Saturday, December 15, 2007

What would be a miracle?

Bill Clinton, interviewed by Charlie Rose said, "'It would be a miracle if Hillary wins in Iowa, and I'm not just low-balling you.'" He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win." However, the former President also said Hillary was far better qualified that Obama, saying "it's not even close" and emphasizing the so-called experience gap by saying the public might as well choose "a television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national office than Obama. Always the avuncular, genial soul of wit, Bill Clinton saved the worst digs for the last.



Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama. ...

He attributed his wife's decline in Iowa to the press overplaying her poor answer to one debate question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Clinton did say that he gets "tickled" watching Obama because of his attractiveness and political skills. "I like all these people," he said. "I have nothing bad to say about him or anyone else."

Bill and Hillary's renewed emphasis on being her being "vetted" suggests that, declarations to the contrary, the Clinton campaign has not yet taken its secret weapons off the table -- just positioning them for a better thrust. After some experimentation they understand there are better and worse ways to stick in the knife. Using third parties to hit Obama has apparently backfired. So now she's playing the I'm-cleared-but-can-you-be game. We don't know what dirty secret Hillary's got up her sleeve, but if the religious and chemical hints foreshadow the hell she can unleash, it must be pretty corrosive stuff indeed.

Could Hillary be bluffing? The one person who knows for sure is Barack Obama. If it's a bluff then Obama will eventually call it. If it isn't a bluff then Hillary is counting on it inhibiting Obama in some meaningful way. The problem is that unleashing such potent ordnance means there will be a lot of collateral damage within the party. The two subjects of innuendo -- Islam and drugs -- are fault lines that could rip that ole' big tent right down the middle. It's use will open up a new phase of bloodletting in the Democratic party in which Obama may give as good as he gets -- and in both those departments too. Edwards of course, stands to benefit in relative terms by watching the Clash of Titans. But even he may not escape the damage to the Democrat party as a whole if a full scale campaign of negatives breaks out.

But maybe it's already too late. Washington's years of business as usual is bound to leave its mark. Maybe there's so much dry tinder it doesn't matter where the spark starts. The Washington Post reports that a large part of the Clinton Library's funding came from Saudi Arabia.

Bill Clinton's presidential library raised more than 10 percent of the cost of its $165 million facility from foreign sources, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia, according to interviews yesterday.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.

The Clinton library has steadfastly declined to reveal its donors, saying they were promised confidentiality. The William J. Clinton Foundation, which funds the library, is considered a charity whose contributors can remain anonymous. ...

"As president, he was beloved around the world, so it should come as no surprise that there has been an outpouring of financial support from around the world to sustain his post-presidential work," a foundation statement said....

39 Comments:

Blogger Teresita said...

Bill Clinton, interviewed by Charlie Rose said, "'It would be a miracle if Hillary wins in Iowa, and I'm not just low-balling you.'

If the interviewer was female, he would be low-balling her, high-balling her, and balling her any way he could. But they should watch out, in 2004 it was Dean and Gephart who were the front-runners before the Iowa caucuses, and they went negative, and after Iowa only Kerry and Edwards were left standing. It seems that Iowans don't like flying slime.

12/15/2007 04:32:00 AM  
Blogger hdgreene said...

95 percent of African American Woman vote for the Democrat. To "win dirty" over Obama may cause them to stay home. The problem for Democrats: if the Clintons don't win the nomination, they are not going to care.

Another problem: once Hillary attacks Obama (and now any "nameless" assault on the man will be linked to her) than Edward's has an opening to attack Hillary on unsavory campaign donations. But I think the Clinton's can make short work of Edwards.

But the Democrats still have Richardson and Biden. With this Iraq thing working out, I recommend they draft Joe Lieberman -- for the good of the party.

12/15/2007 04:43:00 AM  
Blogger Peter said...

We can only hope and pray for the day when the words "Clinton" or "Bush" do not pass the lips of any person on earth.

12/15/2007 05:15:00 AM  
Blogger buck smith said...

Is there a reference I a missing - "...might as well choose "a television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national office than Obama." ?? Please someone, 'splain for me, thanks in advance.

12/15/2007 06:06:00 AM  
Blogger herb said...

An earlier discussion talked about the proposition that HRC could lose the nomination and the portents for the Dems if she did.

Please note that most of the polling says that something around 50% of the American people will not vote for her. Im not so sure that her losing the nomination is the worst outcome for the Dems. If she wins the nomination ugly (which is how it looks now), she’ll drop some otherwise HRC voters thru disgust. Then if the Reps come up with an otherwise credible nominee (Romney or Guiliani or Thompson even), she will lose in November.

If the stakes weren’t so high, that would be sort of a sad thing since Clinton III would really be a show. All the shenanigans and realtime historical accountability.

12/15/2007 06:24:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Buck Smith: Is there a reference I a missing - "...might as well choose "a television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national office than Obama." ?? Please someone, 'splain for me, thanks in advance.

Because Hillary was sworn into the Senate on 1/3/01, four years before Barack, which gives her nearly seven years of national service, as opposed to Barack's mere three years of national service. The first three years in the Senate you don't really do anything, see, and you might as well moonlight as a television announcer.

12/15/2007 07:02:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

HDGreene: With this Iraq thing working out, I recommend they draft Joe Lieberman -- for the good of the party.

Joe Lieberman is anathema to Democrats, because he lets Bush kiss him and sheet.

12/15/2007 07:06:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/15/2007 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Now that post-NIE America is the good cop, 27 European nations are playing bad cop. The leaders of 27 European Union nations issued a declaration on Friday calling for increased sanctions against Iran if Teheran does not stop its nuclear enrichment activity, Army Radio reported.

12/15/2007 07:26:00 AM  
Blogger chris said...

just because hillary (or bill) says she's been vetted doesn;t make it so. anyone think bill has been a boy scout these last 8 years ? anyone think there might be a few videos of bill "in action" floating around ?

in any event, obama doesn't need any dirt to break hillary; he has already found his way into her head and he will keep working on her and causing more and more extreme reactions in her camp.

it's actually quite simple, talk in a quiet comforting voice, about things (and there are lots of them) she doesn't like, causing maximum contrast with her paranoid rantings and nasty demeanor.

12/15/2007 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

What would be a miracle?

how about a Democrack saying plainly what it is they believe or even what ideas they champion.

Now that would be a miracle.

12/15/2007 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Wadeusaf: how about a Democrack saying plainly what it is they believe or even what ideas they champion.

Romney flip-flopped on abortion, Giuliani flip-flopped on gun control, Huckabee flip-flopped on the Cuba embargo, Thompson flip-flopped on immigration, and you have a problem with the Dems?

12/15/2007 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

you have a problem with the Dems?

Yes.

There's a difference between flip-flopping and lying.

I don't have a problem with flip-flopping through the years because things change and so should world views. For example, I didn't really give a rat's ass about Arabs before 9/11 whereas I care rather passionately about what happens to them now.

But, when someone flip-flops within the space of one answer to a question, then how do we know if that person is a habitual liar, hallucinating, a potential bribe-taker, or just has no moral internal compass to listen to.

12/15/2007 09:56:00 AM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

Teresita:

Romney flip-flopped on abortion, Giuliani flip-flopped on gun control, Huckabee flip-flopped on the Cuba embargo, Thompson flip-flopped on immigration, and you have a problem with the Dems?

Yup! The cited changes of stance amount to determinations that a different tact may be required to achieve a desired result. I am not familiar with nor care about hyped flipping or over dramatized flopping so long as the goal is consistent, and the discussions arriving at the goal logical.

In the first instance (to paraphrase) Abortion is wrong, but it is the law of the land, therefore I will uphold the law. I believe that is the stance today.

As written, signed into law and made palatable twenty some years ago, the Immigration bill was supposed to be followed up by reforms of the institutions in place to inform and to enforce the laws. That change has not occurred. So I believe the goal is the same, the expectations that benchmarks will be actively pursued has changed.

Gulliani does have a problem with Gun control statements which do not match actual policy, but made for good sound bites at the time.
I do not know enough about Huckabee's determinations on Cuba to say if his stance is a bid for Latin votes or a real change of heart.

In all the instances you cite save one, policy is determined by a set of beliefs bounded by a philosophy. It is the view of an effective policy that has changed, not the belief.

Even if in all of these instances, these guys are shown to be prostitution their position for votes, at least we know what the basis for the statement is supposed to be.

Show me a statement that indicates a foundation of a firmly held belief issued by a Democrat. Show me a consistant set of values that would allow a citizen to reasonably decide on what side of an issue a Democrat ought to be? There is not one.

Oh and believing the Constitution is "a living, breathing instrument of change" doesn't count.

12/15/2007 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

People draw circles that divide the “us” from the “them”. In general conservatives draw tighter circles, they tend to be particularist. Just their class, religion, race, etc. are considered “us” while all others are “them”. Conversely liberals tend to have larger us-circles; an extreme liberal, or universalist, would include almost everyone in their circle, paedophiles, murderers, etc.

The key to politics is for a politician to position himself within the voters us-circles while demonstating that his opponent is or represents “them”.

One hundred years ago very few white people considered any blacks within their “us” circle. In October or 1901, Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner. At that point in history, if there was any black man that whites would include within their us-circle it would have been Mr. Washington. However, when news of this shared meal reached the general public their was a strong outcry.

The Senior Senator from South Carolina, Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, was quoted as saying “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they will learn their place again.” Major southern newspapers ran headlines such as ... Roosevelt Dines a Darkey … A Rank Negrophilist … Our Coon-Flavored President … Roosevelt Proposes to Coddle the Sons of Ham.

Thankfully are country has advanced quite some distance since those days. The final strides were taken after 9/11 after which the most entrenched racist elements succumbed to both social pressure and a new opportunity and started vicariously to hate Islam. Now hyperbole like Senator Tillman’s is confined to outbursts about the Muslim Middle East (MME), the main difference being that the hate must increase exponentially in relation to distance from the objects of the hate and so one thousand dead will not just due and the calls nowadays are for every Muslim to be killed under certain conditions. Which isn't to say that some Muslim's don't deserve to be hated, some certainly do, just as back in the day some blacks certainly deserved their fate. The problem is the vast majority did not.

And the fact that racism has diminished can allow more people to focus on the self-destructive nature of much current black ghetto culture as the reason for the miserable conditions many black Americans live in.

In recent political history we have Bill Clinton’s Sister Souljah-moment where he demonstrated to America that their “them“-blacks were his “them“-blacks. The Willie Horton brouhaha was an attempt by the Bush I campaign to place and obvious “them”-black in Dukakis’s us-circle.

Nowadays most whites include a healthy proportion of blacks within their us-circles. But there are certainly portions of the black population that are firmly in the “them” world. Oprah Winfrey would certainly be the strongest symbol of an “us” black while the stereotypical angry black drugged out criminal sitting in a prison cell is the definitive “them”.

And so in the Democratic primary Obama by using Oprah is trying to cement himself into the us-circle of potential voters. In sharp contrast Hillary, by mentioning Obama’s drug use as a young man, is hoping that the mental image produced will be enough to swing voters in Iowa, who have little experience with blacks, into imagining that Obama is really some Snoop Doggy Dogg-type character.

What goes unmentioned, and what most informed Democratic voters will key on, is that Bill Clinton framed Republicans in a positive light as if they would never run a candidate with a history of drug use. The current sitting President contradicts that notion. What is ironic in all this is that this time the Republicans might just run a guy who has never done drugs, or drank a beer, or even ordered a coffee. And the goody-two-shoes nature of Mitt Romney may even cost him a few votes as some people may find his substance abuse purity somewhat unsettling enough to get him relegated to the them-circle. In any case, if Romney does get the Republican nomination, his people will not be asking which of the candidates would you rather have a beer with.

12/15/2007 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Wadeusaf: Show me a statement that indicates a foundation of a firmly held belief issued by a Democrat. Show me a consistant set of values that would allow a citizen to reasonably decide on what side of an issue a Democrat ought to be? There is not one.

Hillary Clinton said, "We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create." Then she put those words into action by sponsoring legislation to reduce the deficit by reinstating some taxes that were cut.

12/15/2007 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

Teresita, those words are an emotional appeal, the tax may or may not be based on a philosophy of government or philosophy of man, of course we cannot say because there is no notion of a philosophy available to draw any conclusion.

"Its for the Children" is not a basis for governing. it is not even a statement of intent.

Kevin, some folks would find it fascinating, in a totally twisted way, to have a beer with Mitt. I am not one of them.

12/15/2007 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

The fact that our President was able to conquer Demon Rum should be viewed as a strength of his character, and I dare say if he had a D at the end of his name the media would be lauding that accomplishment rather than using his addiction as a cheap way to throw digs at the man. It is easy to fall into the trap, far harder to pull oneself out of it once caught. Most Americans understand this and I think past drug/alcohol use ranks pretty low on their concerns about a candidate. That Obama did drugs in the past gets a big so-what from most voters. But dealing drugs would be a different matter. I find it interesting to see that little stink bomb was dropped by the Clinton camp and it promptly blew up in their faces. Couldn't have happened to better bunch of slimeballs. Will be intersting to see what new lowball tactics the Clintons pull next. Getting out the popcorn. As Bette Davis once famously said, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

12/15/2007 12:35:00 PM  
Blogger Zenster said...

kevin: Now hyperbole like Senator Tillman’s is confined to outbursts about the Muslim Middle East (MME), the main difference being that the hate must increase exponentially in relation to distance from the objects of the hate and so one thousand dead will not just due and the calls nowadays are for every Muslim to be killed under certain conditions. Which isn't to say that some Muslim's don't deserve to be hated, some certainly do, just as back in the day some blacks certainly deserved their fate. The problem is the vast majority did not.

Without wishing to steer things off topic, you seem to be equating anti-Islamic sentiment with racism. Please don't do that. Islam is not a race, it is a creed. More often than not, it is Muslims who trot out the race card in response to entirely justified criticism.

While Southern blacks may have suffered from lack of education and cultural disparity that has nothing in common with a creed of barbaric violence, institutionalized misogyny, sanctioned enforcement of an underclass, extreme xenophobia and religious conversion by force.

Racism is an unfounded prejudice against people of another race. Hatred of Islam arises from a refusal to tolerate the intolerable. There is a vast difference between the two.

12/15/2007 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Kevin's basic argument: Dems are better than Reps because all Reps (and whites) are racist.

Well, thanks for clearing that up! I must go and loathe myself for a good five minutes of hate!

Second argument: objecting to Muslims flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of Americans is racist! Well thanks for that too. Glad to know I don't even have a right to exist. Because some South Carolina yahoo 100 years ago expressed noxious racist sentiments!

These sentiments expressed by Kevin are the fault lines of the Democratic Party which the Clinton-Obama struggles exemplify.

On the one hand is the relentless, constant, search for moral and spiritual and status superiority as expressed by Kevin. The luxury of too much wealth, security, and boredom. Obama appeals to this group because he shows their status, moral superiority, etc. Note the "hidden" argument of Kevin: If you don't vote/support the Black Man you're racist.

[Racism being flung about so handily, ala Univ. of Delaware's assertion that all Whites are racist, it has no meaning whatsoever any more. Investigating Al Sharpton's financial scams is racist. Being white is racist. Breathing is racist.]

The other wing is the pitiful remnants of the FDR-LBJ tradition. Which focuses on concrete objectives such as building dams, highways, Or Head Start, GI Bill, etc. Such as it was (in debased midnight Basketball) that is the Clinton wing. Much of the Clinton objectives is pure political patronage.

As to the hidden dirt on Obama, there probably are some scandals. Perhaps a hidden child, minor criminality, or some overt racist anti-White sentiment? Of course Hillary has many personal scandals herself centered around her relationship with Huma Abedin.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on Obama being triumphant since the Democratic Party consists of wealthy, bored, status-seeking rich people, coupled with various ethnic group machines and such. Blacks and La Raza. Explicitly seeking advantage at the expense of everyone else. Obama is likely the winning candidate for that coalition but the coalition itself is likely a losing proposition in the General Election

12/15/2007 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger Gerard said...

Bill and Hillary's Hippie Daze @ AMERICAN DIGEST

I think he received a rocket via telephone from Hillary herself. She wants no discussion of youthful drug experiments. And with reason. Reasons that go back to the Clintons' Berkeley Summer of Love in 1971 -- if not before.

12/15/2007 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Kevin, what race would you consider to be the world's Christians?

12/15/2007 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Adolf: Kevin, what race would you consider to be the world's Christians?

There are no races in the bible, only peoples and kindreds and tongues. Christians are the People of God, kindred to Jesus Christ the firstborn of God, and we speak the language of love.

12/15/2007 03:28:00 PM  
Blogger Jane said...

The Clintons have no cred, cumming or going. They're simply racy-- sorry, Teresita-- one for doing it on taxpayers' time and the other for not, except maybe with excepted, specially outed others who vote...

but ALWAYS, there are those in the media and cyberspace who persist in using the Clitons for their own dirty ends.

Jesus Christ, it's getting boring already, folks. Luv and Piece via modern pharma, the Kama Sutra and Good Book should be de rigueur, and candidates w/o sufficient carny and carnal knowledge should be disqualified on the spot.

Feminine petaled flower power to all men and wimmin on national tickets. A miracle would be Hillary lusting after Obama the Ova uberman.

Still, yech.

12/15/2007 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Could Hillary be bluffing? The one person who knows for sure is Barack Obama. If it's a bluff then Obama will eventually call it.

Just because Obama didn't actually do anything doesn't mean Hillary can't accuse him of just about any damned thing her pointy little head can come up with. I'm referring to Dan Rather's accusations about Bush's service in the military which were based on forged papers and people who mysteriously couldn't come forward to tell the world, "Yes, I said that."

Who knows what over-the-hill journalist HIllary has warming up in the bullpen waiting until an opportune moment to hurl his (or her) beanball accusation at Obama's head. Since it's several years later, forgeries might even have gotten up to the level of videotapes instead of just typed memo's.

* * *

Change of direction -- reading comments it seems to me that everyone is assuming Bill is just as down and deep and dirty as Hillary is in this campaign. I had always sort of thought as Bill being the King at the head of the procession continually asking, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest," while maintaining plausible deniability, and Hillary and Carville did the actual dirty deed in the background.

But everyone seems to think that Bill his very own self is a proficient knife-plunger-in-the-back, too. And that if Hillary's campaign is "panicked", then Bill is one of the main panic-ees. True?

Has Hillary EVER named a potential running mate for V-P? Has she ever NOT said that her V-P would be BIll?

12/15/2007 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger reoconnot said...

"However, the former President also said Hillary was far better qualified that Obama, saying "it's not even close" and emphasizing the so-called experience gap by saying the public might as well choose "a television commentator"..."

Or the public could elect someone as unqualifird as number 42, WJC. Yes, he has a great personality, and no one is as comfortable on the national stage, but what did he accomplish during his tenure as POTUS?

Yes, he signed the Republican Welfare Bill and he presided over a period of prosperity created by cashing -in on the peace dividend created by Reagan. But what did Bill Clinton acccomplish in his eight years in office?

The reality is he allowed dangers to gather. During his term in office, bin Laden -whom Clinton had ignored, preferring to concentrate on the issue of Monica-planned his attack on America, whom he rightly perceived as the weak horse, hamstrung as it was by the idiocy of Clinton's response to the threat, which may be summed up in one word(Gorlick).

Until such time as Islamic extremism is dealt with, and no longer a threat, the election of any Democrat(now clearly the party of appeasement and pacificism) as POTUS would be a serious mistake which will lead to the deaths of untold innocents.

This problem will be ignored at our peril.

12/15/2007 07:39:00 PM  
Blogger geoffb said...

NahnCee said...

Has Hillary EVER named a potential running mate for V-P? Has she ever NOT said that her V-P would be BIll?

I believe that he is not qualified as per the Constitution, no one can be VP who couldn't be President. Not that a little thing like the Constitution would ever bother that couple.

12/15/2007 08:02:00 PM  
Blogger bobal said...

"There are no races in the bible,"


Good Grief, Teresita, think that one over a little, wouldja?

12/15/2007 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

There have been two cases of father-son Presidents, the Adamses and the Bushes. Each had their own set of uncomfortability.

Hillary and co-President Bill would be a stratospheric level of uncomfortability. What would Bill's "shadows on the wall" authority be? Could he order Cabinet members and the Military around? Would he?

Many Dems are profoundly uncomfortable with that even though they recognize that Obama leads them down directly to raw identity politics with winners (wealthy whites, some ethnic groups) and every one else explicit losers.

12/15/2007 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Towering Barbarian said...

'Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted"'

*vetted*? o_O

**vetted**? O_o

What is she, a candidate or a pet? :P

Nice of Mr. Clinton to share the opinions of his nameless "Republican" friends, whoever they might be (If, of course, they actually exist outside his head!), but somehow the claim that he's made sure that hillary had been given her shots and spayed would seem to count as too much information! @_@

All jests aside, if I were Obama I would be inclined to pretend to believe that bit about "Republican friends" and make a few snide remarks about Democrats going outside the party for advice and maybe wonder out loud about just how well-intentioned for Democrats such advice might be. :P

"We don't know what dirty secret Hillary's got up her sleeve, but if the religious and chemical hints foreshadow the hell she can unleash, it must be pretty corrosive stuff indeed. Could Hillary be bluffing? The one person who knows for sure is Barack Obama. If it's a bluff then Obama will eventually call it. If it isn't a bluff then Hillary is counting on it inhibiting Obama in some meaningful way."

I suspect that the dirty secret in question is called "The Democratic Party of Illinois". If Hillary were to shine a light on the Democrats of that state and put on display the sort of people Obama endorsed and in turn was endorsed by it might indeed prove quite corrosive. But for a Democrat like her that would be like using an atomic hand grenade - Better have a good throwing arm when you do it! At the very least she would be alienating some of her best supporters and ceding Illinois to the GOP when the national election came around because you just know how much the Chicago Machine would be likely to do for her after that.

Depending on how the rest of the Democrats elsewhere feel about her spilling party skeletons from the Democratic closet out into the open it could, as you wrote, open up a new phase of bloodletting within the Democratic Party that none among them would escape. That's why Mr. Obama might not know whether or not Mrs. Clinton is bluffing - If someone is crazy enough to threaten to throw an atomic hand grenade that would surely get her as well then how do you know that she isn't crazy enough to do it? If you were Mr. Obama would *you* want to bet on Mrs. Clinton being sane? ^_~

But the second question Mr. Obama should ask himself would be this - In such an event, how many of her supporters would be stupid enough to jump off a cliff merely because Mrs. Clinton is stupid enough to do so? Are her supporters donkeys loyal to the party or merely lemmings? If the former would they not be likely to turn on her or abandon ship if she did something like this? So just because she might not be bluffing doesn't necessarily mean that Senator Obama would be likely to back down.

This should be fun to watch! ^_^

12/15/2007 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Jane said...

Ms. Clinton is sane, grounded, and a smart pol who would never lob an atomic hand grenade aimed at comrades in arms, despite the political battle, even though she's been well-supplied with munitions.

She's prolly praying to Allah for more unforced errors by Obama, but doesn't really need them, if the Clinton gang has kept its machine well-oiled.

This voter thinks Hill and Obama should just hold hands and act like grown-ups playing Hearts at the Community Center (for the press, country club for more productive private encounters.) Weathering rough campaigns and enduring ugly politicking serves what purpose- to elect a tough Prez who confuses who his real friends are, vilifies domestic pols, and then gazes into the cold eyes of enemy leaders and sees something redeeming there?

I had dearly hoped Carter and Bush were right, of course...

12/15/2007 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I believe that he is not qualified as per the Constitution, no one can be VP who couldn't be President.

Interesting. I hadn't considered that. I wonder if you could point me to the exact language, since I seem to remember that both Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwartzenegger have been discussed as possible VP candidates.

12/15/2007 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

The Vice President has same constitutional qualifications as the President and cannot come from the same state as the President. This really isn't a constitutional requirement. What the Constitution states is that if the candidates for President and Vice President come from the same state, the electors from that state could not vote for both. This might result in the Vice Presidential candidate receiving insufficiently many electoral votes for election even if the Presidential candidate is elected. In practice, this has been easily circumvented by having the Vice President change the state of residency as was done by Dick Cheney who changed his legal residency from Texas to Wyoming in order to serve as Vice President for George W. Bush. Because the 22nd Amendment would prohibit Bill Clinton from becoming President should Hillary meet an untimely end, he cannot be the Vice President.

12/16/2007 12:37:00 AM  
Blogger deepinjuncountry said...

Buck Smith—
My take on Clinton's TV commentator remark is that it is a subtle way of saying Obama's just another ignorant pretty face.

Also, I'm thinking that that whole to-do about Obama's kindergarten "essay" was a way of telling Obama that the Clinton's know everything there is to know about him. Look, we even interviewed your kindergarten teacher in Indonesia, do you think you can hide anything from us. We know what you're hiding.

12/16/2007 12:42:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

Zenster,

Racism is an unfounded prejudice against people of another race. Hatred of Islam arises from a refusal to tolerate the intolerable. There is a vast difference between the two.

In my comment I pointed out the similarity in the hyperbole between racists and the anti-Islam crowd. In response to your comment and further readings of Ben Tillman (a Democrat by the way) a far more interesting comparison is possible: that the historic American racists are quite similar to current day Jihadis and the anti-Islamic crowd could be seen in a role similar to the people and organizations that attempted to battle racism throughout America’s history.

Certainly the racist elements in America believed in dhimmitude, and that blacks should live as second class citizens. And the Klu Klux Klan certainly bears striking resemblance to Al Qaida in it efforts to exert its will by means of terror. And from Senator Tillman’s speeches you see an attitude towards women and honour killings that would be quite au courant in the Sudan:

"I have three daughters," he once told Congress, "but so help me God, I had rather find either one of them killed by a tiger or a bear and gather up her bones and bury them, conscious that she had died in the purity of her maidenhood, than to have her crawl to me and tell me the horrid story that she had been robbed of the jewel of her womanhood by a black fiend." Such speeches on the alleged threat of black rapists--characteristic of populist Southern Democrats in the early 1900s--bespoke as many fears about women's increasing independence as about "social equality" between blacks and whites

And ant-Semitism:

In discussing the gold standard he said: 'Rothschild and his American agents graciously condescended to come to the help of the United States treasury in maintaining the gold standard which has wrought the ruin, and only charges a small commission of $10,000,000 or so on one little transaction. Great God, that this proud government, the richest, most powerful on the globe, should have been brought to so low a pass that a London Jew should have been appointed its receiver to have charge of the treasury….

A current day Al Qaida in Iraq company commander would be quite comfortable in stating the following (substituting “blacks” of course):

We have done our level best [to prevent blacks from voting]...we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it."

So let’s accept the premise that the historic racist element in America bears some striking similarities to current day Islamists. What tactics worked against the racists and which ones didn’t and can we learn anything from this about the current struggle against militant Islam?

But perhaps this is better left for another thread as I am now way off topic.

12/16/2007 04:57:00 AM  
Blogger geoffb said...

I had thought that these amendments would prevent a two term former President from becoming Vice President.

Amendment 12
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once


However reading through the lens of, "It depends on what the meaning of is is", I suppose there would be Clinton wiggle room and the whole thing would once again be thrown to the Supreme Court and another mess would ensue.

12/16/2007 05:30:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

However reading through the lens of, "It depends on what the meaning of is is", I suppose there would be Clinton wiggle room and the whole thing would once again be thrown to the Supreme Court and another mess would ensue.

What I've been thinking, too. And we know that the Supreme Court loves to involve itself in what's going on in the executive arm of the government.

If Hillary wants a decision before the next election she'd better get the ball rolling toot sweet, because it usually take for-EVER to get a Court ruling.

I'll feel a lot better when she's offered the job to Al Gore or some nice AMerican-Muslim imam in the name of bridge-building and multiculturalism and it's been accepted.

12/16/2007 08:58:00 AM  
Blogger TmjUtah said...

I believe that "vetted" in this case, coming from Bill himself, after being passed through the PoliSpeak UniversalBS Transmorgifier Translator means something along these lines:

"... yes, you know she's an amoral, socialist hack with the personal warmth of a crack addicted contract killer. But hey, by 1991 you knew I was a pathological liar, serial adulterer, stereotypical corrupt small southern state machine governor, and absolutely incapable of analyzing any issue or situation beyond the direct influence on my political fortunes.

You knew that Hill was my enabler, pimp, and liaison with the back room money in Arkansas. Hell, Hill and I both sold enough mattress time in the Lincoln bedroom to start our own hotel chain if we wanted to.

And you reelected me in '96. A plurality, yes, but a win is a win is a win. Hill had me pardon terrorists convicted of killing in New York to bring her the Puerto Ricans, and New York's Left reelected her after 9/11.

Be honest, folks. In 2007 there's no reason at all NOT to vote Hillary. Because you already know exactly what you are going to get, right?..."


I've commented here before to the effect that Hillary Clinton might well not make it out of the early primaries. I stand by those comments.

Sit down with a pencil and a pad. Mark two columns: "What they did for America", and "What they did for themselves".

Pretty easy exercise and as near the perfect zero-sum game as you can get where people are involved.

12/16/2007 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I've commented here before to the effect that Hillary Clinton might well not make it out of the early primaries. I stand by those comments.

I've been telling people overseas who get all their news from BBC and CNN this for a year or so now. I got a flood of abusive "you're so stupid" back, and am deeply looking forward to the gloating "TOLD YOU SO!" e-mail I shall be able to send when Hillary bites the dust.

12/16/2007 11:24:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger