« March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 | Home | April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 »

Week of April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008

Donna Brazile -- Fair And Balanced with Attitude


There are some Hillary Clinton supporters are out on the Internet attacking Donna Brazile for what they see as her support for Obama in an her op-ed calling on Hillary to stop throwing elbows.
 
Bloggers from Politico.com, MyDD.com and Hillaryis44.com, Taylor Marsh have been brutal in their attacks.  If you read some of their comments you would think that Donna was a supporter of terrorism or something similar.  They weren't even reporting all the facts with their attacks, just cutting and pasting what 'they' felt needed to be printed.

I would like to take the time to remind Americans just who Donna is and what’s she’s done for American voters and the Democratic Party during her young life.  To make it easier for myself, I’m going to repeat the ‘About’ section of Donna’s own website. 

She is the Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI) and an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, is a senior political strategist and former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 - the first African American to lead a major presidential campaign.

Prior to joining the Gore campaign, Brazile was Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia where she helped guide the District's budget and local legislation on Capitol Hill.

Brazile is a weekly contributor and political commentator on CNN’s Inside Politics and American Morning. In addition, she is a columnist for Roll Call Newspaper and a contributing writer for Ms. Magazine.
 
A veteran of numerous national and statewide campaigns, Brazile has worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Carter-Mondale in 1976 and 1980, Rev. Jesse Jackson's first historic bid for the presidency in 1984, Mondale-Ferraro in 1984, U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in 1988, Dukakis-Bentsen in 1988, and Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996.
 
In addition to working on political campaigns, Brazile has served as a senior lecturer and adjunct professor at the University of Maryland and a fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics.
 
Brazile is the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including Washingtonian Magazine's 100 Most Powerful Women in Washington, D.C. and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Award for Political Achievement.


That is just a short resume.  Read her book, Cooking With Grease, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised to hear the things she’s done throughout her life.

Now, let me return to the issue at hand.  Hillary supporters seem to think that Donna is supporting Barack Obama and is trying to hurt Hillary’s campaign with some comments that she’s made.

If folks would evaluate ‘all’ of Donna’s interviews on CNN and ABC’s 'This Week',  I’m sure they would find she’s given equal time to both Democratic candidates. 

I’m an Obama supporter.  I’ve found myself disagreeing with Donna on many occasions over the past few months about something she’s said about the Obama campaign, only to later hear her something about Hillary's camp that I agreed with.  Donna's what I call, “Fair and balanced”.

Over the past months and years I’ve emailed Donna about issues of the day.  In 2006, Bill Clinton had an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox.  Here’s Donna’s response to me, to what he said/did during that interview, “Yes indeed.  Clinton made me so proud yesterday.  I am so glad he stood up, pointed his finger and fought back.”

On January 8, 2008, I attacked Hillary’s tearing up as a political ploy, Donna didn’t take my bait, she defended Hillary’s choking up before the New Hampshire primary.  After Hillary won there, Donna said, “Notice I never wrote her off”.

On January 19th during Nevada's caucuses and South Carolina’s primary I was bragging about Obama’s chances, Donna said, “Women are supporting HRC.  She’s whipping ass in Clark County as well.  She has strong institutional support.”

These are just a few comments she’s made in support of Hillary directly to me in emails.  I don’t have access to CNN or ABC’s show logs or I am sure I could come up with a well documented list of supporting arguments Donna has made for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, of course Donna will say good things about Obama’s campaign; but she also says bad things, believe me, I know.  All political pundits and strategists do that.

For example, I once wrote to ask Donna that if she had direct contact with Obama, whether she would pass him something I said, her response was, “I am not interested in passing along comments to Obama.  They have to learn from their mistakes. Have a good evening.”

That doesn’t sound like a ‘I support Obama’ statement to me.

None of us have a clue what it's like to be in Donna's shoes.  To attack her so 'bitterly' after what she's done for her Party and her nation, is not only wrong, it's plain stupid.  We need more people like Donna that are willing to go above and beyond for the rest of us.

As Hillary once said, "Shame On You, Bloggers" for taking you frustrations out on Donna Brazile.

Hillary Needs -- Just $5


Guess Hillary and Bill are getting a bit desperate.  They are now willing to take just a $5 donation.  Normally that email amount BEGINS with $25.

Next we'll be seeing emails asking for $1.00

The people who count Hillary out of this race don't know her the way you and I do.

Do we have an uphill battle to fight? You bet we do. We face an opponent who has a virtually unlimited war chest, who is breaking records to spend whatever it takes to win.

But I know that with Hillary leading the way and your strong support behind her, we can get the job done and we can win.

Hillary doesn't care what the pundits say. She's listening to you. And that's why you need to speak out loud and clear and tell her today -- just 11 days until the next big primary in Pennsylvania -- that she has your support. As little as $5 can make a difference. If you haven't given online before, now is the time.

RECORDS SET BY CLINTONS


Got the following in an Email -- I'll let the voters decide whether to pay attention or not:


Records set by Clinton administration. In other words, keep this dangerous woman out of the white house as president or vice president:

▪ Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.

▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.

▪ First president accused of rape.

▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.

▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

What Troop Withdraw?


Since February 6, 2008 the Pentagon has increased the National Guard and Reserve levels byt 6745 troops.

Would somebody please tell me where the TROOP WITHDRAWS came in at?


National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of April 9, 2008

            This week, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard announced an increase, while the Marine Corps announced a decrease.  The net collective result is 3,172 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
            At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either increase or decrease.  The total number currently on active duty in support of the partial mobilization of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is 77,928; Navy Reserve, 5,519; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, 9,488; Marine Corps Reserve, 8,576; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 345. This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel who have been mobilized to 101,856, including both units and individual augmentees.


National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of March 26, 2008

            This week, the Navy and Marine Corps announced a decrease, while the Army and Air Force announced an increase. The Coast Guard number remained the same. The net collective result is 2,443 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
    National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of March 5, 2008
   
 This week, the Army and Marine Corps announced a decrease, while the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard announced an increase.  The net collective result is 287 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of February 6, 2008

            This week the Army and Navy announced an increase, while the Marine Corps announced a decrease.  The Air Force and Coast Guard numbers did not change. The net collective result is 843 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 

 

What Troop Withdraws?


Since February 6, 2008, the Pentagon has increased National Guard and Reserve levels by 6745 troops.

Will somebody PLEASE tell me where the TROOP WITHDRAWS came in at?

National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of April 9, 2008

            This week, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard announced an increase, while the Marine Corps announced a decrease.  The net collective result is 3,172 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
            At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either increase or decrease.  The total number currently on active duty in support of the partial mobilization of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is 77,928; Navy Reserve, 5,519; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, 9,488; Marine Corps Reserve, 8,576; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 345. This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel who have been mobilized to 101,856, including both units and individual augmentees.


National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of March 26, 2008

            This week, the Navy and Marine Corps announced a decrease, while the Army and Air Force announced an increase. The Coast Guard number remained the same. The net collective result is 2,443 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
    National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of March 5, 2008
   
 This week, the Army and Marine Corps announced a decrease, while the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard announced an increase.  The net collective result is 287 more reservists mobilized than last week.
 
National Guard (In Federal Status) and Reserve Mobilized as of February 6, 2008

            This week the Army and Navy announced an increase, while the Marine Corps announced a decrease.  The Air Force and Coast Guard numbers did not change. The net collective result is 843 more reservists mobilized than last week.

 

 

Women But Few Men Support Hillary - Why?


We keep hearing the argument that if Barack Obama can't do better in winning the white woman's vote, he can't win in November.  I'd like to know why nothings being mentioned about Hillary Clinton not winning enough of the white man's vote?

I noted this morning that Hillary won the endorsement of another 'woman' in Pennsylvania.  Just how many of her super delegates are female and how many are male?  Does anybody know?

When I see pictures of Hillary out there campaigning, she's normally surrounded by women, very few men are seen.

I don't know about you, but this concerns me just as much as it does seeing Obama not getting more white women to support him.  I question the polls however, because in Obama's pictures, you see lots of women and men, white and black surrounding him.  Not so with Hillary's pictures.

Has any expert out there looked into this potential problem for Hillary in November, if she were to win this nomination?

Bill Clinton Ignored Abuses in China - O'Reilly Factor?


On the Bill O'Reilly show last night (just caught a couple minutes of it -- don't normally watch it all, he's such a Bush/GOP supporter).  He and another guy were discussing China and Hillary's call for the president to boycott the Olympics.

Bill pointed out that Bill Clinton ignored China's abuses during his presidency.  They gave an example, but that's the part I missed.  Did anybody else hear this conversation?

It seems a bit hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to demand President Bush do something when her own husband, if the story is true, ignored that same abuse by working with China.

Cutting Hillary's Lead to 10 Pts in PA - Will Be The TRUE Miracle


The fact that we still maintain a lead after Sen. Obama spent six days here and got the backing of [Pennsylvania] Sen. [Bob] Casey, and in light of being outspent, I think it is remarkable that we still maintain a lead," said T.J. Rooney, the state's Democratic Party chairman. "We don't think we have any weaknesses in this state. It has been said before and it bears repeating: we are being outspent financially."

And indeed, Obama is pouring massive resources into the state. Estimates have him
outspending Clinton by a margin of three-to-one in Pennsylvania, and his campaign has been flooding the airwaves with advertisements. With these advantages, Clinton's aides say, its remarkable that Clinton is even hanging on.

*********************************

Need I remind everyone of Governor Mitt Romney’s candidacy during the GOP campaign? 

How many millions of dollars of his own money did he spend taking on a candidate (Senator John McCain) that was virtually broke?  Did all that money do Romney any good?  Nope.  John McCain still won the GOP’s nomination.  Mitt Romney couldn’t get his message across, nor did he have the 'appeal' that it takes to win.

The lesson here is, unless you have a candidate that can ‘get the voters out to vote for them’; all the money in the world won’t help you.

Barack Obama’s money is being spent to take on a well known established political machine in Pennsylvania that belongs to -- Senator Hillary Clinton.

Hillary after 35 years of political involvement, her husband’s Presidency, her actions as First Lady, along with her Senatorial seat in New York, is a very well known person.  Her name recognition alone is -- almost unbeatable

She has the very famous Governor Ed Rendell on her side that has a formidable political organization behind him.  She also has the Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter supporting her, as well as T.J. Rooney, the state's Democratic Party chairman backing her.

A month ago, Hillary was beating Barack Obama by 26pts in Pennsylvania polls.  Now after actually campaigning in that State and introducing himself with those ‘costly’ commercial ads, Obama’s been able to cut Hillary’s lead by more than half, in some cases by two thirds.

It took Barack Obama’s 'appealing nature' and his 'message' as a candidate, to get this far – without that appeal and that message – no amount of money on earth will get you that nomination.

Truth be told (going up against a political machine like Hillary has in Pennsylvania), if Barack Obama is able to keep her lead below 10pts on April 22nd -- THAT in itself, will be the 'Miracle' of this campaign.

$5000 Plus For Olympic Torch Carrier Protection?


While watching the news tonight they showed the Olympic torch being carried by a man in San Francisco.  The man was surrounded by running police officers and several officers riding on 4 wheelers.  I counted at least 40 police officers.

I'm probably going to get yelled at by the sports lovers on this site (please keep in mind I like watching the games too) but my first thought after seeing all those officers surrounding that one man was -- how much is THAT costing?

Let's assume that each cop draws about $125 per day.  40 cops times $125 equals $5000.  That's not counting the gas for those 4 wheelers, the police and media cars, helicopters, etc..

It always amazes me how much money folks are willing to pay to see their sports. 

I don't know about you but I've seen people donate to a new baseball or football field before they'll give to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or any charitable organization in need.

It's kind of sad...don't ya think?

Cutting Hillary's Lead to 10 Pts in PA -Will Be the TRUE Miracle


The fact that we still maintain a lead after Sen. Obama spent six days here and got the backing of [Pennsylvania] Sen. [Bob] Casey, and in light of being outspent, I think it is remarkable that we still maintain a lead," said T.J. Rooney, the state's Democratic Party chairman. "We don't think we have any weaknesses in this state. It has been said before and it bears repeating: we are being outspent financially."

And indeed, Obama is pouring massive resources into the state. Estimates have him outspending Clinton by a margin of three-to-one in Pennsylvania, and his campaign has been flooding the airwaves with advertisements. With these advantages, Clinton's aides say, it’s remarkable that Clinton is even hanging on.

Need I remind everyone of Governor Mitt Romney’s candidacy during the GOP campaign? 

How many millions of dollars of his own money did he spend taking on a candidate (Senator John McCain) that was virtually broke?  Did all that money do Romney any good?  Nope.  John McCain still won the GOP’s nomination.  Mitt Romney couldn’t get his message across, nor did he have the 'appeal' that it takes to win.

The lesson here is, unless you have a candidate that can ‘get the voters out to vote for them’; all the money in the world won’t help you.

Barack Obama’s money is being spent to take on a well known established political machine in Pennsylvania that belongs to -- Senator Hillary Clinton.

Hillary after 35 years of political involvement, her husband’s Presidency, her actions as First Lady, along with her Senatorial seat in New York, is a very well known person.  Her name recognition alone is -- almost unbeatable. 

She has the very famous Governor Ed Rendell on her side that has a formidable political organization behind him.  She also has the Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter supporting her, as well as T.J. Rooney, the state's Democratic Party chairman backing her.

A month ago, Hillary was beating Barack Obama by 26pts in Pennsylvania polls.  Now after actually campaigning in that State and introducing himself with those ‘costlycommercial ads, Osama’s been able to cut Hillary’s lead by more than half, in some cases by two thirds.

It took Barack Obama’s 'appealing nature' and his 'message' as a candidate, to get this far – without that appeal and that message – no amount of money on earth will get you that nomination.

Truth be told (going up against a political machine like Hillary has in Pennsylvania), if Barack Obama is able to keep her lead below 10pts on April 22nd -- THAT in itself, will be the 'Miracle' of this campaign.

LATEST TELEVISION ADS OF BARACK OBAMA


Obama Doing Well With White Voters -- Hillary may be in trouble.


It appears Barack Obama is doing very well with the White Democratic voters.  I think it's kind of 'telling' that it's the uneducated that seem to support Hillary.  Hillary gets 50%, Obama gets 47%.

The Gallup polls show the following:

Black Democrats strongly favor Obama regardless of their educational level. Among non-Hispanic white Democrats, the difference in support for the two candidates remains large among those with postgraduate educations, and becomes greater among those with high school educations or less.


It’s not about what sex Hillary’s is; it’s about WHO she is.


We keep hearing the Clinton campaign complain that Hillary is having sexist comments made against her, that the ‘boys’ are attacking her.  The boys made fun of her crying or tearing up; she’s got an extra hurdle to jump over in order to win this nomination because she is a woman, on and on and on again.

Jesse Jackson and Reverend Sharpton had the same sort of problem.  It wasn’t about their race or color, it was about the ‘men’ that they were.

Hillary is trying her best to fool women into coming to her aid, up against those ‘bad awful’ men that are picking on her ‘just because’ she is a woman.   Jackson and Sharpton played the same type of campaign during their Presidential runs, by implying they were being ‘picked on’ simply because they were ‘black’.

For the most part, it’s about ‘whom’ you are and where you are coming from – not what sex or race you are.

Perhaps if Hillary had been’just’ a well known Senator from New York and perhaps if Jackson and Sharpton had been 'just' Reverends that converted to politics – they would all have done much better during their presidential campaigns; but they weren’t just plain ordinary folks running for office.  They were well known for their past political and personal actions.  It was their ‘past’ they were competing against, not their sex or race.

Don’t get me wrong, being a woman, I know there is this attitude (even among some women believe it or not) out there, that believes this is a ‘mans’ world.  I also know however, those attitudes aren’t a third as bad as they use to be when I was growing up.  Women rule nations today, big difference from back when they couldn’t even get a good paying job.

So Hillary Clinton, do us other women a favor and run against your own past and experience and quit trying to ride the backs of women that actually ‘did’ change the world --all on their own.

Iraq-How We Leave More Important Than How We Came-Wrong


Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the top American diplomat in Baghdad said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, with respect to Iraq, “Mr. Chairman, as monumental as the events of the last five years have been in Iraq, Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.

While this statement has its merits, it is in my view, fundamentally flawed. 

A nation’s history is for future generations to debate, absorb and learn from.  If a nation continues to only look at the ‘now’ of the situation, ignoring the ‘why it happened’ side, they will only end up repeating the same errors that were made previously.

As Senator Barack Obama continues to say, “The original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder.  Al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region — are a direct result of that original decision”

Part of why President George W. Bush’s approval ratings are so low was his constant refusal to take blame or admit that he and his administration made mistakes in Iraq.  While their ultimate goal had good intentions, their planning of the war in Iraq was a failure.

If the President had gone before the American people back in 2004 or even 2005 with this admission, and if he had gone to the American people afterwards to ask for their help in correcting that blunder – I sincerely believe that American’s would have rallied around the President.
 
Perhaps if we had started the ‘surge’ 3-4 years earlier, instead of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker coming before Congress today to ask formore time” and “patience”, they just might have been here to tell the American people that they believe ‘success’ has been achieved.  Our troops are coming home.

The way and the why we went into Iraq to begin with, will and should always be, more important than what we leave behind.  If we do our jobs correctly to begin with, we’ll never have to worry about what we leave behind.

Iraq -How We Leave, More Important Than How We Came - Wrong


Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the top American diplomat in Baghdad said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, with respect to Iraq, “Mr. Chairman, as monumental as the events of the last five years have been in Iraq, Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.

While this statement has its merits, it is in my view, fundamentally flawed. 

A nation’s history is for future generations to debate, absorb and learn from.  If a nation continues to only look at the ‘now’ of the situation, ignoring the ‘why it happened’ side, they will only end up repeating the same errors that were made previously.

As Senator Barack Obama continues to say, “The original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder.  Al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region — are a direct result of that original decision”

Part of why President George W. Bush’s approval ratings are so low was his constant refusal to take blame or admit that he and his administration made mistakes in Iraq.  While their ultimate goal had good intentions, their planning of the war in Iraq was a failure.

If the President had gone before the American people back in 2004 or even 2005 with this admission, and if he had gone to the American people afterwards to ask for their help in correcting that blunder – I sincerely believe that American’s would have rallied around the President.
 
Perhaps if we had started the ‘surge’ 3-4 years earlier, instead of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker coming before Congress today to ask formore time” and “patience”, they just might have been here to tell the American people that they believe ‘success’ has been achieved.  Our troops are coming home.

The way and the why we went into Iraq to begin with, will and should always be, more important than what we leave behind.  If we do our jobs correctly to begin with, we’ll never have to worry about what we leave behind.

Somebody needs to RE-ASK Kennedy's question about Cheney


Crocker just lied.  Replay the question by Senator Kennedy about whether or not VP Cheney discussed Basra while over there in Iraq?  Watch Crocker's eyes.

Question for General Petraeus


General Petraeus, how would you get us out of Iraq or do you agree with Senator McCain that we should stay in Iraq for 10, 20, 50, 100 years – whatever it takes?

 

If you agree with Senator McCain, what would you consider as a U.S. victory there in Iraq (whatever it takes)?

Four Out Of Five Soldiers Asked Support Obama


ABC's Martha Raddatz asked American soldiers in Iraq what issues are most important to them when looking at the presidential candidates.

Pulling out of Iraq, better relations with rogue nations like Iran, shorter deployments, the economy and education were top on the list.

Hillary Needs More Time - When That Phone Rings


MISSOULA, Montana (CNN) – Hillary Clinton on Sunday predicted “more twists and turns” in the primary battle with Barack Obama during a campaign event in Montana

"This campaign has been exciting and incredibly energizing — for people all across the country — and I believe with all my heart that it is good for the Democratic Party to give the people of Montana a chance to vote in June, to have your vote counted and your voices heard," she also said.

While listing her credentials to be president, Clinton also said people vote for different reasons, including how a person looks or their hairstyle.

"And that is another difference, you know how long it takes me to get ready than my two opponents — I mean really just think about it," she joked. "I think I should get points for working as hard as I do plus the time it takes to get ready."

***************************************

Looks like no matter what time that phone rings in the middle of the night, Hillary will need EXTRA time to respond.

 

Assessment of U.S. Policy in Iraq -- Not Good


Iraq Report Details Political Hurdles and Future Options
By
Robin Wright

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

The experts were reassembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace, which convened the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, a high-level panel that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq and offered recommendations in 2006. The new report predicts that lasting political development could take five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq, but also cautions that future progress may not be worth the "massive" human and financial costs to the United States......

Read More..... 
**********************************
Once you poke that arm into the Bee Hive, it's almost impossible to pull it back out without letting loose a swarm of angry bees.

Rezko Ties to Governor Edgar and President GW Bush Too


We keep hearing about Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s fraud trial in the Illinois newspapers.  Nearly every article mentions that Rezko was a major fund raiser for Governor Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama, always with the caveat of course, “While Rezko’s fundraising for Obama has been briefly mentioned in the trial, the charges against him have little, if anything, to do with the presidential contender, who has been accused of no wrongdoing.”

One article, back in February I believe it was, went so far as to repeat that statement three different times.

To my knowledge the fact that former Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar also had Rezko as his fund raiser, has been mentioned only once and that was only briefly mentioned in one sentence at the end of that article.

If these reporters were completely fair, they’d report the fact that many other well known political people were helped by this man.  Such as Carol Mosley Brown and Bill and Hillary Clinton during Carol’s campaign years ago. 

Others were Comptroller Dan Hynes, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn. 

According to a recent story, Rezko may have donated as much as $250,000 to Obama's many campaigns over several years.  I would like to point out a relatively unknown fact.  Rezko also co-chaired a mega million-dollar fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in 2003.

My point in all this is, why may I ask, are Sen. Barack Obama’s name, and yes, even Governor Rod Blagojevich’s names being the only ones mentioned during these reports, and why are they mentioned not just once, but many times throughout the articles?

If neither candidate has been accused of wrongdoing, why are ‘their’ names being repeated, when others are not

If their names are brought up during the trial, then of course report those facts.  But if their names were not mentioned, do not. 

I would hope that if a report includes the names of Rod Blagojevich or Barack Obama, then it is only fair to include the names such as Jim Edgar, Carol Mosley-Braun, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan and Pat Quinn.  It would especially be interesting to note that because of the money involved, President George W. Bush’s name should also be mentioned in relations to Rezko.

I’m sure those in the ‘know’, can come up with even more names, both Democrat and Republicans.  These I mentioned were found by simply googling on the Internet.

Hillary Still Trying to Get Those Florida and Michigan Votes


“I will … keep fighting to make sure the votes of the people in Florida and Michigan are counted,” Clinton said in Hillsboro, Ore., Saturday. “2.3 million Voters turned out.”

The New York senator won both primaries in January, but neither candidate campaigned there ahead of the vote and Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The Democratic Party stripped the states of their delegations for holding early primaries in violation of party rules.

“Now some say their votes should be ignored and that the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should just be discounted. Well I have a different view,” Clinton said Saturday. “The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state. It’s been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state.”

Clinton is arguing anew that those elections were bona fide tests of the candidates’ appeal among voters.

I sure would like somebody to ask Hillary to provide the names of those people she claims say, “Their votes should be ignored and discounted. “  I’ve not heard one person say that, not one.  She sounds more and more like George W. Bush.

Neither State can come up with a way to do a revote.  This is the fault of the States and their leaders, not the presidential candidates.

 Michigan didn’t even have Barack Obama’s name on their ballot, yet Hillary demands the right to claim the votes ‘she’ got during that primary?  That’s like demanding points made during a basketball game where there was only one player playing.

Neither candidate campaigned in Florida.  Hillary Clinton as we all know, is a very well known politician.  There isn’t a voter in the country that doesn’t recognize her name.  On the other hand, very few voters knew at that time, who Barack Obama was during Florida’s primary. 

Hillary's name, of course, won more votes than Obama's did.  Again, she’s demanding she ‘get’ those votes. 

Past primaries prove that before Barack Obama campaigned in a State he usually started out way behind Hillary in the polls, sometimes in double digits; but once he began to campaign in the State, he would end up narrowing that gap to either a tie or doing better than she did.

Florida is currently under Republican control.  The candidates have little to say in what happens with voters in that State.   It’s up to the state legislature whether they do a revote or not.  To blame Barack Obama for what happens there is ridiculous.  He’s said several times that he will do whatever the Party rules.

Hillary is trying to score points politically by accusing the Obama camp of disenfranchising voters by refusing to do a revote in Florida.  This is a flat out lie.

Making it appear that someone is responsible for something not happening or happening, is in my view, slandering that person.

I would hope the media steps up to the plate and points that fact out.  I also hope they ask Hillary, exactly what it is that Obama has said or done that makes ‘him’ to blame that Florida not revoting?

The Old Delegate Switch-a-Roo


Hillary Clinton’s been pushing the idea that Super delegates should vote for whomever they feel can win in the General election.  She recently said that even pledged delegates can change their minds.  There’s no rule that says they must stick with who they first claimed.

I’ve noticed a few more delegates endorsing Barack Obama lately.  This weekend alone, he’s received three or four more endorsements.

It’s been widely reported that Hillary’s camp has been talking to every delegate they can; supposedly to convince them to hold their decision until after the last primary in June.

A thought occurred to me just now.  What if Hillary’s camp is really asking the delegates to start endorsing Obama early, before Pennsylvania?  What if her main goal is to make it appear that Obama was the one with the momentum – temporarily?

Why would she do that, you ask?  Let’s assume that Hillary wins at least half of the next 10 primaries, and most of them just happen to be the largest States.  Now it’s time for Supers to start thinking about who they will nominate in August at the convention.

What do you suppose would happen if several of those delegates that have recently endorsed Obama were to suddenly reverse themselves and endorse Hillary Clinton?
 
Yeh you got it.  Barack Obama would appear to be losing support and Hillary Clinton would be perceived in the media as having a SURGE OF MOMENTUM, therefore,  she must be more electable.  Hillary wins.

Am I off my rocker?  Or have I just give Hillary an idea?

Unless They're In a Dead Heat -- Howard Dean


Did anybody else out there watch Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer this morning when he interviewed Howard Dean?  If so, did you keep hearing the KEY WORDS being mentioned repeatedly from Dean, "Unless they're in a dead heat....."?

Is this the DNC's way of setting in motion the IDEA of Hillary winning because so many factors, are so CLOSE? 

Are they starting to push the idea that Hillary and her supporters have been pushing all along, that they are only separated by an elected delegate count of around 140 and the Popular vote difference is only 1% -- therefore, it's a Dead Heat!  Supers will need to break the TIE.

Are the DNC preparing voters for the likely hood of something happening like this?  After all, most voters won't know the real 'details' or 'counts'.  Even the media can't agree with what the counts are as of today.

By getting the voters prepared NOW for a DEAD HEAT -- the DNC and Hillary won't take such a big HIT OF PROTESTS AND RIOTS when they hand the nomination over to her.

A Dead Heat -- Exactly what constitutes a deat heat Governor Dean?  What kind of numbers are we talking about here? 

Will the media ask him those questions?  I doubt it.
« March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 | Home | April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 »

coonsey

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 2

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Illinois
  • Politics Independent

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address