Over the past few weeks, I have noticed an uncanny similarity between Sarah Palin and another famous personality in the news.
Does Sarah have a twin sister that we don't know about? 
View each YouTube video. You decide . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

Jodi Rell.         Why?
1. She's a woman.2. She's a great governor - took over for the crook Rowland.3. She is a centrist Republican.4. In one fell swoop, he would major constituencies that have eluded him for Hillary.5. She would validate the "bringing together of America" statement.
Just my two cents.

I have been following TPM for many years and have found Josh's focus on the issues and straightforward writing style refreshing. So refreshing, that I no longer subscribe to ANY newspapers.
But where is JOSH? He rarely writes anymore and let's other writers and bloggers define the news moment. Look at today - after a pretty bitter (pun intended) weekend - no message from Josh on what his thoughts are. I need opinion!
Finally, get rid of Horse's Mouth - he has been gone for over a month. Get someone else to do it or take it off the nav bar - I am tired of hitting it and getting the same sad mention of a "short" hiatus.
Just my 2 cents.

The Huffington Post just posted this story:"Clinton Compares Herself To Rocky Balboa: We Have A Lot In Common".

Please stay with me on this . . .
So she is OVERTLY saying that she is like Rocky - the underdog . . . someone who doesn't quit.
But COVERTLY . . . and stay with me . . . is she saying, "I am the white guy and he is the black guy"?
With all that is being perceived by the electorate and her troubles so far, do you think she is stepping so low to announce this?
Or am I looking to far into it? Would love your comments.
Original link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/clinton-compares-herself-_n_94438.html

Nuff said.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

It's been clear to some of us for over a month that the race was over.  The Politico article covers some of what we've been talking about for some time, that by just about any measure the race is decided, and that the only way Clinton can win is for Obama to be destroyed and for her to benefit from his destruction.  

When asked yesterday if her campaign was pushing the Wright story, Hillary Clinton herself wouldn't deny it, and didn't declare it off limits for her campaign staff.  I've been told that the campaign's talking points for surrogate calls to superdelegates urges the callers to question Obama's electability by emphasizing the Wright controversy.  And even in public, as Chris Bowersreported from his local Dem meeting, Clinton staffers are pushing the Wright story:

Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.

According to The Politico article, it's sort of a last gasp attempt to derail Obama's nomination, but it doesn't seem likely to succeed:

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

So, you might be asking, why the heck won't the traditional media report what most of us see, that the nomination is settled and there's no way other than destroying Obama or dividing the party that Clinton can win the nomination?  

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists, for instance, have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

That's right, reporters and editors are unable--or unwilling--to report the race accurately because they're having too much fun, and maybe even making too much money.

The Hillary Clinton camp has tried every avenue to delay reporting on the delegates from the Texas primary. 

They tried to intimidate the Texas Democratic Party prior to the primary. That failed. On election night, they threw up a duststorm of objections about irregularities. 

Now, the Clinton camp us urging the state party to delay the March 29 county and senate conventions, where details of how 67 delegates picked in the county caucuses will be announced.

Why are they doing this? Because they are losing.

CNN projects that Barack Obama won the Texas caucuses with 38 convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton. The Texas primary is a complicated, two-step process. Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the popular-vote portion, 65 to 61. With his likely caucus-delegate haul, looks like Obama won the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 -- or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

Hillary Clinton declared victory in Texas and moved on. As for these pesky details, like delegates, that's the last thing the Clinton campaign wants to talk about.

Here, after the jump, is the Clinton campaign letter urging Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Ritchie to delay the March 29 county/state senate conventions:

March 14, 2008

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS, EMAIL
AND FACSIMILE TO (512) 480-2500

Mr. Boyd L. Richie
Chairman, Texas Democratic Party
State Democratic Executive Committee
505 W. 12th Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Chairman Richie:

We want to congratulate you on the extraordinary turnout of voters across the State of Texas who participated in the March 4 Democratic presidential primary and precinct conventions. We appreciate the unprecedented administrative challenges the high turnout presented. Fortunately, the Texas Democratic Party has under its Rules and the Texas Delegate Selection Plan requirements designed to ensure that the process in which eligible voters participate is fair and one in which they can have confidence, and when there are deficiencies, requirements to ensure that those deficiencies are rectified.

In this regard we are writing to express our concerns regarding the review and tally of the official results of the State Party's precinct conventions on March 4. As you are no doubt aware, there are significant questions about whether the precinct conventions were conducted in accordance with the Party's Delegate Selection Plan and Rules. On the night of the caucus itself we brought many instances of these irregularities to the attention of the State Party. The campaign received in excess of 2,000 complaints of rules violations, indicating widespread violations of the Party's rules, including the following specific occurrences that are clear violations of specific rules:

• Temporary Chair packets were released by the election judge prior to 7:00 pm
• Sign-in sheets were filled out before 7:00 pm
• Precincts were consolidated for purposes of holding a convention
• Precinct caucuses began before polls closed for the primary
• Ineligible participants voted or ineligible delegates were elected, including participants who were not registered voters, participants who did not vote in the primary, provisional voters whose votes were counted, and no verification was made of the eligibility of participants or delegates 
• Accurate written records of participants, presidential preferences, and elected delegates were not kept 
• Participants' names and presidential preference were entered on sign-in sheets by someone other than the eligible individual participant
• Results were taken from a head count or hand count rather than the written roll
• Delegate votes were not ratified by the precinct convention
• Failure to follow Robert's Rules of Order at the precinct convention

We have had several conversations with the State Party since March 4, including conversations with Chad Dunn, regarding the procedures that the State Party intends to follow to insure that the rules were followed and that only the votes of eligible participants would be considered. We understood that we were to receive a memorandum regarding that process, but were advised yesterday that instead we would be invited to a briefing on Monday, March 17.

Last week our Counsel, Lyn Utrecht, was told by Mr. Dunn that the State Party intended to verify the eligibility of participants and that the Party's IT people were working on a system for doing that electronically. On Tuesday the 11th, when Ms. Utrecht contacted Mr. Dunn to inquire about the status of the memorandum regarding the procedures, she was advised that the State Party no longer intended to verify the eligibility of participants or delegates because the Party would not have the ability to do that before the County Conventions. This was confirmed by Mr. Dunn yesterday.

Therefore, it is our understanding that the results will be counted and delegates awarded based on a count of votes without any determination by the State Party of eligibility of the participants, and without any certification by the Precinct Chairs or County and Senate District Chairs that they completed a thorough review of the eligibility of participants and delegate candidates.

Thus it will be left to the campaigns to file credentials challenges against those delegates awarded based on the votes of ineligible participants, without the State Party making any effort to identify ineligible participants. We were advised yesterday that we will begin to receive copies of the scanned sign-in sheets sometime early next week and that it will not be until the end of next week when we will receive all of this data. In order to review this, the campaigns will also need access to the voter rolls to determine who voted in the primary held that day. While the State Party has indicated that it will request this information from the larger counties and provide it, it is unclear how soon that information will be available. For the smaller counties, the campaigns must request it from each county.

We believe this is in direct contravention of the Rules, which require that the Party determine the eligibility of participants and that only the votes of eligible participants are counted. Moreover, if the Party's reason for not ensuring that only eligible participants are counted is based on the fact that the Party cannot complete the review process prior to the scheduled date of the County and Senate District Conventions, the campaigns can't possibly complete this review in a timely fashion. Credentials challenges are presently due March 26. 
We believe that (1) it is a violation of the Party's Delegate Selection Plan and Rules for the Party not to ensure that the eligibility of participants was determined before their votes are counted; and (2) if the Party cannot complete this task in time to hold the next level conventions on March 29, those conventions must be postponed until such time as accurate presidential preference counts can be made based on a review of each and every sign in sheet to determine eligibility of participants and delegates.

It is a violation of the rights of legitimate participants to have their true vote count distorted by violations of the Party's Rules. It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed and that the final official results of the precinct conventions are accurate and in compliance with the Rules.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Party explain to both campaigns what procedures will be followed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the precinct convention results and agree to postpone the County and Senate District Conventions until such time as that process can be completed.

We look forward to working with you to ensure that the votes of the people who participated in the March 4 primary and precinct conventions are accurately counted.

Sincerely,

/s/

Garry Mauro
Authorized Representative

Guy Cecil
National Political and Field Director

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-delay-the-delegate-cou.html?npc

Where are you guys? <br><br>
What are you waiting for? <br><br>
For this to become more of a mess? For Hillary to use any tactic to smear her opponent? Richardson said that he would side with the person who had the most delegates after TX/OH - we hear NOTHING. <br><br>
Come into the light and make your intentions known. <br><br>
Am I off here? Would love your comments.

Clinton advisers' outside lobbying work for firm to take over defense plants accents their awkward position

In the spring, when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was denouncing the Dubai Ports World deal, a consulting firm run by her top advisers was quietly lobbying for a Dubai takeover of two U.S. defense plants, Newsday has learned.

The Glover Park Group, whose principals include Clinton insiders Howard Wolfson, Joe Lockhart and Gigi Georges, was paid about $100,000 to help the government-owned Dubai International Capital Corp. in its acquisition of the British engineering firm Doncasters Group Ltd.

Clinton and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who helped to sink the takeover of port operations by a Dubai company, supported the Doncasters acquisition, saying it didn't pose nearly as significant a security threat.

Glover Park's contract with Dubai was channeled through the Los Angeles law office of Raj Tanden, the brother of longtime Hillary Clinton policy adviser Neera Tanden, according to people familiar with the situation.

Raj Tanden, who represented the emirate's royal family in its 2005 acquisition of $1 billion in U.S. real estate holdings, declined to comment. His sister didn't return a message left at her office yesterday.

Neera Tanden served as a congressional liaison for Bill Clinton before moving on to become a key Hillary Clinton campaign aide and the senator's legislative director.

The Doncasters takeover was much less controversial than the ports deal, mainly because Dubai officials submitted to a full review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The Bush administration infuriated Congress by forgoing a review for the ports takeover, provoking a powerful bipartisan backlash that doomed the deal.

Doncasters, which makes tank and aircraft turbines in its Connecticut and Georgia plants, was approved by the government foreign investment committee in May.Some critics, including Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), argued that Mideast officials shouldn't be allowed to control factories used by defense contractors. (DUH- YA THIN? – DWW) 

Considering the firestorm that surrounded the Dubai Ports World proposal, it's surprising that the controversy-allergic Clinton team agreed to lobby for Dubai at all. 

The contract was signed April 13, only a month after the ports deal went down in flames over concerns the emirate was a breeding ground for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers. 

Who was involved: The Glover Park Group - known as the "White House in Exile" - was founded five years ago by a group of top advisers to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, including former White House communications director Joe Lockhart and key Hillary Clinton advisers Gigi Georges and Howard Wolfson, who don't engage in lobbying but are apprised of the firm's lobbying efforts.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin144890633sep14,0,4200190.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

From 6/07 Newsmax:
"When she stood before the TV cameras Sunday night during the televised CNN debate between Democrat hopefuls, Hillary Clinton raised a lot of eyes: suddenly the years had melted away and there was a young and flawless looking Mrs. Clinton. You could almost hear what viewers were thinking: did she use botox?"

There are photos that I see over a year ago showing a 60-year old woman, now I see someone with the skin of a 46 year old.
I know . . . I know . . . stick to the issues. 
BUT - if you want a topic that will drive the MSM crazy and attract readers like a Michael Jackson story. Run this one. 
Show the Before/After photos. 
I know that many women out there have had Botox. I have nothing against that. I am not saying it is bad or good. All I am saying is that it will position Obama's opponent as a vain, self-centered, monster (whoops, off the record) and not a real, thoughtful, and professional statesman.
From the Daily Mail:

"When you are running for president, your appearance is scrutinised almost as closely as your policies. So when Hillary Clinton appeared in a television debate looking years younger tongues were soon wagging.

Observers said the 60-year-old appeared youthful and fresh-faced, prompting speculation that she has had Botox injections."