Zo Scores Again!

Check out this link at Big Hollywood for Zo's tea party appearance in Sacremento. If you're unfamiliar with Zo, check out his fun rants at PJTV.

Pseudo Clinton Administration

With the mention of Leon Panetta as the probably head of the CIA in the upcoming Obama administration, many are scratching their heads as to the wisdom of the selection of yet another Clinton retread to this most important post.

Others are commenting on Panetta's lack of direct experience in the business of espionage and his adverse comments on the previous actions of the CIA. And others are commenting on the negative remarks made by other high muckety-mucks in the Democrat party, Feinstein for one. Rockefeller for another.

I am wondering what's going on with so many of Bill Clinton's former cronies being named to the Obama administration's key positions. Is Obama so inexperienced that he can't find his own administration members without borrowing from the previous Democrat president's staff? Was a deal made with Hillary and Bill?

The most curious question in my mind is where will the loyalty of these appointees lie? With Obama? Bill? Hillary?

UPDATE: Another former Clintonista joins Obama's admin. Carol Browner (former head of the EPA) will be Obama's head of climate and energy policies.

Burning Down the House - Mortage Crisis Explained in 10 Minutes

Watch this video. It may explain a few things about how we arrived at this crisis.

You might want to pause it a few times to take notes and verify some of the quotes and examine the charts more closely than the fast-paced video allows.

That's Birmingham, England, Guys

Obama's tragic flaw may very well be hubris. His pseudo-Greco Roman columns, his "we are the ones we've been waiting for" speeches, his short-lived Prepresidential seal, etc. etc. etc.

His presidential seal is being struck even as we have 6 more weeks until the election. Maybe his favorite song is "Wishing Will Make it So".

Rank and file union members and business people in the US should note that the Obama team selected a British firm to produce the tokens of his imminent presidency. Good choice, Barack.

John McCain, can you do something with this? Please? Poke a little fun at Caesar Obamus. Let American workers know where Obama likes to shop.

Where's the Music?

"Uncharacteristically low turnout for Barack Obama rally in Green Bay, Wisc.
McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago."

Maybe he didn't have a rock show beforehand.

Poor Obama

Poor Obama. He no sooner wins officially the Democrat presidential nomination and shuts the door on his female opponent once and for all when another politician in skirts pops up threatening to rain on his parade.

He probably thought he had it made, and maybe he still does. But you have to admit that the game has changed a bit in the last four days.

Who would have thought that the Republican party would be the one to boast a female on the ticket in 2008? It was Hillary's year, after all. But who would have thought that she would have lost it - we can argue about the combination of occurrences that doomed her chances - in early days?

The MSM is showing its hand, although a bit carefully at the moment. We will see how they continue to pursue their nearly unanimous quest to elect a Democrat to the White House and what tactics they will use to smear McCain's choice for Vice President.

What? (1) She's not an "authentic" woman. That's the term they used to criticize any and all black Republican candidates or appointees. Gov. Palin can point to her five children to prove she's authentic in that regard. (2) She's too prolific. I expect this from all the greenies. Just think how much consumerism her brood will exude. (3) She's too pretty, and a beauty queen to boot. They're just jealous.

Let's wait and see what they pull out of their hats.

Concession my Foot!

That was no concession speech. Hillary picks a local so stately it reminded me of Hitler's grand rallies. Surrounds herself with adoring, fanatical fans, and sings her own praises more than she does those of Senator Obama.

Note her expressions during the part of her speech when she "endorses" Obama. Disgust, sneering condescension is what I see. She isn't going anywhere. Just like a bad penny, she and her consort will pop up early and often.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Sexism or Not?

How can Hillary be crying sexism and saying that she's the most electable at the same time?

If sexism is rampant in the US, there is no way she could consider herself the most electable. Maybe she has a plan to sicken all men right before election day. Well, I'm already sick of her but would crawl from my deathbed to vote for whoever runs against her.

Buck up, Buttercup

Sen. Clinton must finally have seen the handwriting on the wall. She's out and about placing the blame for her decline on sexism.

I find it hard to accept. In fact, I am offended, as a woman, by her insinuation of sexist bias by, I have to assume, the American people, the press, and politicians. Let's look at her political history to try to find where she might have suffered by prejudice.

Well, she's been elected Senator, twice. She's been the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination since, oh, 2004. In spite of her questionable qualifications and personal ethics, a large portion of the aristocracy of the Democrat party, Howard Dean, Terry McAuliffe, and others, have been in her corner since Day One and have paved the way for her campaign, giving her the leg up she needed. The liberal public has forgotten, forgiven or ignored all her baggage from her husband's administrations, in DC and in Arkansas. The mainstream media have hardly even hinted at the scandals, political boo-boos, and general unpleasantness of the Clintons' eight years in the White House, opting to grant her executive experience by osmosis.

Perhaps, the "sexism" she perceives was actually one in her favor. She was routinely, both in her senatorial and presidental campaigns, handed softball questions. She rarely had any pointed followup questions. She was allowed to duck the press in favor of her "listening tours". She was protected at all times from potential embarrassing situations, both by her handlers, and the Secret Service. Rarely were any of the Clinton indiscretions of the 80's and 90's mentioned by the MSM. One could assume that no one wanted to embarrass her. Put her on the spot. See her sweat.

The few instances mentioned to support her charge of sexism, were minor. The Hillary nutcrackers, the cartoons, the "Iron my shirt" radio publicity stunt, pale in comparison with the insults thrown at Condoleeza Rice, who never complained about sexism, or racism, as far as I can tell. Ms Rice knows that politics is hardball, and if you can't take your licks, get out of the game.

The press and the pundits as well as the public have never known how to treat Sen. Clinton. From the very beginning of their "co-presidency", she was somehow granted the spotlight, but spared the necessity of political accountability. She was treated with traditional First Lady deference, even as she stirred the political pudding in the War Room. There is no way to impeach the spouse of the President. No way for a recall to occur.

What really bothers me about her "sexist" claims is how she has always used her sex when it was convenient or even politically imperative for her to do so. Let us count the ways:

1. The name changes - Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton

2. The "Pretty in Pink" interview - sweet little wife in soft pink dress, pearls, soft light, etc.

3. Hanging onto the coattails of her husband (Does anyone really think we would even had heard of her if she wasn't the wife of a President?)

4. The famous glimpse of cleavage when Hillary wore the most revealing top (blouse, shirt, whatever is was that showed a little cleavage) for the first time. Does she not have final approval of her apparel? She had to know that there would be repercussions. She is normally so covered up, neck to toe, that the view of her bosom was surprising and therefore bandied about in blogs, on television, and the press. There were comments about the photos of Obama frolicking in the surf, if I remember correctly.

5. The tears.

The United States has women Senators, women in Congress. There have been women in presidential cabinets. Women run Fortune 500 companies. A woman is the Speaker of the House, for pity's sake, the third in line to the presidency. Hillary Clinton herself has been elected to the Senate and is, or was, the heir apparent to the Democrat nomination in 2008. When the postmortems are written, I doubt if much credence will be given to her whiny claims of sexism.

The nomination was hers to lose. She's losing it, maybe in more ways than one.

No Fat Lady Yet

It ain't over....

Sure, it looks like it's over. It looks like Bill thinks it's over. Chelsea doesn't look too excited either. It adds up that it's over. But it ain't over.

People thought it was over in '98 when the Lewinsky scandal broke. It wasn't. People thought it was over when the Clintons raidedthe White House of its furnishings. It wasn't. People thought it was over after the presidential pardons. It wasn't.

I could go through the whole eight years of the Clintons' first presidency pointing out instances when people thought it was over. They are made of India rubber.

Hillary's a fighter, perhaps more so than Bill. Besides, she has nothing to lose at this point. She doesn't really care about the Senate seat. It was purely a stepping stone for higher office. If she runs in 2010 and loses, she can start her second campaign for the 2012 election. Whatever.

She could lower the boom any day now. Her investigators may have provided a juicy Obama tidbit which she would prefer not to expose. If the Republicans don't have it, or choose not to use it, she has to decide just how much she's willing to risk order to obtain the nomination. She would lose the black vote, if she hasn't already, and probably a goodly number of other Democrats who would consider it dirty pool.

This is fun. I will hate to see it over in Denver.

Get ready for your rebate.

While you are enjoying your $600 or whatever amount you receive, better save it and then save even more. If a Democrat wins the White House and if a few more win seats in Congress, you will need a good bit more available for your increased taxes.

Don't spend it. Save it.

Now for the Way-Back Machine - A Denial and a Confession, of Sorts

Remember.





Do you really want him back in the White House? Do you really want his "wife" back in the White House?

From President Bill Clinton's speech Aug. 17, 1998, a semi-confession:

"Good evening.

This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury. I answered their questions truthfully, including questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.

Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.

Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on. We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

Thank you for watching. And good night.''

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Where are His Minders?

An interesting tidbit from ABC News blog this morning. Bill Clinton must have eluded his minders yesterday on the campaign trail in Indiana. Wordy as usual, he included this comment about the recent Bosnia sniper brouhaha, just as it started to slip off the radar screen. Sen. Clinton must be livid.

"A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me," he said. "But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flack jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

Thanks, Bill. The ABC blog continues:

"Sen. Clinton did not apologize, like Mr. Clinton asserted, she simply indicated that she mispoke when describing the Bosnia incident.

While the former president may have been amused by the whole incident, his telling of the course of events wasn't quite accurate. Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at an event in Iowa on Dec. 29, amd an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17."

Nervous People

I tell you, there must be more than a few verrrrrry nervous people in the Democrat party and in some of the MSM.

The Kennedys, Sen. Leahy, Bob Casey, Bill Richardson, all the good little Democrats who are supporting Obama, would definitely be treated like traitors. No plum cabinet appointments for them. Rather, they will be bowing to Her Supreme Highness and her Consort.

It ain't over till it's over. That's something the Clintons know all too well. He's been counted "out" too many times and lived to play again for them/her to throw in the towel not.

She's going to go for the count.

More Hillary Bashing, (Unabashed Bashing at That!)

But who deserves it more? Possibly her husband, but he's not running for President. Just Co-President. Or First Lady's-Man. Anyway, in reference to her,  uhmm, "embellishing" the truth about her Bosnian adventure, this clip from a Bloomberg.com item today:

"Clinton spokesman Jay Carson dismisses questions about her credibility. ``She made a mistake recounting a trip she made as first lady to what was in fact a war zone,'' he said, referring to Bosnia. Voters ``don't ask for perfection, they just want to know that you are working hard for them, and no one works harder than Senator Clinton.''"


So voters don't ask for perfection. I think they do ask for truthfulness, something that Sen. Clinton and President Clinton have shown repeatedly that they do not possess or value. 

Don't Mess Around with the Clintons, Nancy

This little tidbit is from Reuters today, Mar. 27, 2008.

Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift

Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:03am EDT

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.

The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.

Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama.

----------------

Now the only question seems to be whether or not Ms Pelosi has been sufficiently warned. Perhaps her possible desire to be the only Big Girl in Town will keep her rooting for Sen. Obama even if it is sub rosa. This is all so interesting.

Couple this with the recent questions about the legality of Elton John, a British national, campaigning for Hillary Clinton by performing in a fundraising concert, and you have yet another bad week for Sen. Clinton.

Stay Tuned.

UPDATE:

From the Hill 

Pelosi firm on not allowing superdelegates to tip race

By Mike Soraghan

Posted: 03/27/08 11:30 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reaffirmed her position that superdelegates should not “overturn the will of the voters” in the face of criticism from top donors to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). “The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters,” Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said in a statement late Wednesday.   “This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.” In a letter first reported Wednesday on talkingpointsmemo.com, 20 top Hillary fundraisers and donors blasted Pelosi for saying that when the presidential nominating contest nears its conclusion, superdelegates should support whoever leads in pledged delegates. They cited remarks she made to ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on March 16. “We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes,” the letter said.

The Smartest Woman in the World

From the nation's newspaper of record, The New York Times, February 22, 2008:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor. “So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.”

“The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,” Mr. Trippi said. “Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, ‘We’re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.’ ”“The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,” said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.

This is about the smartest woman of her generation, a genius, if we are to believe Bill Clinton. But then, who in their right mind would believe him? 

If Senator Clinton  can't control the spending of her minions during a campaign (for which she's had over six years to prepare), she would probably have the same problem with controlling government spending. It's all someone elses's money, after all. 

The Controller Extraordinaire

From ABC blogs, Jan. 30, 2008

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden for ABC News' Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama  in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.

“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”

"Can you control him?" asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

How many of you believe that? Was she controlling him during the long years of their marriage? Throughout his many "flings" with Gennifer Flowers, et al? His indiscretion, but definitely not sex, with Monica Lewinsky? If so, she is not normal. If not, what makes her think she can control him now? Does she think we are stupid enough to believe her? I guess so, because she continues to lie and appears not to give a whit. 

I tell you, this woman is dangerous. 

Bye, Bye, John, See You in 4 Years

So John Edwards, after several disappointing primaries and caucuses in which he was third, has decided to throw in the towel. I for one am glad, for several reasons.

(1) The main one is that I detest his class-warfare, "two Americas" theme. Who is he, supposedly the son of a mill worker and now a multi-multi-millionaire,  to decry this country and the opportunities he found to advance himself?  If he can do it, others can too. 

(2) The second reason is that he is a trial lawyer who has made the bulk of his money in a shameful manner, with his ambulance-chasing lawsuits.

(3) The third is his refusal to quit the race many months ago when it was discovered that his wife's cancer has returned. I know he says that she insisted that he continue his quest but I feel that he was wrong to do so. If he and Elizabeth Edwards had no small children, it would be different. They and their doctors have no idea what the course of her disease will be. She will need the support of her husband in the coming months and years and so will their children. The rigors of the campaign trail and the demands of the presidency, should he have attained that position, would have severely limited his availability to be as helpful to his family as I feel he should be.

(4) Next, we have his liberalism. I wouldn't want him as President, just for that alone.

(5) Finally, I think he is smitten with himself and his boyish good looks. The famous video of him primping before an appearance makes that totally evident. We had an huge ego in the White House for eight years after the 1992 election and don't need that again.

Did I provide enough reasons? I think so. Now he can be kingmaker, throw his support to whichever candidate makes him the best offer. Attorney General, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice?  

Saints preserve us!

Double Standard??? Nah. No way.

I noticed something last week when Obama was asked what he thought about former President Bill Clinton often referred to as the first black president.

He chuckled a bit and, after a few respectful comments, cleverly responded that he had never seen Clinton dance and would have to defer judgment of whether or not he was a "brother" until then. You can see the video here.

This was little noted in the MSM, just accepted, as it ought to have been, as a light-hearted jest by Obama. Now, picture one of the other candidates, Hillary excepted, being asked that question and giving the same exact answer. Do you really think that it would have been seen as an innocent joke? Not if it had been from the lips of a white Republican candidate. That person would have been chastised, pilloried, excoriated, and hung out to dry in the media by all manner of persons. Apologies would have been demanded, and the poor hapless candidate would have been forced to leave the race.

We have seen it happen all to often to people, not just in public life, who have had the misfortune to go against the citizen PC police. This is what many people have come to fear - the off-hand comment, with no malice intended, taken entirely the wrong way by the ever vigilant, victim-mentality forces that permeate our culture today. It's wrong and curtails spontaneity, good will, as well as free speech.

Let's Shed a Little Light on the Subject

The dim bulbs are at it again.

A few weeks ago I was disturbed to read that there is a proposal in Congress to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of the energy-saving fluorescent bulb. This is an attempt to force conservation of electricity.

Some thoughts off the top of my pointy little head:

(1) What will be the energy costs to convert old lighting factories to accomodate the construction of fluorescent bulbs? Similarly, what will be the energy costs for replacing fixtures which currently use incandescent bulbs but may not be able to use fluorescents?

(2) Fluorescent bulbs have been around for many decades and have found only imited use in the home environment for a reason. If the technology advances to solve the problems that people find with them( flickering, slow warmups, and harsh illumination), people will make their own decisions and the problem, if one exists at all, will be solved.

(3) The constant humming, and flickering of the fluorescent bulb, is discomforting to some, and downright worrisome to others. (See the clip below from Web MD.)

(4) Shouldn't the public be allowed to choose which bulbs they prefer? Is there so little trust in the free market system? Is it not true that the efficiencies and benefits of fluorescent bulbs would be self-evident? People would be able to see any benefits that might appeal to them (financial, comfort, illumination) and choose to make the switch on their own. After all, at the turn of the previous century, people had no trouble switching from horse and buggy to the horseless carriage. No one had to use the force of the government to usher in that new technology.


This is similar to the California idea to have all home thermostats controlled by power companies (and the state) to automatically set thermostats at a designated temperature and prevent any raising or lowering by indivuals. In other words, in a power emergency (who gets to define that?) one may not be able to maintain a desired comfort level.

I suppose water is next.

Each year the government, local, state and federal, become more and more involved in our daily lives. All the warnings of a few decades ago of the slippery slope have come true. Liberals laughed at those warnings, but it is obvious that it is all too easy to strip away one freedom after another. Soon we could all become little automatons, chugging away in our governmentally controlled environments, sweating or shivering as the State demands, living in our allotted square feet, in our assigned apartment, drinking our allotment of water with our vegetarian meals. This ever expanding nanny state scares me.

Oh! I forgot! It's all for the children.

From WebMD, Jan. 17, 2007

Have you started replacing your old incandescent lightbulbs with those expensive, energy-saving compact fluorescent lamps? They're supposed to save energy, reduce environmental carbon dioxide, and pay for themselves within a year (unless you are clumsy like me and you drop one!)

The British government has mandated elimination of conventional lightbulbs by 2011. Wait a minute! Critics claim health concerns related to these new lamps are being overlooked. Specifically, one advocacy group representing migraine sufferers suggests that the new eco-bulbs actually trigger migraine attacks. They are unclear regarding the proposed mechanism: erratic flickering of the bulbs, toxic (visible) wavelengths, or perhaps some combination of effects.

For decades we have known that some folks are physically uncomfortable in environments with exposed fluorescent tube lighting but controlled studies comparing the rates of acute migraine among age-matched population groups have never been performed.

The UK Migraine Action Association has plenty of anecdotal stories from migraine sufferers that link more frequent migraine headaches with use of these high-efficiency lightbulbs.

It makes little sense to debunk whether or not visible light emitted from a fluorescent lamp causes migraine when we know the same thing can happen to some people who smell pumpkin pie!

Hoist by her Own Petard

Hillary Clinton to Tim Russert on Sunday, Jan. 13:

You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.

Did she really think no one would notice the conflict between her first two sentences?

People, give up on her.

We don't need another lying Clinton in the White House.

Very interesting...Also, an Elephant in the Room

It was interesting and somewhat amusing to hear that former 2004 Presidential candidate and senator John Kerry came out yesterday, January 10, 2008, to lend his support to Senator Barack Obama. Since Kerry's been flying under the radar for the past year or so, it remains to be seen how much his backing will help (or hurt!) Sen. Obama.

What was amusing and caused tongues to wag was the fact that Kerry's endorsement was somewhat of a slap in the face to his erstwhile running mate, John Edwards. It was no surprise to anyone that Kerry didn't endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton. There was no love lost there. As with Al Gore's 2000 campaign, the Clinton's paid not much more than lip service to Kerry's effort to become President. There was even talk that the last thing Sen. Clinton wanted was for Kerry to win in 2004, thus possibly postponing her own candidacy until 2012.




One elephant in the room (strange figure of speech when discussing Democrats) is Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Oscar winner, Savior of the World. He has declined to endorse anyone so far. He could be enormously influential if and when he decides to support either Hillary or Barack Obama. (I see Edwards down for the count.) I'm certain he is weighing his options. I would imagine he has a better chance of a juicy plum job with a President Obama, than with a President Clinton. You just know she will have a great position in mind for her husband. Can you say Supreme Court justice?

It Ain't Over till It's Over

And it will be a long time until it's over. Nine and a half months. More blogs to read, more to write. More pundits to hear. More speeches to endure. More reasons to feel sick and tired of this overextended process. More examples of how the experts get it wrong. And we still listen to them.


Last night's "surprise" victory for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary was a perfect example. After the "surprise" victory for Barack Obama the previous week in Iowa, it was widely predicted that (a) Obamamania would sweep New Hampshire (b) Hillary would possible suffer a double-digit loss in the primary (c) Hillary would demand a shake-up of her campaign team and fire Mark Penn (d) Hillary would get out of the race altogether in order to protect the Clinton "brand" from humiliating defeats in South Carolina and beyond.

Guess what? The experts were wrong. Were they more swept up in Obamamania that the voters? Were their computer models wrong? It doesn't really matter why. It's enough just to know that they were wrong. But people will still seek their opinions and appearances on news shows, ignoring their erroneous predictions of the past.

Gary Langler at ABC online states:

There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.

But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.

Now we have Senators Clinton and Obama as the leading two Democrat contenders for the nomination. Former Senator Edwards is trailing badly and may lost his viability as a serious candidate soon. Whether or not he has any chance of acquiring the VP spot remains to be seen. I doubt it. He and Hillary don't seem to be a match made in heaven. I have always thought that Hillary would pick more of a real outsider, someone with little Washington or media history, an Evan Bayh, or Ted Strickland. I used to think Richardson had some chance of joining her on the ticket, but not now. He has said and done too much to ingratiate himself with her any longer.

Stick around, folks. It's going to be a bumpy night.

Poor Baby. How Do You Do It?

After being questioned by an obviously entranced fan, Hillary had a minor break in her otherwise firmly cemented demeanor. Apparently near tears, Hillary evidenced a brief gllimpse of humanity, all too often hidden away, except for carefully scripted waves, smiles, hugs, other typical glad-handing of politicians universal. Her often shrill voice, became soft, slow, humble. If we know anything about her, she's not humble.

I say "apparently near tears" because one never knows with the Clintons. Her outbreak of defiance Saturday, was probably planned to give a boost to her passionate determination to lead. She keeps telling us she's ready to lead. Able to lead. I don't want to follow her over the cliff, thank you very much.

By the way, her insistence that she has "made change" for thirty-five years left me wondering if her stint with Walmart was behind a cash register, not in the boardroom.

Rumors to her imminent demise abound. I don't believe it. She can lose in New Hampshire and still make a comeback. The Clintons have too much at stake to give up. She's waited too long, put up with too much, and may not have another chance to grab the presidential ring. One possibility, however - if Obama or a Republican gets elected and screws up, she will still be able to go for it in 2012 and really come to the rescue.

But, should a Democrat get elected, look for a Clinton to accept only a major, major role. No cabinet position would be prestigious enough. Supreme Court, perhaps?

Heaven forbid!

The Anchoress has a good summary of all this here.

Beware the Hammer

Listening to a host of pundits on the radio today, I was aware of how everyone is saying that the Clintons have lined up some juicy tidbits to hammer Obama with, while hoping that some of the dirt sticks. They are the masters of nasty politics, from fund-raising to negative campaigning, all the while accusing others of the very schemes they have perfected.

No one, at least no one that I heard, said that, while Obama has so far deferred mentioning Hillary's (and Bill's) nefarious background, that field is loaded with dirty laundry. He could have a field day dragging each one out to fresh air out once again. Remember, she had her hands in just as much as Bill did.

Very interesting.

Good for Obama

Finally, some solid evidence for the world that the United States is not the racist black-hating country that others portray it. A intelligent charismatic black man has stepped up to the challenge, provided a good showing,and now has a good chance of being the Democrat nominee for the Presidency.

There will be tough times ahead for him, from Democrats as well as from Republicans. There are those Democrats with a vested interest in another Clinton regime who will be scouring his past (kindergarten drawings, perhaps) looking for anything to bring to light and use against him. Don't put anything past Bill and Hillary. John Edwards may or may not be as bloodthirsty; we don't have that kind of track record for him. The rest of the pack probably has no chance and won't present a problem for Obama.

The Republicans, who are having squabbles of their own won't waste any ammunition on Obama. They will wait to see who actually is the final nominee. They have plenty of ammo to use against Hillary. I expect they are quietly looking into Obama's voting record, both as a State Senator and as a Senator from Illinois in Congress. Anything they turn up there will merely be issues from which to draw distinctions between his liberal tendencies and the more conservative leanings of whichever Republican gets the final nod this summer.

It is going to be an interesting 10 months. Personally, I wish it were over.

What is the Iowa Caucus?

Instead of having a primary as most states do, Iowan voters for each political party will attend group meetings by precincts across the state. Some are held in schools, or even people's homes.

At these meetings, the voters will indicate their choice to compete for their party's presidential nomination by hand raising, ballot casting, or even moving to different sections of the room.

Here's an interesting fact:

n the Democratic party caucuses, votes are cast by raising hands, a sign-in sheet or by splitting into groups supporting each candidate. In the Republican caucuses, votes are cast by secret ballot (each eligible voter in attendance is able to select the candidate of his or her choice on paper without others in attendance knowing how he or she voted)

This is a favored voting method for unions in their elections. Denying the use of the secret ballot provides the opportunity for arm-twisting, bribery, or even threats, since one's voting preference will be open for all to see.

Which way do you think is more just?

Is this What you Really Want?

Is this what you want, America? Which Clinton is in charge? Are you ready for more scandals? YOu know Bill will try for the spotlight, don't you? Remember the expression "sucking the oxygen out of the room?" Isn't it mainly a nostalgia for the '90's that's driving the support for Hillary? Are you ready for 4 to 8 years of a tabloid presidency?

Think long and hard. Vote for Obama.

And God Bless Us Everone

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have live everlasting."

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.