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.

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.

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.''

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

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.

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.

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.

Pardongate, Part Deux?

ABC News reports:

"Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

"It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback."

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."

You would think that after the"unfortunate" business with the Norman Hsu campaign contributions, and with all the previous questionable Clinton (both Hill and Bill) campaign contributions, that someone involved in Hillary's campaign would take advantage of computer systems to check a database of names whose contributions to decline, starting with those whom Clinton pardoned in 2001.

This is a reminder of all the previous shenanigans involving campaign money and last minute pardons. Hillary always claims to have no knowledge of any of these things. The smartest woman in the world never seems to know what's going on around her. We're supposed to have her lead the country?

Well, pardon me. I don't think so.

America's First Black Female President

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator—who said she's been thinking about critics who've suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala.—noted that she's split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

But observers have long noted her tendency to speak Southern primarily in front of black audiences, as she did with Sharpton last week and at a civil rights commemoration in Selma in March.

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

Just imagine what uproar, what utter revulsion would occur if Giuliani, or Romney or even The Maverick were to affect such a "twang" when addressing black voters. I can see the accusations now, "How racist! Condescending! Phony, phony, phony!"

Somehow, when it's a Democrat, especially when it's a Clinton, the absolutely contrived accent is considered charming.

Next we'll see her downing some black eyed peas, greens, and soakin' up the pot likker with some cornbread. Facing the camera of course.

Hillary-ous Comparison

[March 11, 2007 — NASHUA, N.H. - Hillary Clinton Speaking]

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, ‘America will never elect a Catholic as president,’ But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better. They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

"...women are "the majority" of voters and are in the workforce in "record numbers," So when people tell me 'a woman can never be president,' I say, we'll never know unless we try."

There must be a lot of Kennedy people who are rolling their eyes over this. Teddy comes to mind. In any comparison between JFK and HRC, HRC is going to come up short, and I don't mean in height.

Hillary seems to be implying that women and some men will vote for her because she is a woman, as if that were her main attribute. I don't know anybody, although I'll wager there were some, who would have said that JFK should have been elected just because he was a Roman Catholic. He was elected partly because his father did everything in his power to pull whatever strings necessary to get him the nomination, partly because Chicago Mayor Daley and others rigged the election results, and partly because Richard Nixon's makeup was terrible. He was also elected in part because he was dynamic, and inspiring, and because people liked him and agreed with his politics. He promised to bring youth and vitality to the White House after decades of having old men occupy the Oval Office. His beautiful and cosmopolitan wife and two little children also brought a breath of fresh air, although these were less than ideal qualifications for the presidency.

I don't think the Clintons have youth and vitality going for them, and she is neither dynamic nor inspiring. And I imagine the White House windows were opened wide to let in fresh air after the Clintons left in 2000.

About the only thing that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy have in common is their political party. But Kennedy was hardly a Clinton democrat, especially not a Hillary democrat. Little did we know that history would show Jack Kennedy to be more "republican" than many republicans today.

One clear difference between her and JFK was in their views on national defense. Kennedy screwed up the Bay of Pigs fiasco but when push came to shove he stared down the Russians and made them remove the missiles from within easy striking distance of Florida. He didn't "dialog" Kruschev to death; he threatened the heck out of him. Hillary would have gone on a listening tour of Moscow and then invited Kruschev to "chat" a while, probably after making sure Chirac went along with it.

-----------

An afterthought: I don't know about you, but I can almost hear her saying,

"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."