In continuing with my absurdly long titles recently, I had to post this - which I saw off of Huffington Post.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml


In it, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province said that the peace was brokered by others and that she was a mainly peripheral to it.   He continues on talking about how she had no central role and played little other than being on the sidelines with her husband. 

This better be reported better by the US Media.  Clearly she is laying claim to being as good as John McCain on foreign policy - well, now we know that she likes to exaggerate about it to make herself look better.  Please copy and paste the link to other sources or email it to the MSM as I have.

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Then after the reporter says it came from her campaign, she calls it true.

Hillary Clinton on referring to Obama as Ken Starr:  "Well I think that is a true statement."


Why oh why is this okay?  Somebody explain this to me.  How does the media and Democrats (especially those established cigar smoking ones) stomach this?  We go for blood on a bright intelligent woman and a slimeball (yes I said it) campaign spokesperson can say what he wants.

Amazing how we give Clinton the benefit of the doubt these days.

Politico seems to think they are a neutral organization.  At least that's what I thought before I delved into this process at unknown risk to my own health.  But then I started reading his blog everyday.  And I realized that he's just a Clinton campaign manager in disguise.  

Basically, he takes all the Clinton news/posts etc and turns it into something useful for his candidate.  Anything Obama becomes negative for the most part.  Occasionally he capitulates and says something pro-Obama.  But you can't really deny his Clinton fanboyism.

Now why would I even bring this up?  Well, you see there's really no pro-Obama blog on there.  He supposedly says that his blog is a "running conversation about the Democratic Party's choice for president in 2008."  More like a lecture on how great Clinton is.  He positions himself as a neutral observer of the Democratic race, but really he isn't.  So politico.com really doesn't have a neutral stance on the Democratic race.

Why does this rankle my feathers?  Well, this is what he gets paid to do - to be a journalist.  We support his ass everytime we click on politico.com.  So I expect him to have a better and more neutral stance on the party he's covering.  At least attempt to be neutral - he can't even do that right.

Now, everyone is going to flame me for this.  They'll say, well you aren't so neutral.  Well, I dont' need to be.  I'm not getting paid to do this.  I already get paid to operate on people and help people in this way. 

Then someone will say, well why don't you go at MSNBC.  Well I agree with you on that.  Despite my own praise and admiration for Keith Olbermann, he's clearly a liberal.  MSNBC needs to be better about their bias - clearly they lean left.  And no matter what I say, for a major cable news network, they can't do that.  As for Olbermann, while he leans left remember that he actually was on Clinton's side early in the game - he's not always clearly been a Clinton aide like Ben Smith has.

In part, that's why I like Josh Marshall.  Whatever his Democratic choice is, and I've inferred from other posts that it may be Clinton, he remains fairly neutral on the Clinton vs Obama battle royal for supremacy.  That's why I read this page everyday.  That's why it seems I blog more and more here.

So this is how low our country has come.  We set the record for the most net loss of jobs in one month and what does the Clinton camp do?  They go after someone for using the word, "monster."  More importantly, the MSM should be ashamed for following the bait and refusing to report the most important news of the day.  While people are losing jobs and trying to figure out how to make ends meet, Clinton and the MSM are fretting over being called a name.  And they claim to be ready to fight?  

The ridiculousness of this piece of news is staggering.  We've effectively snuffed out one of the brilliant minds in policy.  I've heard Samantha Powers speak, and she is amazing.  One of the smartest people I've heard speak and in full command of the policies.  She says one thing - something I'm sure you and me and my mother have said about someone sometime somewhere - and the MSM and Clinton have a field day with it.  

Where are our priorities?  Where are your priorities Senator McClinton?  And yet here we have McClinton endorsing McCain essentially, calling Obama Ken Starr, and at the center of the NAFTA-gate scandal, and nobody cares.   

While most of my ire is aimed at McClinton and the MSM, some of it is also aimed at Senator Obama.  He has to take control of the news cycle - dictate the terms of the campaign to McClinton and stop the bloodletting by shutting their campaign up.  

How can this be done?  Preempt them by releasing a commercial telling the people to expect to hear increasingly negative ads by McClinton and frame it as her being desperate and doing anything to win.  He needs to drive this home in everyone's head - McClinton will do anything to win - not for the country but for herself.

This has become so ridiculous and absolutely off topic (most forums would ban the content of MSM to "off topic" since its so far from the matter at hand) that the Democratic Party risks needing short yellow buses to get them to and from Denver.  We're looking that retarded.  And its not just McClinton or Obama, its also the DNC leadership that has allowed it to go this far.  Nice way of sitting around and doing nothing guys.

At the rate they're going, we're going to have Monster McCain be our President... there, I said it.. now someone from the GOP come and make me resign.

I'm on a roll this morning.  Its 439am in the hospital, I'm on call, and there's nothign to do but watch TV in the call room and wait for another call asking if I can prescribe a suppository.  So what do I do - what any reasonable physician does, he/she blogs his/her boredom away.

I've had the TV on MSNBC and CNN alternating this morning.  What I've noticed is that they're covering the whole "monster" comment a lot.  They've barely touched on the Starr comment, the McClinton angle, and the whole NAFTA thing.  Frankly, I'm disgusted.  I think all of the points should get equal coverage, but can they not talk about all of the Clinton ridiculousness?  I don't think though, that the MSM is all biased against Obama.  Clearly, they gave him the benefit of the doubt earlier.  But it bothers me that the MSM wants to play up storylines to keep this race close - its great ratings for them.  They'll go after whoever is the frontrunner to make sure we all do what they want - TiVo Fox, MSNBC, CNN - something I never did before, but do now.  (yes, I'm enablign the MSM by watching them - but I do it to see if they'll say anything that comes up in the internets)

The sad thing about the whole "monster" comment, is that it will play into Clinton's hands.  She'll frame it so that she can be labelled the victim.  Women across america will unite against this other Pulitzer prize winning woman and will further support Clinton.  True or not, somehow its in the Clinton Rules playbook that they can say anything they want about everyone else, but its all of a sudden impolite for others to say anything about them.

If Clinton wins this thing, I hope that the MSM and the Clinton fans are happy.  I won't be.  I won't vote for her, not now and nor will I need the MSM telling me who I need to vote for.  I don't fall for media sensationalism as much as other voters do, apparently.


Oh and one more thing, I love Keith Olbermann.  His last show is a classic.  He seems to understand the craziness of Clinton and how unnervingly Bush/Rove she is sounding.  Is he controversial?  Yes.  Can he be wrong?  Yes.  But he will publicize the issues I never hear other people pushing - something I like.

Its a question I think is valid.  Why should any Democrat be loyal to the DNC, when Clinton is disloyal to the party?  Throwing out the argument that voting should not be along party lines (I personally think people should vote the way they think and feel, not the way their party votes), isn't what Clinton is doing a bad example of loyalty to the party?

The first and most glaring example of  her disloyalty is her insistence on framing John McCain as a better presidential candidate than Barack Obama.  When this line of thought first appeared, I thought it would be laughed out of town - it wasn't.  Apparently, she thought it was good and continued it.  Her latest statement of loyalty to John McCain went even further, saying that only she and John McCain have crossed the threshold for being Commander-in-Chief, while saying Obama had not.  Its amazing.  I never for once in my Democrat voting life would believe that a fellow Democrat would place a Republican higher than a Democrat.  How this doesn't disturb every Democrat - I don't know.

Her second example of disloyalty is a little less obvious.  The Michigan/Florida problem is being framed in the "we need to not disenfranchise our voters" argument.  This is spin through and through.  It was Michigan and Florida's DNC and legislature respectively that did that themselves despite warnings from the DNC.  All the candidates, including Clinton (who released a press release on this), agreed to this punishment.  But when push came to shove, she broke rank to see if she could grab votes while stepping on her fellow Democrats. 

The sad thing is that until the McCain fanboyism surfaced, she could still somewhat ask for the "I'm an Obama fan if he doesn't win I'll not vote for Clinton" vote.  But this has gotten much harder for her.  So I ask you guys, why should I be absolutely loyal to a party when Senator Clinton is so disloyal? 

Its about the rules.

And that doesn't come from me.  This came from Terry McAuliffe yesterday on Hardball.  This was in response to Matthews' question that if Obama has one pledged delegate more than Clinton - shouldn't he win based on Democratic principles? 

McAullife replied that the Superdelegates should matter because its the rules of the party.  Matthews challenged him, but he kept on saying its about the rules.

Really Mr. McAuliffe?  Then bye these rules, Michigan and Florida should not count.  The rules were agreed upon before the game started and Clinton released a press release saying as such.  Harold Ickes also voted to have Michigan and Florida punished as well.

Of course, Matthews didn't mention that.  Its another example of the MSM conveniently letting one candidate (either Obama or Clinton) off the hook when they blatantly contradict themselves.

Interestingly, when Obama was asked earlier in the day in a morning show about the Michigan/Florida issue he agreed - his campaign will follow the rules as set forth by the DNC.  The right answer which should agree with Mr. McAulliffe.

So should Michigan and Florida be counted.  By Clinton's, Ickes, and McAuliffe's initial statements and rules, it should not.  You can argue it as many ways as you want - but changing the rules midgame is wrong, especially when only one candidate is trying to do that to her benefit.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm being objective here.  I'm an Obama supporter through and through.  So what I say from here on out is mainly voiced for Obama fans - we are all probably feeling the same sense of despair mixed with hope that will make tomorrow morning hard to swallow.

What kills me most about today's results is that it, at once, seemed to validate the old politics of negativity and repudiate the new politics of hope and change.  Obama's campaign is not about the nuts and bolts of being a president.  Its about a new way of defining America's course through the world and a new way of dealing with the internal debate about its differences.  He's the nice guy who wants to see a new paradigm of government - something inclusive of the people not exclusive of the different.

As a country, we complain about our standing in the world, about our penchant for internal and external confrontation, and how no one is changing the course of our country for the better.  Obama would seem tailor made as the person to change that.  For awhile, I thought we (Democrats) all felt that way.  

Ohio has shown us that we don't want the politics of hope.  We've rejected it.  We've accepted the old way of politics - the confrontational persona that masquerades as a fighter.  We are a violent society and we like watching people get bloodied.  Its a badge of honor that apparently equates to an ability to lead.  We teach our kids to respect each other, but we can't follow that example.  We feel the need to make every election a Survivor episode, without understanding its inherent selfishness. 

Going to bed, I'm fairly depressed about the situation.  While I know Obama has the delegate lead, I know he's lost some serious momentum.  I also know that we're headed towards a divisive end to this story.  No matter who you side with, no one can say that the result looks promising - unless one side or the other wins outright or capitulates, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.  If the negativity is to be there the rest of the way, its resultant war of attrition will surely see me lose interest in politics.  And that, is sad, even if only to me.

In our worst of times, political divisions in our country has had disastrous results.  The Civil War being one of them.  In the best of times, political divisions bear the fruit of incredible leadership as the solution to our inner tension.  There is a dichotomy here that has no stable middle ground.  So I pose this question to America, which one will it be?

I'm dumbfounded.  I read this and I thought it was a joke.  I looked around and wondered if maybe this was a dream/nightmare and that all this Clinton/Obama digestion had become indigestion.  But no, I'm awake and alert and orented... times 3 (for all you medical types who know what that means).

She said this... she really did.  Somehow she seems to think that its been the most civil primary she's known.  Are you kidding me?  Her campaign has waged one of the most polarizing campaigns that I remember.  It may be civil in comparison to a General Election, but for a primary, its pretty damned bitter.

I can only think that she is telling us how she feels about how Obama has treated her.  I don't think people would argue that Obama has "gone negative" on Clinton.  So maybe she perceives a fairly soft campaign.  But the reality is far from that.. she's gone so negative, some might call them Karl Rovian.

Maybe its like that schoolyard bully.  He thinks he's not doing anything bad in his mind and since nobody's fighting back... its alright he guesses.

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
-Ronald Reagan

Never in the politics of the Democratic party does a Reagan saying provide a weighted measure of importance.  The success of the Republican party is predicated on unity.  They have a common opponent, and they will support each other down the stretch.  They've managed to convince Romney to support McCain and they've marginalized Huckabee to the point of embarassment.

What has Clinton done?  She's turned her guns on not a Republican, but a Democrat.  Not just any Democrat mind you.  A Democrat who not only is the first viable African-American nominee, but one who is attempting to uplift the party, one who is bringing in new members to the party, and one who has spoken highly of her without resorting to gutter politics.  An incredibly smart Democrat who appeals to the world at large.  A Democrat who has a good family and is the only candidate of the three to not have had an affair question the moral foundation of their household.  A Democrat who's name and face would tell the world that something other than Whtie America can lead the strongest country in the world.

The signs of her divisiveness is gaining.  The polls say that Democrats want to see this continuing.  Read it again, only 1/2 want them to see it continue if Obama wins both, and 30% want to see it continuing if she doesn't win both but wins one.  Senior Democratic officials are starting to grumble and pundits are calling for her to wrap it up.   Anecdotal evidence is striking.  My brother-in-law is turned off by the Clinton scorched earth campaign.  My friends don't quite understand how someone would go all Karl Rove on a fellow Democrat and won't vote for Clinton in the General Election.  Despite the threats from Clinton supporters, there is an important percentage of Obama supporters who will not vote Democrat if she is the nominee as a result of her negativity.  Its not 2-3%.. its much more than that.. and that maybe the difference in the General Election.


Despite the fact that I'm labelled as being delusional for being an Obama person, I'm not a dumb person, in fact, I'm a very analytical and critical person - I operate on people for a living.  I've thought about the whole Obama/Clinton thing for a very long time.  I don't take these things lightly - I actually was a Clinton fan for a long time.

Which makes it all the more painful to see what's transpiring.

I've been a Democrat my whole life.  I've voted Democrat in every election I've voted in.  I never thought I would be ashamed to be a Democrat.  I never figured that one Democrat would speak so horribly ill of another.

I tell people it comes down to this for me.  Obama made me proud to be a Democrat.. Clinton is trying hard to make me ashamed to be a Democrat.  Thanks Hillary Clinton.  Thanks.