people that you can fix things by just lowering their interest rates is dishonest, a fairy tale that won’t come true.

I’m all for examining various remedies to modify the pain from the current mortgage and housing difficulties. Yet, the notion that we should undertake to destroy contracts and the relationships between investors and lenders is a bit frightening.

Of course, I find a lot about Senator Clinton to be on the frightening side….

No Comments »

In electing a President we are rarely presented with candidates who represent our views, so in the end it really comes down to prioritizing. Frankly I may yet again not vote for a major party candidate, but if I do one issue of great importance to me, though not mentioned nearly often enough, is a candidates devotion to free trade.

This is not merely because of its importance to our own economic health, though the negative impact if the views of Hillary were to become actual policy would be extremely negative. The consequences would far outstrip the housing and credit crisis that is presently plunging us into recession.

Of even greater importance to those of us who are not nationalist in our views, is the impact upon billions of others, primarily the impoverished people of Africa and Asia. The transformation in the living standards of the people’s of Asia over the last twenty years has been overall the most important story for mankind by far in most of our lifetimes. A breakdown in the global trading system would cause more suffering than al Qaeda can even contemplate.

So read this by David Ranson for a review of what the candidates have said about trade. Obama seems preferable to Hillary, though his rhetoric is vague. However, his hiring of Austen Goolsby gives me some comfort.

On the Republican side the clear favorite should be McCain, though he has suggested some pretty expansive views on how to help dislocated workers adjust.

On this issue McCain is the clear choice overall.

Hat tip: Instapundit

1 Comment »

Radical feminist Robin Morgan, on why she’s rising in “furious energy” for Hillary Clinton as she did for Anita Hill: “I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman–but because I am.” Which is of course an even more self-demeaning way of saying the same biologically sectarian thing: faction, conferred by circumstances beyond my control, predetermines my ideas and predestines my loyalties. Blut und Boden and all that. (via: Hilary Rosen)

2 Comments »

Well, Fred wasn’t in the game. It seems to me, that both he and Rudy damaged their campaigns by not entering and participating early enough. We don’t get to vote in a primary here in Indiana for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling the Republican nominee will be locked in by then.

Glenn has a few interesting links…

http://instapundit.com/archives2/014970.php

After seven years of watching and fighting against Americans who wish to see the country suffer so that they can get at George Bush, the last thing I wanted or expected to see was conservatives saying they would rather see the country suffer than support John McCain over Clinton or Obama, so that they can “get the blame.”

A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either.

Good point to remember come November, the choice isn’t between two evils, it’s between the less then perfect Republican, and the far less perfect Democrat. Who matches more closely to your view on issues? That’s who you should think about voting for.

Glenn also says “To me this seems like much ado about nothing. McCain and Romney are both moderate Republicans; the differences between them have been exaggerated by those who don’t like McCain, and don’t have much bearing on what’s good for the country.”

He also linked to the Corner, where Stephen Spruiell remarks about McCain’s speech last night. I wasn’t watching any coverage last night. We watched NCIS and House, then watched the local weather radar when the Super Duper thunderstorms that moved through our area. So, I looked up McCain’s speech on his website, and it reads pretty good. It will also be interesting to see his reception at CPAC. Given all this I would probably support McCain in the general election. I don’t know what choices I’ll have for the primary in Indiana, so we’ll see the day of what I do.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=dd8d63d6-c35b-4af7-9684-cf8e9bcb118f

if I am so fortunate to win your nomination, I will work hard to ensure that the conservative philosophy and principles of our great party — principles that have done so well by the country we love — will again win the votes of a majority of the American people, and defeat any candidate our friends in the other party nominate. I am as confident tonight as I have ever been that we can succeed in November by uniting our party in our determination to keep our country safe, proud, prosperous and free, and by again making a persuasive case to independents and to those enlightened members of the other party that the great Ronald Reagan claimed for our party.

We will do it by standing up forcefully for those principles that have made our party and our country so successful, and by rejecting appeals for retreat and timidity in the face of the challenges of our time, challenges which are our duty and privilege to overcome. If I am the nominee of our party, I will not let anyone take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us some of our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives, or when we turned away from threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. I have lived my adult life with one purpose greater than all others: to keep America safe from all enemies foreign and domestic. And I will never tire of the honor.

I am a Republican because, like you, I want to relieve the American people of the heavy hand of a government that spends too much of your money on things you neither want nor need, while failing to do as well as we should the things none of us can do individually. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is measured in losses so hard to bear and in the heartbreak of so many families. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; and enforce the rule of law, which is the first defense of freedom. I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility. I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that government should tax us no more than necessary, spend no more than necessary, and keep out of the way of the most industrious, ingenious, and optimistic people in the history of the world . I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that it is the strength, courage, wisdom and patriotism of free people — not the government — who have made this country the extraordinarily successful place it is. My friends, my purpose is to preserve and strengthen our freedom, the freedom I have defended all my adult life, and I will not let anyone or anything deter me.

Nothing in America is inevitable. We are the captains of our fate. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage and stand by our principles. I intend to make my stand on those principles, and trust in the judgment of the American people I serve. So stand up with me, my friends, stand up, and together let us put America — her strength, her ideals, her future — before all else. It is an honor greater than all others to serve this country, the love of my life, and I thank you from the bottom of heart for helping me serve her a little while longer.

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds and Gateway Pundit for taking note! Check out Lee’s take on the ecumenical reform coalition. While you are here ponder Europe and the non-economic man, take a quick presidential quiz and see who you really agree with. Do some candidates supporters pose a public safety threat? Explore the African Oil Boom and ask yourself why this isn’t on more people’s radar?

UPDATE:

Another good point linked from Glenn, Ilya Simon @ The Volokh Conspiracy

Many conservatives either supported or at least refused to aggressively oppose the Bush Administration’s massive expansion of domestic spending, most notably his prescription drug and education plans. They did so in part because conservatives for a long time felt a sense of affinity with Bush and trusted him. There is very little such trust between conservatives and McCain. It will therefore be much more difficult for him to win conservative support for comparable boondoggles.

That, combined with the restraining influence of divided government, will make it much harder for McCain to enact major new statist policies than it was for Bush during the years when he had a Republican majority in Congress. McCain might even end up emphasizing his anti-spending instincts in order to shore up conservative support.

18 Comments »

It’s important! Please… pretty please. Republicans for Hillary! I am one of ‘em.

Hillary entered the race saddled with inherent weaknesses. She has the kind of negative ratings candidates usually have only after the battering of a general-election campaign, not before. Her political persona ranges from grim to charmless. She may relentlessly call herself an “agent of change,” but she’s emblematic of an entire era of search-and-destroy partisan politics.

She is the Tony Robbins of negative Republican motivation. At a town-hall meeting in Derry, N.H., back in January, Mitt Romney tried to stir the crowd in the immediate wake of Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa: “We cannot afford Barack Obama as the next president.” About two people applauded. The next day he mentioned Obama again, but added, “I can’t wait to meet Hillary Clinton face to face.” Sustained applause.

“She has tremendous baggage, high negatives, and she can’t be the candidate of change,” says a top Republican strategist who pines for her to be the nominee.

Obama may give inspiring speeches at campaign events thronged by thousands, but for Republicans, there’s only one candidate of hope: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

1 Comment »

My sister sent me this short quiz today. Sometimes they seem a waste of time – but – this one did appear to fairly accurately represent my views.

	John McCain Score: 44	Agree Iraq Immigration Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Social Security Line-Item Veto Energy Marriage Environment	Disagree Abortion Death Penalty Gun Control Education

Enjoy!

2 Comments »

United has announced that it will charge some flyers if they wish to check a second bag. $25 is the expected tab if you don’t travel light.

I wonder; what will the charge be for Hillary’s extra baggage?

Questions about Hillary’s role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill’s business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.

Why won’t the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what — other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit — did they hope to get out of the exercise?

Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary’s foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation’s priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?

It’s natural to ask whether Bill Clinton is grasping at the chance for an Act II of his presidency to redeem the Clinton name from the impeachment scandal. It’s also natural to ask whether he’s capable of playing second fiddle to anyone, even his wife.

Hillary Clinton had to know she was bringing this baggage along when she boarded the train. She’ll be stuck with it the rest of the way.

No Comments »

Hillary Clinton on the Republican party: “I wish they would just stand up and say, ‘We are so embarrassed. We’re not going to run anyone.’” Of course her tired passive aggressive routine quickly returned when she added about Republican front-runner John McCain: “I respect him.” Sure. Poor Barack Obama has been having to put up with that kind of double-talking scurrility for a good year now.

No Comments »

That age has come and gone. This is the age of boorishness; sad, but true.

It is very hard to think like a Democrat. Please take this as a gentle reminder: to many of Hillary’s women fans the fact that Obama stood up and helped her with her chair is a reason to resent him and to vote against him. If he’s caught holding a door for her he’ll be finished.

Alas and alack.

No Comments »

Video of Ann Coulter endorsing Hillary Clinton and pledging to campaign for her. Perhaps a worse political catastrophe for Team Hillary than drivers licenses for illegals.

No Comments »

What candidates believe about the economy, the military, social values, health care, energy policy, education – and on and on and on and on – is of course critical.  Nevertheless, something else is integral to selecting a candidate to represent our nation.  That something is the character of an individual.

We have been given a window into the character of at least one candidate.  It is not pretty.

Mrs. Clinton’s willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that’s paralyzed Washington for too many years, and the cynicism felt by so many Americans, especially the young. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. Once elected, the candidate falsely believes that he or she will be able to set things right and govern differently. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized — it will be forgiven and forgotten as part of the hyperbole of the election process.

Sadly, it just isn’t so. No one forgets and no one forgives in Washington. (Ask John Kerry if he has gotten over the Swift boat smear campaign.) How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage.

(Cross posted at Whatif?)

1 Comment »