Hillary is a negative campaigner (Part 3).

As the AP reported , 63% of a certain voting group in South Carolina felt that in the campaign Hillary had made unfair attacks against Obama. And what group would that be?

...people that voted for Hillary.

That's right. 63% of the people who voted for Hillary thought she engaged in unfair negative campaigning.

Here are the numbers from the voting results and exit polls.

• Total votes: 530,322
• Percentage of voters saying Hillary engaged in unfair attacks: 70%
• Number of voters saying Hillary engaged in unfair attacks: 530,322 x .70 = 371,225
• Percentage of 371,225 who voted for Hillary: 24%
• Number of Hillary voters saying Hillary engaged in unfair attacks: 371,225 x .24 = 89,094
  
• Total votes for Hillary: 141, 128
• Percentage of Hillary voters saying Hillary engaged in unfair attacks: 89,094/141,128 = 63%

Wow. Even a majority of Hillary voters says she is a negative campaigner.

Or maybe not. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night, and she said that the media fudged all the numbers to make Hillary look bad. I guess it's pretty serious.

Finally! A website with information I can use.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Does the Department of Homeland Security know about this? Maybe the government doesn't want us to know...

A quick observation about the Republican race

I just saw a clip of John McCain saying that "Governor Hair" is going to endorse him.

For you non-Texans, "Governor Hair" is Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry was Lt. Governor under good ol' George, and has been Governor since then. He was long rumored to be gunning for a VP slot on the 2008 ticket.

Seems interesting to me that Perry is going to endorse the candidate who is far from the darling of establishment Republicans.

If McCain is considering Perry for VP as a means to secure Texas in the general election, he might want to think twice, as Perry, while not necessarily strongly disliked, ain't exactly really popular here.

Bill's Jesse Jackson comments and the need for Hillary supporters to get tin foil hats

Introduction

On the morning of January 26--the day of the South Carolina primary--Bill Clinton was interviewed in a parking lot. The transcript of the entire interview can be found here. This post will focus on the following exchange:

David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?

BC: [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere, he’s got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

Those comments certainly caused a stir. Hillary supporters have tried various ways to defend the comments and explain them away. Quite frankly, some of their efforts are just sad. This post will examine Bill's statements in detail.

Possible meaning of the statements

The Hillary campaign has said these statements were not racial in nature. Obama has said he did not think Bill was trying to inject racism into the campaign via these statements. Others have said that they see no racism in the statements.

Well, assuming, arguendo, that there was no racial intent, the statements can easily be interpreted to have a racist meaning. I maintain that is the most likely interpretation, and even if Bill did not intend to convey a racist message, he damn well should have been smart enough to know that such a interpretation could easily be made.

Here is how the statements can be interpreted.

• The Democratic electorate in South Carolina is at least 50% black.
• Jesse Jackson is black.
• Barack Obama is black.
• Jesse Jackson won twice in South Carolina, yet failed to win the nomination.
• So what if the black candidate in 2008 won? A black candidate won before in basically a black state and did not come close to winning the election.
• The results in South Carolina don't matter because this is basically "a black thing" and no other state primary will be like that.

Keep in mind that I am saying this is only one interpretation. I will accept for the purposes of this discussion that other interpretations are possible.

For instance, maybe Bill simply meant that just because someone wins in South Carolina does not mean that person will win the nomination. That interpretation certainly has nothing to do with race, and it is factual. However, if that was Bill's intended meaning, he could have used a far more recent and relevant example. In 2004, John Edwards won the South Carolina primary, and yet he did not come close to winning the nomination, as Kerry wrapped that up early. Citing Edwards rather than Jackson would have been far more relevant because 1) Edwards's victory was in the immediately previous election, and 2) at that time Edwards was still in the 2008 campaign. Thus, Bill could have made the point while clearly not making any racial statements AND could have taken a good clean shot against one of Hillary's opponents. Instead, he cited an example from over 20 years ago regarding a person who, frankly, has not been a prominent part of the national political scene for quite a while. Al Sharpton has been far more prominent in that regard than Jesse Jackson.

So why mention Jesse Jackson? Can someone assign any reason other than race? I'm not saying there is no other reason. I just want someone to explain one.

I have seen comments elsewhere on the web from people who say they don't see anything possibly inappropriate with Bill's statements. Those people are at best clueless. Seriously.

Of course, the big question is why would Bill say something like this in the first place? Ah, but before answering that question, we simply must talk about the efforts of Hillary supporters to prove nothing actually happened.

These people have lost their damn minds.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

This whole matter was set in motion by a video clip which showed only the question and answer which appear at the beginning of this post. You can see this initial video here.

Hill's Shills went to work on the wide world interweb quickly. There were comments on many sites claiming that the media had edited the initial video to twist what Bill said. Here's one of those comments:

I am outraged by this story. I saw the ORGINAL clip of the reporters question. He FIRST asked Bill whether Obama could win as a black candidate…then added the second part of the question. The media CUT the first part, then accused Bill of injecting ‘race’ (with Jesse Jackson) into this response. These tactics are increasingly alarming to me and show that the media is not only deliberately trying to “spin” again Bill Clinton, they are stealing the election from the American people. People need to stand up to this — it is WRONG!

(caps in original). This story was then repeated by Rep. Kendrick Meeks, a Florida Congressman who has endorsed Hillary. Meeks was interviewed on CNN on January 28, 2008.

CHETRY: We appreciate it. Well, we also have with us, Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek. He is endorsing Senator Clinton for president and he joins me here this morning.

Now, thanks for being with us Congressman. Are people getting tired of, because there has been some criticism, even from those who are supporting the Clintons like Charlie Rangel, who even said that, "The focus has got to get back on Hillary. It has to be about her election to win. It's become too much about his role."

Is the former president's tone taking away from what he's trying to do for his wife?

KENDRICK MEEK, (D) FLORIDA: You know, it's interesting. The first time we've actually had a leading female candidate, leading African-American candidate and the first time, a former commander-in- chief is now a spouse to one of those candidates.

I also think it's important, even on the last clip talking about the response to Barack Obama's win. I was actually with the president in South Carolina. I've been traveling with him over several days. He was asked a question about historic voting in the state of South Carolina and that was at 10:00 a.m. in the morning. We just left breakfast. We didn't even have any exit polls at that time. So some of it is the reporting of how events actually took place but I think...

There's just one little problem with this story, namely that it is a fairy tale. In response to this claim of media manipulation, on January 28 at 1:19 PM, ABC News published the entire transcript from the parking lot interview, and the "first part of the question" was not in the transcript. That did not matter to Hill's Shills, as they trumpeted that surely the transcript had also been edited. "Where was the full video?" they demanded. So, on January 29 ABC News released the entire video, and guess what? The "first part of the question" was not there!

Hill's Shills were still not satisfied, as many of them insisted still that the video had been edited. If you want to see a complete example of this delusional behavior, check out this discussion thread. Faced with the transcript and the video, the person who started the thread kept asking why anyone would believe an ABC News reporter instead of Congressman Meeks, over and over and over...According to him, the entire media is out to get Hillary, so no one in the media is to be believe. Others asked the very reasonable question "Why should we believe Meeks?" There was no direct, substantive answer.

In that discussion, several people raised a very good point, namely that if the video and the transcript had been altered, if in fact there had been a "first part of the question," why then had neither Bill nor Hillary said anything about it? Given their conduct in this campaign, it is beyond belief that they would not say anything about this if in fact the media had altered either the video or the transcript. Indeed, the talking points distributed to Hillary supporters said nothing about any misrepresentation or alteration by the media. See for yourself:

Wasn’t former President Bill Clinton playing the race card when he sought to downplay Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina by comparing him to Jesse Jackson?

* No.

* Look, President Bill Clinton has spent his entire public and private life repairing the breach in this country.

* Both his Presidency and his post-presidency career have focused on unity, not division.

* So I reject the premise of the question.

* We need to focus on the challenges facing this country – the state of our economy, the continuing war in Iraq, the need for universal health care.

* And those challenges require a President who can come to the office ready to lead on day one, Hillary Clinton.

So, there has been no official claim by Hillary or Bill that his statements were manipulated by the media. There has been no official claim by Hillary or Bill that there was a "first part of the question." And yet Hill's Shills had no response to this point. Instead they just kept repeating the same sad claims. Anyone considering making a financial contribution to Hillary might consider instead 1) buying mass quantities of tin foil and distributing it to Hillary supporters, and 2) printing out this web page and providing copies along with the tin foil.

Conclusion

The actual tangible evidence shows that there has been no alteration or manipulation of either the video of the event or the transcript. Bill's statements can easily be interpreted to have a racial meaning. Indeed, I think that is the most reasonable interpretation. Why? For starters, as explained above, if the point was to show that winning the South Carolina primary does not mean the winner gets the nomination, John Edwards in 2004 would have been a much better example. Second, as the transcript and video show, there was nothing asked which would have necessarily prompted any reference to Jesse Jackson. Third, if someone has another interpretation, feel free to state it. In any event, the overwhelming evidence is that Bill simply brought up Jesse Jackson for no reason prompted by any of the questions asked of him. Given all of these facts, what reason is there for these statements other than racial? Again, I'm not saying there is no other reason. I am saying I would like someone to explain some other reason.

And even if there is another reasonable explanation, Bill--just like Hillary was in making her MLK/LBJ/JFK comments--was amazingly stupid in making his statements.

Update on Edwards

I just watched Edwards's speech announcing that he is out of the race.

There was no endorsement, and that does not surprise me. In fact, I would think that it is likely that the earliest he might make an endorsement would be Saturday. I say this for several reasons.

The first reason has nothing to do with political strategy or policy. It has to do with the people who worked on the Edwards campaign and otherwise supported him. I remember all too well how I felt about four years ago when Wes Clark dropped out of the race and very quickly endorsed Kerry. It was an awful feeling. I can't adequately describe just how bad it was. I knew that the endorsement was inevitable. I just wished that Clark had waited a few days so that everyone who had worked so hard on the campaign could have even a little time to recover and try to get over the sadness. I think John Edwards wants to give his supporters some of that time.

Now for the political and strategic matters. Edwards said in his speech that he got pledges from both Hillary and Obama that they would take up one of Edwards's key causes, the fight against poverty. Edwards likely will wait a little while to see which candidate seems the most sincere and the most capable of moving that cause forward. So why would this weekend be the time for Edwards to make that decision? Why would he not wait longer?

Well, the next Democratic debate is tomorrow night. It is going to be one-on-one, and it will be a great place for the candidates to try to make their case to Edwards. Also, there is no question that Super Tuesday is HUGE. Twenty-two states are on the line in a single day. After this Tuesday, it is possible that the race could be over from a practical (not technical) viewpoint. Edwards is in a position to potentially have a big influence on Super Tuesday. Thus, if he wants to have a major impact on who wins this race, it seems to me that his endorsement has to come before Super Tuesday.

Then again, he might want to wait until after Super Tuesday to see which way the wind is blowing. I think the John Edwards from four years ago would definitely have done that. In other words, John Edwards then would have been mainly looking out for the political interests of himself. I'm not convinced that today's John Edwards is changed. There certainly are indications that he has changed, chief among them his changed position on Iraq, including his admission that his vote for the war was wrong and the fact that he was the first candidate to call for an end to funding the war. Those were not "check the wind" actions.

I am going to make a guess that Edwards will make an endorsement this weekend. I am not going to make a guess as to who gets that endorsement.

Edwards ends his campaign.

John Edwards will officially announce the end of his campaign at noon today.

Of course, the big questions now are 1) will he endorse either remaining candidate, 2) if so, who, and 3) when?

If he wants to have an impact on Super Tuesday, I would expect an endorsement today. There had been talk before that he would stay in the race in order to play king maker or queen maker at the convention. However, now that he is out of the race, his chances of playing such a role decrease. It seems to me that he could have the biggest impact by making an endorsement now. As I said on Monday, I think the campaign might have reached a tipping point Monday with the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama. Edwards endorsing Obama today could really tip things in Obama's favor. On the other hand, Edwards endorsing Hillary could restore balance or tip things in her favor. In any event, it would greatly slow the momentum that Obama has been gaining lately.

So who might Edwards endorse? Judging by his basic campaign themes, debate performances, and his recent comment that Democrats have to choose a nominee that can win in November (as opposed to simply winning party primaries), I would think he would endorse Obama. But who knows?

Stay tuned...

Why did Ted Kennedy choose Obama over Hillary?

Basically, Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama because 1) Obama truly inspires him, and 2) the Clintons pissed him off.

Let's look at the first reason. Kennedy's speech yesterday displayed that inspiration.

Every time I’ve been asked over the past year who I would support in the Democratic Primary, my answer has always been the same: I’ll support the candidate who inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision and summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come.

I’ve found that candidate. And it looks to me like you have too.

*******

Let there be no doubt: We are all committed to seeing a Democratic President in 2008.

But I believe there is one candidate who has extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history.

He understands what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “fierce urgency of now.”

He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to “the better angels of our nature.”

I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Like most of the nation, I was moved four years ago as he told us a profound truth—that we are not, we must not be, just red states and blue states, but one United States. And since that time I have marveled at his grit and his grace as he traveled this country and inspired record turnouts of people of all ages, of all races, of all genders, of all parties and faiths to get “fired up” and “ready to go.”

I’ve seen him connect with people from every walk of life and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. With every person he meets, every crowd he inspires, and everyone he touches, he generates new hope that our greatest days as a nation are still ahead, and this generation of Americans, like others before us, can unite to meet our own rendezvous with destiny.

*******

Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign—a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.

I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.

They realized that when they asked what they could do for their country, they could change the world.

It was the young who led the first Earth Day and issued a clarion call to protect the environment; the young who enlisted in the cause of civil rights and equality for women; the young who joined the Peace Corps and showed the world the hopeful face of America.

At the fifth anniversary celebration of the Peace Corps, I asked one of those young Americans why they had volunteered.

And I will never forget the answer: “It was the first time someone asked me to do something for my country.”

This is another such time.

I sense the same kind of yearning today, the same kind of hunger to move on and move America forward. I see it not just in young people, but in all our people.

And in Barack Obama, I see not just the audacity, but the possibility of hope for the America that is yet to be.

*******

There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed “someone with greater experience”—and added: “May I urge you to be patient.” And John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”

So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now.

And there was more. If reading the words alone does not convey Kennedy's inspired tone, watch the video.

So much for the first reason. Now let's have some fun.

Earlier this month, several prominent Democrats talked to Bill Clinton and advised him, for the sake of the party and whoever would be the nominee, to tone down his attacks on Obama. According to Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, Ted Kennedy was among that group, and his conversation with Bill was heated. And, of course, as everyone except Hillary Kool Aid drinkers knows, Bill in no way toned down his attacks.

And then the Hillary campaign panicked when word starting circulating that Ted Kennedy was considering endorsing Obama. According to the New York Times, "Both the Clintons and their allies had pressed Mr. Kennedy for weeks to remain neutral in the Democratic race[.]" And that effort concluded with a call from Bill his ownself. Those entreaties were rejected in part because of how Hillary and Bill had been campaigning against Obama. Again from the NYT:

Before the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Kennedy had planned to stay out of the race, largely because he had so many friends in the contest, chiefly Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. He also said he was waiting for one of the candidates to spark a movement.

"I want to see who out there is going to be able to inspire not only our party, but others, because I think we’re going to need the inspiration in order to bring a change in American foreign policy and domestic policy," Mr. Kennedy said last year on ABC News’s "This Week."

Apparently, what Hillary and Bill had been saying convinced Kennedy that Hillary was not the candidate to inspire--which is what I have been saying. According to this NYT article, Kennedy "had grown furious at the tone of the presidential campaign, including the words and actions of former President Bill Clinton[.]" So Hillary's and Bill's negative campaigning played a big role in losing a very big endorsement. Way to go, you schmucks. Yet another brilliant and smooth move.

The New York chapter of NOW slams Ted Kennedy.

...this just in from the "Are you freakin' kidding me?" department.

In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States.

Good grief.

But wait...there is oh so much more.

"Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

I've seen less melodramatic hyperbole in a telenovela. But the NY NOW chapter still had more to say.

But the NOW state chapter suggested Monday Kennedy's decision was a larger representation of society’s ongoing disrespect for women's rights.

"This latest move by Kennedy is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation — to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what’s best for us.'"

And I guess Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Oprah Winfrey, Toni Morrison, and Caroline Kennedy are just destroying women's rights. Where are the NY NOW letters condemning them?

One of the glaringly close-minded and just plain wrong assumptions inherent in this bullshit is that any man elected President is going to do nothing to promote women's rights. To the NY NOW chapter, I ask the following questions:

1. Where do you get off determining that all men will simply try to keep your gender down?
2. Where do you get off implying that the only way to promote women's rights is to elect Hillary?

Under the "reasoning" presented by NY NOW, anyone who claims to be supportive of women's rights has to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Under the "reasoning" presented by NY NOW, anyone who does not vote for Hillary is misogynistic. And just to show the extent of the stupidity of this position by NY NOW, under the "reasoning" presented by NY NOW, anyone who does not vote for Obama is necessarily a racist.

What NY NOW is basically saying is that "either you are with us or you are against the entire female gender." Gee, I guess that NY NOW just loves George W. Bush the because that is exactly how the Bush administration has operated for the last seven years.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama had nothing to do with gender. The endorsements of Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Oprah Winfrey, Toni Morrison, and Caroline Kennedy had nothing to do with gender.

My opposition to Hillary--and in case you, NY NOW, have not noticed, I am far from being alone in this regard--has nothing to do with gender. As I have stated before, I have no problem with a woman being President, and there are plenty of women for whom I could vote to be President.

NY NOW complains that men have too long been allowed to claim that they "know what's best" for women. Apparently NY NOW finds such behavior appalling. Well, guess what? I do, too. And guess what? Throughout this campaign, Hillary--through her own words and actions--has shown that she thinks she is right and everyone else is wrong. That arrogance--not her gender--is what I find appalling. That is the very same arrogance that I have found appalling in the Bush administration. That is the same arrogance I would find appalling in any person, male or female. And it is the same kind of close-minded, utterly stupid arrogance that NY NOW has just exhibited.

FYI: Here's another post addressing this matter. Take note of the comments from another blog.

...and yet another prominent female politician does not not endorse Hillary.

Today, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius officially endorsed Obama.

There are at least two reasons this is significant. First, here is yet another prominent, successful female politician that is NOT supporting Hillary. Any question about Sebelius's prominence in the Democratic party is answered by the fact that she was chosen to give the Democratic response to last night's State of the Union Address. Second, Sebelius is a Democratic governor who won election twice in a very Republican state. More on that later...

Here's some background on Sebelius:

Kathleen Sebelius won election as the 44th Governor of Kansas in November 2002, becoming the first daughter of a U.S. governor (John Gilligan, Ohio, 1971-75) to serve in that same position, continuing a proud tradition of responsible public service. As Governor, Sebelius pledged to bring a fiscally disciplined, people oriented approach to state government, and she has delivered. In her first three legislative sessions, Governor Sebelius placed the state on sound financial footing, steered a massive economic growth package to passage, and restructured a financially troubled highway program to ensure timely completion of all projects. Budget balances have been restored and safety net services secured, without a tax increase.

*******

Prior to her election as governor, Sebelius served four terms (1987-1995) in the Kansas House of Representatives and two terms (1995-2003) as the state's elected Insurance Commissioner. As Insurance Commissioner, Sebelius reduced the operating budget by 19% and did more with less. Under her leadership, the Department became an unprecedented consumer watchdog -- cracking down on HMOs that refused to cover legitimate medical expenses and helping Kansas seniors save nearly seven million dollars on prescription drugs. As Insurance Commissioner, Sebelius was named one of Governing magazine's "Public Officials of the Year" and one of the "100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare" by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

Governor Sebelius presently serves as chair of the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee of the National Governors' Association and as policy chair of the Democratic Governors' Association.

Wikipedia adds some other details about her term as Insurance Commissioner:

In 1994, she left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning — the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts."

So, Sebelius has extensive experience in an area in which Hillary considers herself an expert, health care. And yet Sebelius chose not to endorse her sister expert. Hmmm...

Wikipedia gives details on another matter on which Sebelius is an expert.

On May 26, 2006, Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former Kansas state GOP Party Chairman switched his party affiliation to Democratic; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House from 1991-92 and the Senate from 1993-97. Parkinson was a popular and successful GOP Party Chairman. He was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.

She was challenged by Republican Kansas State Senator Jim Barnett. A September 1 Rasmussen poll showed Sebelius with an 11% lead over Barnett. Other polls gave Sebelius as much as a 20% lead. However, as of 2004, 50% of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27% as registered Democrats. Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election with 57.8% of the vote to Barnett's 40.5%.

In other words, Sebelius knows what it takes for a Democrat to win over Republican voters, and as I have said and will keep saying, any Democrat that wants to win a Presidential election has to get some Republican votes.

Everything I said in this post about Janet Napolitano and Claire McCaskill is equally applicable to Kathleen Sebelius. She is a self-made woman who did not have to ride someone else's coattails to success. She has many more years experience than Hillary in running for and being elected to public office. Her success has given her more first hand experience and knowledge as to what it takes to get the support of people from both parties. And based on that knowledge and experience, Sebelius--like Napolitano and McCaskill--determined that Obama has a better chance of winning in November than does Hillary.

So what now, Hillary supporters? Do you claim that Sebelius is misogynistic and has betrayed her gender? Or do you take notice that yet another highly successful woman is supporting Obama instead of Hillary? Do you take notice that perhaps there is something about Hillary other than her gender that is important?

Lots of Hillary posts coming today

I will today publish posts about more endorsements, background on Ted Kennedy's endorsement, the delusions of Hillary supporters, and more.

Stay tuned.

Is this woman a traitor, too?

Obama picked up another endorsement from a well-known woman.

Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison has endorsed Obama.

For those who did not know or have forgotten, Morrison is the person who first called Bill Clinton our "first black President."

From the AP article:

Morrison, whose acclaimed novels such as "Beloved" and "Song of Solomon" usually concentrate of the lives of black women, said she has admired Clinton for years because of her knowledge and mastery of politics, but then dismissed that experience in favor of Obama's vision.

"In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates," Morrison wrote. "That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

"Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom," Morrison wrote.

So does this mean that Morrison, like Oprah, is also a traitor to women? Or could it be that maybe--just maybe--Morrison is looking past gender and race?

Kennedys with Obama at a campaign rally

I was watching an Obama campaign event in D.C. with Caroline Kennedy,Ted Kennedy, and his son Patrick Kennedy (Congressman from Rhode Island). I started watching just as Ted started speaking. Ted delivered one powerful speech. I do not think I have ever seen this level of energy, passion, and razor-sharp speaking from Ted. I think even a lot of Republicans would be impressed. His speech shredded all of Hillary's talking points and criticisms of Obama, all while building up Obama.

Ted was very skillful at not appearing to take direct jabs at Hillary--with one exception. Toward the end of the speech, Ted said that Obama was ready to be President "on Day One." And then he broke out in a big grin and started laughing.

This event could very well be the tipping point in this campaign. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but I'm telling you that Ted's speech was that good. Oh yeah, Obama's speech was pretty damn good, too. Ted's speech talked about hope and inspiration and set the stage for Obama's speech, and he took off from there and soared. Hillary can try all she wants to downplay the need for and importance of inspiration, but it is going to become increasingly obvious that 1) inspiration is important, and 2) she has little to offer, especially in comparison to Obama.

Do not underestimate the impact these endorsements could have.

More to follow...

Caroline is not the only Kennedy to endorse Obama.

As reported by the Boston Globe yesterday, later today Ted Kennedy is going to endorse Obama.

This endorsement could be very important, as detailed in the article.

To me, Ted's endorsement is important because it continues a developing trend of Senate colleagues of Hillary's that have since the New Hampshire primary come out and said they don't think she is the best choice for the nomination. It started with John Kerry. Then Claire McCaskill. Then Ben Nelson. Then Tim Johnson. Then Patrick Leahy. And now Ted Kennedy. Johnson, Kerry, Leahy, and Kennedy are among the most senior--which is to say"experienced"--members of the Democratic caucus, and the fact that they are supporting Obama is a direct rebuff to Hillary's claim that she has superior experience.

More on Ted's endorsement and this trend later.

...and here's another female endorsement NOT going to Hillary.

...and this does not really surprise me, especially given Hillary's initial comments about MLK/LBJ/JFK. Here's what Hillary said, with the parts relevant to this post italicized.

I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do. The president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a reality in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.

(emphasis added).

Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama via an op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times. Beside the fact that she is JFK's daughter, I find it most interesting that here is another woman who is not endorsing Hillary.

In my first post about Hillary's MLK/LBJ/JFK comments, I said the following:

Some people have opined that Hillary was comparing Obama to JFK--the president who, according to Hillary, only hoped to do something but never even tried. I believe such an interpretation is wrong, but even if it is correct, it still shows stupidity by Hillary. Whether still deserved or not, JFK is considered by many Democrats as the American political equivalent of a saint. So, if this interpretation is correct, Hillary just called the Democratic party icon a mere talker who did not actually do anything. Now there's a smooth move.

Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be possible that JFK's daughter took issue with Hillary's description? In any event, Caroline Kennedy's op-ed left little doubt about why she has chosen to endorse Obama. And whether her words also show why she is NOT supporting Hillary, I am going to use them to reiterate points I have been making.

Before showing the first excerpt from the op-ed, remember that in this post and this post I detailed how Hillary has shown--through her own words--that she thinks inspiration is overrated and unnecessary. With that in mind, consider these words from Caroline Kennedy:

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama.

(emphasis added). So, she thinks that inspiration is very important. That sounds to me like a direct shot at Hillary.

Try this on for size...

It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

What has been the basis of and almost the exclusive theme of Hillary's campaign? Experience. And here is Caroline Kennedy specifically saying that experience is not enough. Part of what is needed is leadership that can inspire people. I have already suggested that Hillary is stressing experience over inspiration because she has nothing in the way of inspiration or hope to offer.

And though the op-ed does not specifically address Hillary, this excerpt gets to the core of why I am against Hillary:

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Bingo. As I said on September 18, 2007,

Listen folks--this is not about focusing on one substantive issue while ignoring Hillary's other experience and abilities. This is about her personality and character.

*******

For me, this election is not just about issues. It is not just about specific plans for health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc. It is about who has the temperament, personality, and character to be an effective President at this time.

And every other post I have written about Hillary shows why I say she utterly lacks the necessary character to be President.

Caroline Kennedy concluded her op-ed with the following:

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

That's pretty strong stuff. And that conclusion is another reason why I think Hillary's stated marginalization of JFK as the President who only hoped and did not even try to do anything about civil rights might have cost her the support of Caroline Kennedy. Like I said, smooth move.

However, even if I am incorrect in that opinion, I think it is clear that Hillary simply does not comprehend the fact that we as a nation are in need of inspiration. Instead, Hillary truly believes she is right and everyone else is wrong, and thus her self-perceived experience is all this nation needs. That combination of arrogance and ignorance is most decidedly what we do NOT need in a President.

Bill's labor secretary on Bill's campaign activities

Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Yesterday on his blog, Reich published a post about Bill's conduct in the current campaign.

Bill Clinton's Old Politics

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

This comes not from a winger. This comes not from a Hillary hater. This comes not from a political rival.

This comes from a devoted former member of Bill's cabinet. Reich has long advocated for the Democratic party, criticized the Bush administration, and generally defended the Clinton administration's policies and accomplishments.

Pay attention, people.

A potential problem for Hillary?

This is just too good...

To be fair, this might amount to nothing, but then again, it might be a case of "where there's smoke..."

Recently Hillary has been attacking Obama for his association with a guy named Rezko in Chicago. For more on this story, go here and here. Rezko has given lots of money to Obama's campaigns in the past, and was part of a sweet real estate deal on Obama's house in Chicago. Obama did return a lot of money that appeared tied directly or indirectly to Rezko. By most accounts, there is not anything illegal regarding this relationship, but it is definitely fair game and should be investigated. But that's not the point here.

The point is twofold. First, Hillary has really been ripping into Obama about this issue. Second, this morning on an appearance on the Today show, Matt Lauer asked Hillary about this picture:

That's Rezko in the center. The photo is undated, and no one has disclosed any details about it, but it appears to have been taken during Bill's Presidency.

Hillary told Lauer

I don't know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17 year relationship with him. There's a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since, and having a relationship that the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring.

The official campaign response is here. Notice that instead of focusing on any possible explanation or clarification of the photo, almost the entire response is about Obama's relationship to Rezko. Typical Hillary--instead of answering questions about her own record, she attacks her opponent. And by the way, I reiterate that that is part of the Bush SOP.

Like I said, there might be nothing to this.

But it sure is damn funny.

More reasons why Hillary's claim that Obama praised Republican ideas is bullshit.

Introduction

It turns out that in the past, both Bill and Hillary had very nice things to say about Ronald Reagan. And that means their sharp criticism of Obama for his comments about Reagan (which, as shown in the previous post, they twisted and misrepresented) shows yet more hypocrisy.

Bill

I cannot provide independent confirmation of this fact, but for years I have called Bill Clinton "the best Republican President we have had." And I have never meant that as a criticism, by the way. Clinton pursued policies that were opposed by many liberals and were not part of traditional Democratic party policy. For example, I think Bill deserved then and still deserves now a lot (but not all) of the credit for the economic success that occurred during his administration. But the policies that were implemented then were, at that time, more Republican than Democratic in nature. So I smiled demurely when I read the following paragraph in an MSNBC report:

Of course, one could very well argue that many of the accomplishments from Clinton's presidency were based on GOP ideas. Welfare reform. NAFTA and free trade. And an emphasis on tax cuts.

Indeed. And recall that for much of Bill's administration, the House was controlled by Republicans, meaning that many things done during Bill's administration were at the least ideas approved by Republicans.

Also, back when Bill was first running for President, he had a pretty favorable view of Reagan, as described here.

Under the headline, "Clinton Credits Reagan For Fall of Communism Policy Speeded Soviet Collapse, Democrat Says," the Washington Post [on October 17, 1991] wrote, "Gov. Bill Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate who has tried to differentiate himself by tacking to the center on some key issues, said yesterday that former president Ronald Reagan's defense buildup had hastened the collapse of Soviet communism. Breaking with the widespread position of liberals that Reagan's military program had little to do with the Soviet system's collapse, the Arkansas governor also praised Reagan's 'rhetoric in defense of freedom' and his role in 'advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back.' Clinton made his comments during a meeting with editors and reporters at The Washington Post. 'The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing,' Clinton said. Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included 'a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure.' He also noted that former president Jimmy Carter already had begun to increase military spending before he was defeated by Reagan in 1980, and that the nation's containment strategy was the product of 'four and a half decades of bipartisan foreign policy.' Still, he said Reagan deserved credit for 'the idea that he wanted to stand up to them.'" [10/17/91, Washington Post]

Wow. Bill not only credited Reagan's policies, but his ideas. But now Bill criticizes Obama for giving Reagan some recognition for ideas. That's hypocrisy, folks.

Now I know what some of you Hillary supporters are thinking...But Bill also said that 1) Reagan engaged in unnecessary and wasteful spending, and 2) the policy of containment that had been in place for decades was key, so Bill really wasn't praising Reagan. Well, if you want to stick to that reasoning, then explain how that is any different from what Obama said about the Republican ideas being played out and that some of the policies being touted by today's GOP candidates are those same ideas. If you want to defend Bill, then you have no business criticizing Obama.

And neither does Bill.

There is another angle to this story. In the previous post, I had a quote from Bill, but I left out part of it. Here is the first part of the quote, with the part I left out italicized:

Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary.

(emphasis added). In other words, Bill was accusing Obama of citing Reagan just so he could get Republicans to vote for him. And just what was Bill doing in 1991? The exact same thing, and anyone who doesn't think so is at best clueless. Bill was the master at moving toward the center in order to get votes, and his praise of Reagan in 1991 was an example. And now he thinks Obama is doing the same thing, Bill thinks that is wrong.

Shut up, Bill.

Hillary

Ah, but Bill is not on the ballot, so let's see what Hillary her ownself has said about Reagan.

On Hillary's own website, she has this article which trumpets the endorsement she received from the Salmon Press newspapers in New Hampshire. Here's the good part:

Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

(emphasis added). Oops! Of course the Hillary campaign responded:

That then prompted Clinton's campaign to issue an e-mail stating that the item, although published on her own campaign Web site, was incorrect. The item came from an interview with Salmon Press Newspapers in New Hampshire, the campaign said.

"In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents," Clinton's campaign said in a statement.

Her campaign provided a statement it said came from David Cutler, co-owner of the Salmon Press Newspapers:

"The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were president...She listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that."

That's fine, but why is the article STILL on her website? Why is this explanation not listed on that specific page??? I just find it funny--and indicative of Hillary's arrogance, hypocrisy, and lack of good judgment--that she blasts Obama for praising Reagan and has something ON HER OWN WEBSITE that says Reagan was one of her favorite Presidents!

Let's move on to something that Hillary did in fact say about Reagan...

Tom Brokaw's latest book is entitled Boom! Subtitled "Voices of the Sixties," it examines how that era has impacted today's society. The book contains some discussion of Hillary. I found this discussion the same place I found the description of Bill's 1991 comments about Reagan. Anyhoo, here's an excerpt from Boom!:

As for the political climate in America, she (Clinton) understands that America has historically tilted toward the conservative side, with intermittent periods of what she calls "progressive energy." She also believes that modern conservatives such as Karl rove are "obsessed" with defeating her. She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan. He was, she says, "a child of the Depression, so he understood it [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully." In 1969, who would have imagined that the Hillary Rodham on the Wellesley commencement stage would find herself thirty-eight years later paying tribute to Ronald Reagan? [Boom, p. 404]

(emphasis added). And who would have imagined that Hillary would in 2008 would turn around and blast a political rival for seemingly praising Reagan? Well, I certainly would have. Everything about Hillary's character and tactics shows that such action was to be expected. And there is only going to be more, folks. That's who Hillary Clinton is and what she is all about. If she gets the nomination, I guarantee she will change her tune--again--and start saying nice things about Reagan in an effort to get Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" to vote for her.

Hillary is a negative campaigner (Part 2), and she twists the truth.

Part 1 of Hillary as negative campaigner can be found here. That post references a poll of voters who considered Hillary to be the most negative campaigner, but now I present an actual example of her negative campaigning. Now, some of you might not consider the ad I am about to describe as negative. However, I consider it negative for two reasons: 1) it attempts to put Obama in a negative light, and 2) more to the point, the ad deliberately twists the truth.

A few days before the Nevada caucuses, Obama sat down for an extended interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal. In that interview, he talked about Ronald Reagan, the effect he had on government, and what the Republican party did during that time. Before showing exactly what Obama said, let's take a look at Hillary's ad.

Via TPM Election Central, here is the text of the ad:

VOICE-OVER: Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

BARACK OBAMA: The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.

VO: Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?

BO: The Republicans were the party of ideas.

VO: Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jump-starting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. And creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get our economy working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

As Greg Sargent said, "The Hillary ad implies--without quite stating outright--that Obama said he favored specific GOP ideas, which he didn't really do, though he did say that the GOP's ideas ran counter to 'conventional wisdom.'" And that gets to the heart of the matter. This Hillary ad clearly--and intentionally--sends the message that Obama thought that those Republican ideas were good ones. And the truth of the matter is that Obama said no such thing.

From Hillary's web site, here is the transcript of what Obama said:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think, for example, that the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the direction of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60’s and the 70’s and, you know, government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. And I think people just tapped into – he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright?

I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times; I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. That we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I mean, there’s - I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

(emphasis added). For any Hillary supporters out there, please point out where Obama said he agreed with the Republican ideas or said that he thought they were good ideas. Anyone? Bueller? And before you answer, please explain why Obama's statement that "the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out" does not show that he was not praising those Republican ideas. And if you have answer for that, then please reconsider your answer in light of the statements that Hillary left out, namely "Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it." In other words, today's GOP candidates are proposing some of those same ideas from the Reagan era, and Obama is saying we have already done that and it won't work now.

I have to admit that Obama's statements do not expressly say the meaning I have given them, and I think he should be criticized for that. However, for Hillary to say in any way that Obama was praising Reagan and the Republicans is just false.

Now I know what some of you Hillary supporters are thinking...Hillary's ad did not specifically say that Obama was agreeing with or praising the Republicans. Well, that just shows yet another way Hillary is just like Bush. As I have pointed out before, part of the Bush administration SOP is to make statements that do not expressly say some things but nonetheless are clearly intended to have that express meaning.

Moreover, based on what Hillary and Bill said before this ad aired, it is clear that Hillary intended to make people think that Obama was praising Reagan and the Republicans. On January 18, Hillary said this:

I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years.

Later that same day, here's what Bill said:

Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas.

*******

I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess. So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas.

Now I know what some of you Hillary supporters are thinking...Obama's statements were ambiguous enough to justify Hillary's and Bill's interpretations, so there is nothing wrong with her ad. Funny thing about that...practically no one else thought those interpretations were fair or reasonable. For a rundown of some of the opinions counter to the Clintons', check out this page at Obama's website. Here are the highlights:

• ABC News: "But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information."
• Annenberg Foundation's FactCheck.Org: "We can't speak to how things 'came across' to Clinton, but we've listened to the entire interview and to our ears, it's just flatly false that Obama said he 'really liked the ideas of the Republicans.'"
• Washington Post Fact Checker: "It seems clear that the former President has overstated the case against Obama in a way that distorts his original arguments."
• Ben Smith: "Obama didn't say Republican ideas are good ideas."
• George Stephanopoulos: "Now, clearly there, he did take Obama's words beyond what Obama said[.]"

And recall that Stepanopoulos was a key member of Bill's campaign and Bill's senior White House adviser for policy and strategy. All of the above analyses were done BEFORE Hillary aired her ad. And she aired the ad in spite of the overwhelming weight of opinion felt she and Bill were wrong.

So, she not only went negative in her campaign, she conveniently left out other things Obama and twisted the truth.

Next up: more reasons why Hillary's position is bullshit.

Yet another way Hillary is like Bush: I can't keep up.

One of my frustrations in trying to blog all the bullshit related to ol' George and his administration has been that I can't keep up.  I have had this theory about the Bush administration, namely that the administration intentionally does so many bullshit things to 1) keep anyone from being able to focus on and truly shoot down any one thing, and 2) distort the true facts.  And it sure looks to me like that is what Hillary and her campaign are doing now.

I did not think it was possible for my opinion of her to sink any lower, but after everything she has done in the last three months, that is exactly what has happened.

And I did not think I would ever get to the point that I would say that Bill is as bad as Hillary, but that has also happened.  

Fred Thompson is out of the race.

Was he ever really in?

Yawn...

More Mozilla problems

I finally gave up on Firefox due to problems I have discussed before. I started using Netscape Navigator, which is based on Firefox, in the hope that somehow the Netscape factor would eliminate the problem with losing my bookmarks. I installed Navigator on my computer about four months ago, and I was able to import my massive bookmarks list from Netscape 8.1.3. And by the way, I have never had these problems with the basic Netscape browser.

Well, about two weeks ago, Netscape Navigator (the latest version) dumped all bookmarks that I had added over the previous two weeks. And now today, Navigator deleted ALL of my bookmarks and my browsing history. There is nothing in the various security settings on my computer that would have deleted my bookmarks. And yet, this Mozilla, Firefox-based bullshit deleted my bookmarks.

Are you people at Mozilla and Netscape trying to force me back to using IE all the time? I don't want to do that, but if this same problem starts happening with the basic Netscape browser (and it has not happened in the past), I might have no choice.

FIX THE DAMN BOOKMARK BUG.

Women attack Oprah for not endorsing Hillary.

Before I get started...

I want to establish a few things. My strong dislike of Hillary has nothing to do with gender. Indeed, I have stated that before. To reinforce that point, I stated in that same post that I would much rather vote for Barbara Boxer for President than Hillary. Now I will further reinforce that point by saying there are plenty of other women for whom I would vote rather than Hillary, including: Nancy Pelosi (House Speaker), Diane Feinstein (Senator), Claire McCaskill (Senator), Janet Napolitano (Arizona governor), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas governor), Sarah Palin (Alaska governor), Olympia Snowe (Senator), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (Senator). I would include Jennifer Granholm (Michigan governor), but she was born in Canada and thus not eligible to be President. Notice that this list includes Republicans as well as Democrats. I will also state that some women in the list are either too liberal or too conservative for my tastes, but I would still vote for them over Hillary in a heartbeat. I don't have a problem with a woman being President. As I have said before, "I don't care if the President is a woman or a man. I want the best person for the job."

Why am I saying all this? Well, there is a better than zero chance that what follows in this post could prompt complaints that I am misogynistic and otherwise an insensitive asshole. For anyone who might feel that way, just keep the preceding paragraph in mind.

Some women are harshly criticizing Oprah for supporting Obama instead of Hillary.

This really blows my mind.

I initially found out about this via an article in London's Sunday Times. The article is entitled "Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama."

Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December.

*******

It started with a message on her website entitled “Oprah is a traitor” and rapidly expanded to include several discussions that attracted hundreds of comments.

In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”

The discussion can be found here. As of the time of publishing this post, there are 988 replies to the initial post. I have read about 10% of those. From what I have read, few have agreed with calling Oprah a "traitor," but there are plenty of posts that otherwise reflect austaz68's views. There are also plenty of others that take views that are far more reasoned and rational. Let me get this out of the way right now. austaz68 and anyone else who thinks she is right is an IDIOT. It truly scares me that people like that could determine the outcome of any election. Why? Because they are not thinking.

Allow me to illustrate using some of the comments from Oprah's site. I will start with some comments that make sense. For instance, kristinwd said

968. Re: OPRAH IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!! Jan 22, 2008 1:11 PM

Are you kidding me? Everyone should vote for the person that will run this country the way YOU think it should be run. You should not vote on race or gender, EVER. Just because a women is running for President does not make her the best person for the job. I will not be voting for either of these people, as I do not believe they have the qualifications to be President, that does not make me a traitor (to the sisterhood) or a racist. If you are voting for Hilary JUST because she is a woman then you are the one that should be ashamed. Kristin

(emphasis added). And that's one of the points of this post, people. And by the way, voting for Obama JUST because of his race is equally ridiculous. Let's complete the analysis. Not voting for Hillary JUST because she is a woman, or not voting for Obama JUST because of his race is equally ridiculous. And yet, there are apparently lots of women that are going to vote for Hillary JUST because she is a woman, and here's an example from a poster named gahseward:

972. Re: OPRAH IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!! Jan 22, 2008 1:41 PM

I don't agree that Oprah is a traitor. She has more than likely gone through the same internal struggle that a lot of black women in this country are currently going through...that is that they are torn between what will likely be 2 "firsts", a first woman president or a first black president. It's clear from her endorsement that she decided Obama would be her choice.

That said, unless Hillary Clinton had 2 heads and was a raving crackwhore, I would vote for her over Obama (or any other man black or white). It's time for a woman's perspective in the White House.

(emphasis added). So this woman draws the line at genetic/anatomical freaks and drug addicts. I guess it doesn't matter to her that--as I have shown in great detail--Hillary is a disingenuous, hypocritical, power-hungry person that does things just like George W. Bush. I guess it wouldn't matter to her if a woman candidate was certifiably evil and a male candidate was the confirmed reincarnation of Jesus or the Buddha or of similar grace. She would vote for the woman. But wait...there's more from gahseward:

I don't see my choice as a black or white issue because I would have a heck of a time deciding between 2 women of any color. A very well educated woman running against a well educated man is a no brainer decision for me. I'm going to vote my gender.

Well, at least she's not a racist. In response to this close-minded approach, I offer this comment from the Oprah site by fjsell:

965. Re: OPRAH IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!! Jan 22, 2008 12:53 PM

How about (Oprah) just thinks Obama is the person for the job, and it's not based on anything as superficial as gender or so called "race"? Agree or disagree with her as you will, but do so based on something real. Not fear, not misinformation, not emotion, not some misguided gender loyalty. Would you have her endorse Ann Coulter if she were running?

(emphasis added). That's a damn good question. Coultergeist got her undergraduate degree from an Ivy League school while Hillary went to Wellesley, and Coultergeist got her law degree from one of the top schools in the country--just like Hillary. So, gahseward--according to her own unambiguous words--would vote for an arrogant, hateful, bigoted woman like Coultergeist over any educated man.

fjsell raised another very good point:

The premise of the argument that Oprah is somehow betraying her gender is not only ridiculous, but it makes women in general look bad. The presidency is not a sorority. That argument is also couched in the assertion that she should instead "betray" her race - which is just as absurd. If one is bad, why isn't the other?

(emphasis added). And I have yet to see an answer from anyone in the discussion thread.

And now let's get down to the more blunt analysis. As mzskilz17 put it,

So let me be clear. Oprah is a traitor for the simple fact that she has endorsed a candidate for the Presidency that is not a woman. Hmmm. How idiotic is that? We live in America, or so I thought, where many have fought for freedom of religion, speech, etc. And now after 20 some years of never backing any candidate publicly, you turn on Oprah. You turn on her because she has chosen to support someone who she believes has what it takes to make a good President. I didn't know that hav[ing] ovaries and mammary glands makes you qualified to be President? I truly didn't think that this type of ignorance still existed on this level.

Having ovaries and mammary glands does not make one qualified to President, and the same holds true for having a penis and testicles. I will take this analysis further. Putting up with a philandering husband does not mean one is qualified or deserves to be President. Being mistreated by the "vast right wing conspiracy" does not mean one is qualified or deserves to be President. Being ganged up on in a debate does not mean one is qualified or deserves to be President.

And speaking of ignorance, the Oprah discussion is full of claims that Obama is a Muslim, a racist, and that he refuses to say the pledge of allegiance in the Senate. All of those claims are patently false, and yet people keep repeating the charges.

So many people are willing to focus only on the fact that Hillary is a woman and support her, but they are unwilling to look beyond that fact at her characteristics and her record. Perhaps they are not ignorant, but simply refuse to look at what is plainly before them. I don't know which disturbs me more.

Index has been updated--mainly to keep up with my Hillary posts.

The Cosmic Wheel Index has been updated. I was a bit surprised today to discover just how many posts I have published this month about Hillary. Since they do not all appear in my list of "Previous Posts," I thought a complete and convenient list was needed. So, for those interested, go to the Index and look for the heading of "Clinton, Hillary."

Hillary lets others try to do the dirty work in Nevada.

Introduction

Quite a few posts ago, I wrote about reasons NOT to vote for Hillary. The theme of that post (and several subsequent ones) was that Hillary uses the same tactics as George W. Bush. One of those tactics was and is "Let others do the dirty work." This post will describe another example of Hillary's use of this tactic.

The basic facts

On January 9, 2008, Obama received the endorsement of Local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union, which is the union that represents most of the workers on The Strip in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic party uses a caucus system rather than a primary election to determine which candidates get delegates to the National Convention. The Nevada Democratic Party had established at-large caucus locations at nine hotels on The Strip so that workers on The Strip would have a chance to participate in the caucuses. Two days after the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama (and eight days before the caucuses), a lawsuit was filed in federal court to essentially eliminate those at-large caucus sites. The lawsuit was filed by the Nevada State Education Association and several individuals.

The judge denied the plaintiffs' request for relief, meaning in effect that the plaintiffs lost.

...and now for the rest of the story.

• The plaintiffs

Turns out that most of the plaintiffs and their lawyers have connections to...Hillary Clinton. What a surprise! The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) is the union which represents teachers and education support professionals. The NSEA has not officially endorsed any candidate, but Lynn Warne, the NSEA's President, is an individual plaintiff to the lawsuit. Moreover, the NSEA's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council. And it turns out that her husband, John Cahill, is one of the individual plaintiffs.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, Some of the other individual plaintiffs supported the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of State Senator Dina Titus, who has endorsed Hillary and is also a founding member of her Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

The law firm that filed the lawsuit also has ties to Hillary. James Bilbray, a former member of Congress who endorsed Hillary on August 9, 2007, is of counsel to the law firm representing the plaintiffs. As stated by Hillary's Nevada campaign chairman, Rory Reid (son of Sen. Harry Reid), "We are honored that (Bilbray) will play a leading role in the campaign." Also, Bilbray's wife, Michaelene Bilbray, is a founding member of Hillary's Nevada Women’s Leadership Council. Furthermore, two of the firm's senior partners, Michael Bonner and Christopher Kaempfer, donated to Hillary's Senate campaign in 2005. Lawyers in Las Vegas contributing to a New York Senate campaign shows that they have more than a casual interest in Hillary's political fortunes.

Now I know what some of you are thinking...The NSEA has not endorsed any candidate, so I should not claim that the lawsuit is a move by the NSEA against Obama and for Hillary. Well, maybe, maybe not. What is clear is that 1) some of the top leadership of the NSEA supports Hillary, and 2) some members of the NSEA were strongly against filing this lawsuit, but that's another part of the story.

• The process by which the caucuses were established and the timing of the lawsuit

This section will quote excerpts from the State Democratic Party's response to the original complaint. However, the citations to exhibits to the response will be omitted. All of those exhibits (which provide proof for all the allegations below) are also available for download here. Here are the facts underlying the controversy:

The Party and its State Central Committee ("SCC") oversaw the preparation of a very detailed DSP (Delegate Selection Plan). The SCC included four of the named plaintiffs in this suit: Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky Birkland, and John Birkland. The SCC authorized the Party to comply with DNC requirements.

The SCC (including the four named Plaintiffs) participated fully in the DSP's preparation. Contrary to the conclusory claims made in Plaintiffs' declarations that they "recently learned that the Democratic Party of Nevada intends to hold At Large Precinct Caucuses in Clark County," there can be no doubt that Plaintiffs have been aware of the at-large caucuses and the very aspects of those caucuses challenged here since March 2007:

• In March 2007, the Party posted its draft plan on its website, www.nvdems.com, for a 30-day comment period. The draft plan made public at that time specifies that the DSP would have precisely the feature challenged here--attendance-based, at-large caucuses designed to enfranchise thousands of shift-workers to participate...None of the Plaintiffs, including those on the SCC, challenged or otherwise commented on the proposed rules.
• Following the March 2007 comment period, the SCC approved these draft rules unamimously. Plaintiffs Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky Birkland, and John Birkland were all present and voted in favor.
• After the national party asked for more information about how the at-large caucuses would operate, the SCC held an August 11 meeting to discuss the DNC's call for "additional detail related to caucus and convention procedures." The minutes specifically indicate that Plaintiff Dwayne Chesnut was present at the meeting where this was discussed.

Although the Plaintiffs who were members of the SCC were the most directly responsible for the DSP, the process was entirely transparent in other ways as well. Besides local and national press stories highlight the at-large caucuses, there was no shortage of consultation:

• All eight presidential campaigns were advised of the attendance-based, at-large caucuses in a public guide issued in May 2007. That guide specifically laid out the attendance-based formula by which delegates would be assigned.
• The campaigns were again briefed on the process in October 2007. No campaign objected.
• Plaintiff Nevada State Education Association ("NSEA") was similarly involved. On October 4, 2007, the Party sent the NSEA's political director, Julie Whitacre, an advisory reminder that "[t]he number of delegates from at-large caucuses will be determined the day of the caucuses." The NSEA raised no objection.

On October 24, 2007, the DNC found the Party's plan to be "in full Compliance" with national party rules. The plan was finalized at that time and placed on the Party's website. No Plaintiff objected at any time.

And, as the State Party's response went on to point out, the only circumstance that had changed since then was that the Culinary Workers Union had "chosen to endorse a candidate...Plaintiffs apparently do not support."

Here's a recap: Almost all of the plaintiffs knew about the process, some actually participated in it and approved it, all of the campaigns knew about it, and yet no one objected to it at all until two days after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, and as shown previously, the plaintiffs and their lawyers have ties to Hillary.

• NSEA's actions were contrary to its Las Vegas members' wishes.

As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Lynn Warne, the NSEA president made the decision to make NSEA a plaintiff all by herself.

NSEA President Lynn Warne, named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she takes full responsibility for the decision to join the lawsuit. She said she made the commitment late Friday after consulting with staff and representatives of association leadership.

When asked if anyone from Clark County was included in the discussion, Warne declined to elaborate.

"I'm not comfortable talking about it," Warne said.

And the reason Warne was uncomfortable is that she did not consult with any NSEA members in Clark County (Las Vegas is in Clark County). As described in the Review-Journal article,

The Nevada State Education Association's decision to join a lawsuit challenging the use of nine Las Vegas casinos as Democratic caucus sites may have fractured its relationship with its largest local affiliate.

Ruben Murillo Jr., vice president of the Clark County Education Association, distanced the local organization of public school teachers from the lawsuit on Wednesday. The decision to sue was a state action taken without the knowledge of local union leadership.

"CCEA was not involved in initiating the lawsuit," Murillo said Wednesday. "It was done without our input."

For that reason, CCEA is directing all calls and complaints on the action from Clark County teachers to the state organization.

"We've heard from members who are concerned about it," Murillo said. "And while we usually support the NSEA in its actions, this is a little hard. I think whenever a big decision like this is made, you need to get in touch with the locals."

In other words, Warne got the NSEA involved in the lawsuit because she thought the at-large caucuses in Las Vegas were not fair to teachers in Las Vegas, but she never asked the teachers in Las Vegas about it.

And some NSEA members publicly decried the lawsuit. Here's a letter to the editor that was printed in the Review-Journal on January 15:

Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, has made a serious mistake in representing the teachers union as united in the lawsuit brought against the Democratic Party over the Culinary union at-large caucus plan (Monday Review-Journal). I used to be a hotel and restaurant worker, and although I am now a teacher and NSEA member, the five individuals bringing this lawsuit do not represent me -- the rank and file.

There is literally no other way folks would get to caucus were there not this forum, and our union has shrunk to a new, all-time low when we use our resources to block the votes and democratic participation of low- and moderate-income people, women and people of color.

I am very angry and considering dropping my membership in NSEA. With leadership like ours, how can we possibly believe that we could ever teach our students to be involved in the democratic process? Without unions, many of us would not be where we are today, and I for one feel totally betrayed. This lawsuit should be dropped immediately.

A vote should have been called before a decision like this was made and represented as coming from "the teachers union" in the press. Our leadership is running things from the top down, based on the beliefs of only a handful of people. It is not in the spirit or nature of solidarity that union representation is built on. I apologize to the Culinary membership for the behavior of my leadership.

LAURA SMITH FILLMORE

And here's a letter sent to Lynn Warne on January 14, signed by 15 teachers:

Dear President Warne:

As teachers in Nevada, and members of the Nevada State Education Association, we are deeply dismayed that our union is trying to stop our students’ parents from caucusing on Saturday. We urge them in the strongest terms to drop this lawsuit immediately.

Many of our students are Hispanic Americans and come from low-income families. Their parents are construction workers, McDonald’s employees, and other shift workers on the strip, who work around the clock, and won’t have time to travel to their caucus locations on Saturday. That’s why the state Democratic committee set up nine at-large precinct locations on the strip – to provide nearby caucus locations for Nevadans who otherwise wouldn’t be able to caucus.

These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year. But now, our union is filing a lawsuit making the baseless charge that these at-large caucus locations are discriminatory, when the fact is they were set up to make sure as many Nevadans could caucus as possible.

This lawsuit is all about politics. It’s widely known that many of our union’s top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, they’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama.

We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what’s right for our students, but that’s exactly what they’re doing. As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support.

Of course, the lawsuit was not dropped. Why would Warne listen to a request from rank and file members of her union when she did not want their opinion in the first place?

And what did Hillary or her campaign say about the lawsuit?

Precious damn little--unless you consider Bill's ranting about how Hillary had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Anjeanette Damon of the Reno Gazette-Journal reported that Rory Reid, Hillary's Nevada campaign chairman, denied that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with the lawsuit, and he said that the campaign had not even read the lawsuit. Damon also described Hillary's response:

Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:

"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."

In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?

"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."

Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?

"I don't. I just don't know."

And then there was Bill's reaction. As reported by Josh Gerstein on January 16,

At a stop in Oakland this afternoon, President Clinton vigorously defended a lawsuit challenging Nevada's decision to permit casino workers to join presidential caucuses at their workplaces, even as he denied that he or his wife's campaign had anything to do with the litigation. He argued that the casino caucuses were deliberately set up to have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the contest.

"Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?" Mr. Clinton said in a testy exchange with a television reporter, Mark Matthews of KGO. "What happened is nobody understood what had happened. ... Now, everybody's saying, 'Oh they don't want us to vote.' What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more."

*******

The former president rejected suggestions that the litigation was prompted by Mrs. Clinton's campaign in the wake of the culinary union's decision to back Mr. Obama. "We had nothing to do with this lawsuit. I read about it in the newspaper," he said.

Mr. Clinton turned the tables on Mr. Matthews, whom the former president asserted had taken "an accusatory tone" by claiming a link to Mrs. Clinton's operation. "Your position is that you think the Culinary Workers votes should count: A — It should be easier for them to vote than anybody else in Nevada that has to work on Saturday. That's your first position. Second, when they do vote their votes should count five times as much as everybody else. That's what the teachers have questioned. So if that's your position, you have it. Get on your television station and say it. ... 'All I care about is making sure that some voters have it easier than others and that when they do vote, when it's already easier for them, their vote should count five times as much as others.' That is your position," Mr. Clinton said. "If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don't be accusatory with me. I have enough to deal with."

(emphasis added). You can see the video here. As pointed out by this "faboo" female blogger regarding Bill's claims, "How is that no one recognized this until after the Culinary Workers Union gives an endorsement?" (emphasis in original). She also pointed out that "You'll be sure to note that as much as the Clinton campaign tries to distance itself from this lawsuit, Bill Clinton's words pretty much match the language of the lawsuit. Word for word." So much for the claims that no one in the Clinton campaign had even read the lawsuit.

Conclusion

This lawsuit was bullshit. Had Hillary received the endorsement from the Culinary Workers, it never would have been filed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid or delusional. Period.

And Bill just needs to shut the hell up.

And the lawsuit clearly shows that Hillary is willing to use other people to do her dirty work so that she can claim that neither she nor her campaign have anything to do with said dirty work. And that, friends and neighbors, is a tactic straight from the play book of Karl Rove and George W. Bush. We don't need any more of that crap.