Geraldine Ferraro is an arrogant ass and needs to shut the hell up

Overview

I had meant to write this particular post before the end of February, but the Ann Richards endorsement from the grave deal got me more worked up.

Anyhoo, on February 25, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Geraldine Ferraro entitled "Got a Problem? Ask the Super," in which she explained and tried to justify the role of superdelegates in general and as a key part of the Hillary campaign in particular. In that op-ed, Ferraro brilliantly displayed the arrogance of the Hillary campaign.

For those who missed them, I have several posts discussing my distaste for superdelegates and Hillary's plan for them:

• A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 3: Superdelegates) (February 14, 2008)
• Let's talk about superdelegates. (February 20, 2008)
• Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary (February 24, 2008)

Ferraro's op-ed reiterates some of the themes previously expressed by Hillary and her advisers, but Ferraro put her own special brand of arrogance, hypocrisy, and just plain dumb-ass into the op-ed.

A little history--according to Ferraro

Ferraro began by explaining how and why superdelegates were created.

After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting.

(emphasis added). Ferraro seems to have forgotten that many Democratic members of Congress had "walked away" from Carter long before the 1980 campaign. As I said earlier, "I have long felt that a major reason he was largely ineffective as President was because the Democrats in Congress actively worked against him." So what was done about this "walking away" problem?

In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.

Well, what do you know? Ferraro was in charge of creating the superdelegates in the first place. So I guess she will be able to give a completely "fair and balanced" analysis of the need for the superdelegates...

Anyhoo, Ferraro explained that 1) unifying the party was the objective, 2) it was thought that having members of Congress being active participants in the national convention would be a way to achieve unity, but 3) "Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics." Remember that last part, for I will use it to show just how stupid and hypocritical Ferraro is.

So the solution was to make members of Congress--and others--delegates without requiring them to be elected as such. And this made perfect sense because...?

These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

And now let's take a closer look at this "reasoning."

The "little people" should not decide anything.

One of my major complaints about this Ferraro op-ed is that she displays a high degree of arrogance and dismissal of the wishes of anyone but the power elite.

For Ferraro, "the party" is all about the power elite, not the people who voted to put those people in power. As proof, check out this portion of the op-ed:

Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

(emphasis added). See? Mere voters and citizens cannot be expected to know what is best for the country. Only the superdelegates can do that. And mere voters and citizens cannot be trusted to choose who will run for President. Only the superdelgates should be allowed to make that determination.

And don't think Ferraro is the only person in Hillary's campaign who has expressed that view. As noted in Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary, Mark Penn said one month ago that of all the states Obama had won, only Illinois was a "significant state." And two days later Harold Ickes, who is in charge of Hillary's superdelgate campaign, offered these nuggets:

"Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates (superdelegates) than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of (superdelegates)."

Thus, Ferraro is not just showing her own arrogance and disregard for mere voters and citizens, she is reiterating Hillary's attitude that has been consistently on display in her campaign.

And now, for something completely not different--hypocrisy and bullshit.

Ferraro wants people to think that she is really for mandates from the rank-and-file and/or the grassroots, but a simple analysis shows she is not. After noting that "pundits and many others" say that the rank-and-file should determine the nominee rather than the superdelegates, Ferraro wrote that "Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." Gee, that sounds just like what Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, etc. have been saying when trying to dismiss and marginalize those primaries and caucuses won by Obama. Ferraro went on to say that

Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

Well, guess what? Having a small group of power elites potentially overturn the will of the electorate as expressed in large-scale democratic processes is even freakin' further from being a grassroots mandate. And yet that is precisely what Ferraro is defending and promoting.

Apparently, Ferraro has either forgotten or does not care that in America, we have a democracy in which the public--the "rank-and-file" or the "grassroots"--chooses people to be their representatives, not their rulers. It would also seem that Ferraro has forgotten that elected officials in this country serve at the pleasure of the public. In other words, if the public feels that a given official has not actually represented them, the public can--and often does--boot that official out of office, primarily through the election process. Oh, but she has not forgotten...Remember that Ferraro said that superdelegates were created in part so that elected officials would not have to become regular delegates by "running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate" because that "is not exactly good politics."

Which brings us to the last bits of Ferraro's steaming pile of op-ed bullshit.

Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.

Perhaps??? Give me a break...And for your information, you elitist asshole, my problem with superdelegates is that they can be "unrepresentative" to the extreme. As I wrote before,

As a practical matter, the superdelegates might not exercise their power in such a way as to thwart the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses. I would certainly hope that would be the case--even if Hillary manages to regain the lead in pledged delegates by the time of the convention. Having a relatively small group of establishment players determine a "democratic" process in a most non-democratic fashion could spell disaster for the Democratic Party for years to come.

(emphasis added). But for Ferraro, the only possible people who object to superdelegates are Obama supporters, and the only possible reason they complain is because many superdelegates support Hillary. And Ferraro must know better than me or anyone else, because she is, after all, a superdelegate herself. But wait, there is more arrogance and hypocrisy...

And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.

Let's see...Running against a constituent to become a delegate is bad politics, but taking action that would nullify the votes of thousands of constituents is all right? Following the desires of the people you are supposed to represent is bad and disappointing? What kind of twisted bullshit is that? Let me put this in terms that Ferraro might understand: if the superdelegates vote against their constituents, then many of those constituents might not just walk but run away from the party. But wait, there's more...

Ferraro then segues into a plea to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, with her main point being

The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

So, for Ferraro it is bad to effectively disenfranchise voters from two states won by Hillary, but it is perfectly fine for superdelegates to nullify the votes of and effectively disenfranchise voters in the 28 states (out of 43, counting D.C.) won by Obama.

Conclusion

Ferraro's op-ed shows plainly that she is arrogant, hypocritical, and either not too bright or guilty of believing her own bullshit (or both). If her statements and behavior were attributable only to her, they would be largely irrelevant, especially since she is no longer officially with the Hillary campaign. However, statements and conduct remarkably like Ferraro's have been committed by Hillary and her top campaign staffers. Thus, Ferraro's op-ed is a direct reflection of Hillary's views and how she operates. You want a President that is arrogant, condescending, hypocritical, and doesn't care what you or the public at large might think? Then join Geraldine Ferraro and vote for Hillary.

Otherwise, wake the hell up.

Geraldine Ferraro--gone but not forgotten.

In the wake of her comments about Obama's race and her claims that people got upset with her just because she is white, Geraldine Ferraro resigned from Hillary's finance committee.

Good fucking riddance.

I had already been working on some posts about things Ferraro had said, and I will finish those posts, for although Ferraro is no longer an official part of Hillary's campaign, her actions--and Hillary's response thereto--have typified Hillary's campaign. Thus, what Ferraro has done is still very relevant.

In my posts, I am going to tear Ferraro a new asshole. And she damn well deserves it. Anyone wanting to attack me for daring to address Geraldine Ferraro in this manner can just pucker up and kiss my ass.

An open call for input on a Hillary question

By now, everyone should know about former Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power saying in an interview with a Scottish reporter that Hillary is a "monster." I am not going to discuss that entire situation. Instead, I am working on a post which will pose the following questions:

If Hillary is not a monster, then just what term or terms would describe her?

OR

What would you call a person who...?

At this time, I am not asking for answers to that question. See, what I am going to do in that post is provide an aid in answering the question, and that aid will be a list of things that Hillary and her campaign have done and said. So, what I want now from my oh so multitudinous readership is material to include in the list.

For example, what would you call a person who...scolds another for using Karl Rove's tactics when in fact she has been using those tactics for months?

Feel free to provide items via the comments section.

And if you can cite a source for an item, that would be fan-freakin-tastic. :-)

Let's talk about Hillary's fitness to be Commander in Chief.

Through her "3 a.m. call" ad and other statements, Hillary has been claiming that she is better suited to be Commander in Chief than Obama.

To the contrary, I say that her actions and reactions in this campaign show that she is not capable of handling that role.

Here's my argument in a nutshell. Hillary's campaign has been all over the place, as in very inconsistent. Her actions and reactions have often been over the top. The job of President involves far greater challenges and difficulties than a political campaign. Hillary's actions and reactions in this campaign indicate that she will not handle those increased challenges well.

A Commander in Chief needs to remain calm under pressure. A Commander in Chief has to avoid being inconsistent. A Commander in Chief cannot react rashly. A Commander in Chief should not be arrogant or act out of arrogance.

Hillary Clinton should not be a Commander in Chief.

I have documented Hillary's arrogance in detail. Here are just a few highlights:

• Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics (August 15, 2007): "This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee."
• Hillary shows her tender, emotional side--and still shows her arrogance. (December 7, 2008): "She just had to point out that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She just had to point out that she is the only one who could possibly be qualified to do the job from day one. She just had to wonder out loud why is it that everyone else cannot see what is--in her mind--so blatantly obvious: that she is right and everyone else is wrong?"
• Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary (February 24, 2008): "See, if you want change but do not vote for Hillary, then--according to Hillary--you do not represent the electorate. In other words, Hillary thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and irrelevant. That is arrogance...Penn was in effect saying that all the people who voted for and will vote for Obama are 'insignificant.' In other words, all those people are not as important or as smart as Hillary and those who voted for her. That is arrogance...In other words, if you don't vote for Hillary, she considers you to be irrelevant. And that is arrogance."

Hillary has been horribly inconsistent in this campaign. She began by basing her entire campaign on her "day one/experience" claim. Then, once Obama's message of change started becoming popular, Hillary started saying she was an agent for change. And since then she has been swinging from one extreme to another. In Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 3: observations from someone who worked for Ann) (March 1, 2008), I included a quote from Glenn Smith that encapsulates this inconsistency:

I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.

And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.

Let's take a closer look at the events mentioned by Smith. The first event was the debate on February 21 in Austin, where Hillary closed with a very civil speech in which she said she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama."





She followed that up two days later with her tirade against what she claimed as Obama's use of Karl Rove tactics.






By the way, here was Obama's response:





Notice how he was calm and direct and to the point?

And then the next day Hillary openly mocked not just Obama's message of hope, but also anyone who dares to believe in that message. Her tone was patently dismissive and arrogant.






Although this next video is not a response to any of these Hillary "moments," it is relevant to this post. In Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 1--Karl Rove would be proud.), I quoted the transcript of Obama's initial response to the ad at a press conference. Here is the video:






Notice again how calm, direct, and also strong Obama is in his response.

Now ask yourself which kind of person you want as Commander in Chief. The one who is calm under fire and quick to respond, or the one who is arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary?

And if you are about to choose Hillary (the arrogant, inconsistent, and reactionary one), keep in mind that her actions and reactions shown herein are in a mere political campaign. How do you think she is going to react when the circumstances are far more serious and real? I tell you right now I do not think this country can or should take the risk to find out.

Hillary does not have the character or personality to be a Commander in Chief.

Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 3--Hillary can't back up her claims.)

This is just sad. However, it truly shows that Hillary is big on bullshit.

I almost never do this, but time is short, and I have more posting to do tonight. Anyhoo, I am going to reprint almost an entire post from another blog.

The blog is The Carpetbagger Report by Steve Benen, and the specific post is entitled "Clinton campaign challenged on the 'tested by crisis' claim."

This was painful to listen to. Following up on the Clinton campaign’s new ad, the one in which the campaign claims that Clinton is “tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world,” the senator’s team hosted a conference call with reporters yesterday to discuss the broader arguments.

Slate’s John Dickerson asked Clinton aides on the call a reasonable and straightforward question: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?”

Regrettably, the usually loquacious Clinton team sat in stone silence for what seemed like quite a while (I think it was literally seven or eight seconds, which was quite a pregnant pause under the circumstances).

Eventually Mark Penn piped up.

“I think it was a moment of test when she was in China and she stood up and said women’s rights are human rights. That she showed the kind of wisdom that it takes to know when to push, basic elements under difficult circumstances.”

That’s not bad, and Clinton’s remarks in China were terrific, but a) this doesn’t really count as having been “tested by crisis”; and b) Mark Penn has spent the last few months insisting that giving a speech doesn’t really amount to real work.

After whiffing on the question, Clinton aide Lee Feinstein offered a response of his own.

“One of the interesting things is that Sen. Clinton has pretty broad support from the uniformed military, including the endorsement of 27 flag officers. That includes four at the rank of four-star. And this is really based on her work with these officers — a very diverse and esteemed group — through five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she’s had a chance to work with them, some of them very, very closely, and a develop a relationship with them, where she’s earned their trust and respect.”

That, too, is accurate and impressive. But the question was about moments in which Clinton has been tested by crises, a claim from the campaign’s hard-hitting new ad. Endorsements from military officials are important, but they don’t necessarily answer the question.

Matt Yglesias asks, “How could they go forward with that ad without having a good answer to the question on hand?” It’s not an unreasonable question; the campaign probably should have seen this one coming.

For his part, Dickerson, who started all this trouble, wrote about the exchange.

[T]he ad also raises a new question the Clinton campaign has been stressing over the last few days: Who has been tested? The ad asks which candidate has faced the extended pressure of a crisis that might prepare him or her for the far larger pressures and crises he or she will face as president.

I love this question and am glad the Clinton team raised it. The problem is that they’re not so great at answering. When I asked campaign staffers for examples of Clinton being tested by a foreign-policy challenge, their response was pretty weak. As Patrick Healy reported in the New York Times, Hillary Clinton did not have a security clearance during her husband’s administration, so she wasn’t in the room for the brutal moments he faced. Her aides named the slew of uniformed retired military officials who have endorsed her, including several four-star generals. That’s nice, but it’s not proof of her mettle. When you make an ad like this, your case for your woman should be stronger than a list of endorsements.

Largest newspapers in Texas endorse Obama in primary.

I find it interesting that the seven largest newspapers in Texas have all endorsed Obama in the Democratic primary.

Excerpts from some of these endorsements set out some of the differences between Obama and Hillary that I have been trying to explain.

Austin American-Statesman

Look closely at the two Democratic front-runners for president and you will see similarities in how they address challenging problems confronting the country.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois both talk about strengthening the middle class, expanding economic growth and lifting sagging wages. Both offer solutions for the crisis in our health care system and global warming and support ending the war in Iraq. So the key differences between the candidates are in their leadership styles and visions for the country.

Obama presents a view of governing that is inclusive and relies on Americans to work with their government to solve sobering problems at home and abroad. Obama’s familiar refrain on the campaign trail is, “Yes, we can.”

By contrast, Clinton promotes a self-centered governing style that drives home what she would do as president. She asks little of Americans and discourages opposing views. Clinton has moved from her position as first lady that it “takes a village” to solve problems to it takes only Hillary (and maybe Bill).

Those contrasts offer a clear choice: Barack Obama. His optimism, unifying vision and ability to inspire are the kind of healing balm the country needs at this moment in history.

(emphasis added).

Corpus Christi Caller-Times

The differences on policy issues between Obama and Clinton are all but neglible. Both offer similar positions on universal health insurance, the Iraq war, the economy, immigration reform and the other major issues. The difference is how they would approach the presidency. Clinton is a two-term senator and former first lady. The 60-year-old Clinton touts her experience as the edge. Obama, the choice of the Editorial Board, brings something to American politics that has been missing for a long time: the ability to inspire. The campaign of the 46-year-old Illinois senator has demonstrated his ability to bring new voters to the polls in every primary held so far. This is evidence of Obama's ability to reawaken faith in representative democracy among Americans sick of leadership that depends on division and demonizing of opponents.

*******

These are difficult issues to grapple with and they demand a broad and inclusive effort from the entire American political spectrum to arrive at solutions. This is the appeal of Obama. His candidacy is rooted in the notion that politics can be about solutions, not divisions, that elected leaders are elected to lead, not to drive wedges between groups of Americans. This is a chance to break from the past.

*******

But what her candidacy can't offer is a bridge from the past to the future. She offers a list of answers to a list of any possible policy questions, but what is missing is an over-arching sense of mission for Americans, other than restoring a bygone era. For Clinton, every issue must have an enemy -- oil companies, the rich, insurance companies, a corporate oligarchy, and on and every enemy must be vanquished. Beating up on a political enemy doesn't educate children, comfort the aged or ease the anxieties of economically stressed families.

Clinton, in a criticism that is likely to surface again in the fall if Obama is the Democratic nominee, belittles his candidacy as riding on mere beautiful speeches. This misses one of the most important jobs an American president has, the ability to move Americans toward a unifying theme, to instill courage and boldness. There is a whole Congress to legislate. A president, with his cabinet and administration, must plunge into the sausage-making of negotiating bills. But only the president can inspire, can call Americans to sacrifice and to unity. Of this, there has been precious little for a long time.

(emphasis added).

Houston Chronicle

The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party.

*******

Those who have viewed the numerous campaign debates know there's not much to separate Obama from his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Either could ably represent the Democratic Party.

*******

However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.

(emphasis added).

San Antonio Express-News

America needs a president that tries to create unity out of diversity, marshalling all the forces — red, blue or purple — that make this country great.

Sen. Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate that offers the best chance to reach that lofty objective.

*******

The rivals differ little when it comes to their positions, except on health care; Clinton favors mandated insurance, while Obama proposes a system that is affordable for everyone, leaving it up to the individuals to decide whether they want to sign up.

But the main difference comes down to approach. Obama expresses a message of hope that emphasizes what is good for the country, not the party.

*******

In addition, Clinton and her husband are running a campaign that has been, at turns, nasty and undignified. The Clinton team's win-at-all-costs approach is a turnoff to many voters, who are ready to leave today's dysfunctional political culture behind.

(emphasis added).

I will expound upon the views expressed herein in a subsequent post.

Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 2--Obama's response)

I have already addressed part of Obama's response to this bullshit Hillary ad in the previous post, but there is more to tell. Very shortly after Obama's press conference response, his campaign had already produced a commercial in response.




There are two impressive things about this ad: 1) the content is right on target, and 2) it was produced and aired very quickly. That took organization, flexibility, and decisive action. All the things that Hillary has been trying to argue are lacking in Obama. Wrong again, Hillary. Wrong again. Just like your judgment on Iraq.

Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 1--Karl Rove would be proud.)

This post could also be Part 3 of "Vote for me or the terrorists win."

It could also be entitled "Hypocrite Hillary goes back to the Karl Rove playbook--again."

Chances are you have seen this ad already, but if not, you can see it here.

The ad shows sleeping children, and eventually the mother gets up to look in on her children. This part of the voiceover sums up the ad:

It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep," the announcer says. "But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.

The ad goes on to claim that Hillary has the experience and has been tested, and thus people should vote for her.

This just show what a damn hypocrite Hillary is. About a week after she railed against Obama for use Rovian tactics, she presents this crap. Any Democrat who wants to try to argue that this is not a tactic from the Karl Rove play book is a complete idiot. And I don't give a rat's ass if that offends anybody. If you really believe that this is not a classic Rovian tactic, you need to wake the hell up and quit making excuses for Hillary. Wake up and take a close look at what she does and says.

And, by the way, for those of you who want to cling to your delusions, check out the following posts which show that Hillary has been continuously using the Karl Rove play book:

• More reasons NOT to vote for Hillary (January 3, 2008)
• Hillary: "Vote for me or the terrorists win." (Part 2)
• Hillary continues to politicize in order to distract. (January 15, 2008)
• Hillary lets others try to do the dirty work in Nevada. (January 21, 2008)
• Hillary is a negative campaigner (Part 2), and she twists the truth. (January 25, 2008)
• Hillary is a negative campaigner (Part 3). (January 31, 2008)
• 2 for 1 special: Hillary's campaign being negative AND hypocritical (February 23, 2008)

I will detail Obama's response to this ad in another post, but for now I provide parts of the response Obama gave at a press conference afher the ad aired.

I do want to take a moment to respond, because the press is, I’m sure, curious, to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today. It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It’s a legitimate question. And we’ve seen these ads before. They’re usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes.

*******

I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.

Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.

*******

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.

(emphasis added). Obama is absolutely right on the judgment issue. Hillary clearly made the wrong choice, and she has been trying to avoid that issue nonstop. Obama made the right call, and accurately predicted what would happen in Iraq.

Moreover, for the purposes of this post, Obama calls this ad what it truly is--fearmongering and an attempt to "scare up votes." We have had way more than enough of that bullshit from the Bush administration, and Hillary is blatantly using that same Rovian tactic, all while scolding Obama for being like Rove.

Hillary is a damn hypocrite, and she is just like George W. Bush.

Wake up, Democrats. Wake the hell up.

Bill his ownself will be in Wichita Falls today.

Bill Clinton is making a stop in little ol' Wichita Falls this evening for a scheduled 6:00 p.m. campaign rally.

I will not be attending (what a shock!). If I were to attend, I seriously doubt I could sit there and not start heckling, and I really don't feel like getting thrown out of an event.


Then again, maybe I should be there in case Bill knows that there is a blogger in WF that criticizes Hillary and he starts talking smack about me. That's a joke people...or is it?

Hillary knows Texas culture?

Hillary has a new ad out that is specifically for Texas, and it makes me damn mad.

There is probably no other group of people in this country more ethnocentric than Texans. I could write an entire book on that subject, but I will try to present a brief discussion here. Texas is a unique place. It has a unique history and a unique culture. I believe I have mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but we have a saying down here: Texas is not just a state--it's a state of mind.

In College Station, Texas--home of Texas A&M University--there is another saying: Highway 6 runs both ways. In part that means the same road that brought you into town can take you right back out. If you move to Texas, we don't expect you to give up your culture and traditions. Texans are generally accepting of outsiders as long as they accept and embrace Texas. However, there is something which universally pisses off Texans, namely people that come here and continually bitch about Texas and how it is not like where they came from. You don't like it here? Well, you don't have to stay, for we got along just fine before you got here, and we will be just fine without you.

Most of you have heard the phrase "Don't mess with Texas." Believe it or not, that phrase originated as an advertising slogan in a public service campaign against littering. The campaign was hugely successful because the saying instantly struck a common chord among Texans. That saying is how all Texans feel about our state.

Another thing that angers Texans is posers. I'm talking about people who act like they know about Texas when in fact they don't know squat. That is a brand of bullshit that Texans spot from many miles away.

And that brings me to Hillary's ad.

After the obligatory "I approve this message," Hillary says "I have many friends in Texas. I know your traditions and culture." (emphasis added).

Oh, hell no. She didn't just say that, did she?

Hillary knows Texas culture and tradition? Really? Let's review a little of Hillary's history. As I wrote in my very first anti-Hillary post,

Before running for office, where had Hillary lived? Let's see...She was born and raised in the Chicago area. She went to college at Wellesley College, which is in Massachusetts. She went to law school at Yale, which is in Connecticut. She married Bill and then lived in Arkansas until 1992. Then she lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years. And then she decided she wanted to be a Senator from New York. C'mon.

And she knows Texas traditions and culture? Yeah, right. I bet she does not even know the significance to Texas of today's date. It is a good idea for a politician to try to show Texans that you do actually understand our culture, but said politician damn sure better have that understanding before making such a claim.

Hillary Clinton doesn't know Texas traditions and culture, and it makes me mad as hell that she has the nerve to tell me and the rest of Texas that she does. Then again, that just once more shows her amazing arrogance.

And for the record, I don't think Obama really knows Texas culture and tradition, but at least he is not expressly claiming otherwise. And therein lies a huge difference.

Notice also that the ad has subtitles en Espanol. Could Hillary actually be targeting Latinos and not Texans in general? Well, if that is case, I would think she could bother to learn to say even one sentence in that language. How the hell can you expect someone to believe you know their culture when you can't be bothered to even try to speak their language?

I guess I should stop asking such questions because--silly me--I just remembered that Hillary doesn't need to understand anyone or anything else because she knows what is best for everyone else and she is hell bent on making everyone realize that.

ADDITION ON 3-3-08: By the way, March 2 is Texas Independence Day. The Republic of Texas was created on March 2, 1836.

ADDITION ON 3-3-08: Obama has two Spanish language commercials in Texas (you can see them a here and here). in Texas. Not only are both voiceovers entirely in Spanish, Obama did actually bother to say something in Spanish. Even though it was only the "I approve this message," it is much more than Hillary did in her commercial.

More posts coming on Hillary ads.

I have quite a bit to say about other ads that Hillary is running right now, including one I just saw that is specifically about Texas. And man, does that one ever have me pissed off.

...and what is up with Hillary's hair obsession?

When Hillary had her "moment" in New Hampshire (the one where she cried), her response had absolutely nothing to do with the question she was asked, which was "Who does your hair?"

And now, in her Ann Richards "endorsement" ad, the only connection with Ann Richards that Hillary mentions is Ann's advice on what Hillary should do with her hair.

What is up with that?

...and now I am waiting to be accused of being a sexist.

Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 5: what would Ann think of Hillary's use of race?)

In the previous post, I linked to two pieces about Ann Richards by Molly Ivins. Now I will quote from those writings.

In "Remembering Ann Richards," Ivins told the following story that took place in the '70's:

At a long-ago political do at Scholz Garten in Austin, everybody who was anybody was there meetin' and greetin' at a furious pace. A group of us got the tired feet and went to lean our butts against a table at the back wall of the bar. Perched like birds in a row were Bob Bullock, then state comptroller, moi, Charles Miles, the head of Bullock's personnel department, and Ms. Ann Richards. Bullock, 20 years in Texas politics, knew every sorry, no good sumbitch in the entire state. Some old racist judge from East Texas came up to him, "Bob, my boy, how are you?"

Bullock said, "Judge, I'd like you to meet my friends: This is Molly Ivins with the Texas Observer."

The judge peered up at me and said, "How yew, little lady?"

Bullock, "And this is Charles Miles, the head of my personnel department." Miles, who is black, stuck out his hand, and the judge got an expression on his face as though he had just stepped into a fresh cowpie. He reached out and touched Charlie's palm with one finger, while turning eagerly to the pretty, blonde, blue-eyed Ann Richards. "And who is this lovely lady?"

Ann beamed and replied, "I am Mrs. Miles."

And then there is this excerpt from "A-men. A-women. A-Ann."

One thing Ann delivered on (as governor) was opening government to all the people. Her record of naming blacks and Hispanics to state boards and commissions, of working them into the bureaucracy so they rise at their own pace, has not been equaled since--not that Bush or Perry tried much. It was wonderful to see her appointees standing in line to see her as she lay in state at the Capitol.

In other words, Ann Richards did not tolerate racism, and she worked to overcome it.

Now, let's review what Hillary--and Bill--have done in this campaign concerning race. Hillary brought race into the campaign with her statements about MLK/LBJ/Obama, and Bill just took that ball and ran with it. Here are some posts about those statements:

• Hillary's biggest gaffe involving MLK, LBJ, and Obama (January 8, 2008)
• A little background and context for the preceding post (January 8, 2008)
• John Kerry endorses Obama. (January 10, 2008)
• Obama gets another interesting endorsement. (January 10, 2008)
• Hillary's Obama/MLK/LBJ comments could hurt her in SC. (January 11, 2008)
• What others are saying about Hillary's--and Bill's--comments related to Obama and MLK (January 11, 2008)
• And here's another of those comments about Hillary. (January 11, 2008)
• Hillary tries a new response regarding her MLK/LBJ remarks, and shows once again that she is just like Bush. (January 14, 2008)

And then came Bill's statements about Jesse Jackson on the day of the South Carolina primary in which Bill basically said that the results in South Carolina would not matter because the vote would be "a black thing" and no other state primary would be like that.

And then Hillary brought up race as a dismissive reason why Obama did so well in Louisiana ("These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.").

So what would Ann Richards think about this? I don't know for sure, but based on her record, I'd say there is a far greater than zero chance she would not approve, and if I am correct, that would mean there is a chance that Ann would not endorse Hillary.

Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 4: good friends Molly Ivins and Ann Richards)

I have spent some time checking out comments about the ad in various other locations in the wide world interweb, and most of those from Hillary supporters are specious and feeble at best. One theme in those responses is a new Hillogism:

• Hillary and Ann were friends.
• Ann would have loved to see a woman as President.
• Therefore, Ann Richards would have endorsed her friend Hillary.

There are many reasons why this Hillogism fails, but here I will focus on one. The major premise is that friendship is the main reason Ann would have endorsed Hillary. In other words, friendship would have clearly influenced Ann's decision. Ah, but Ann Richards had a friend to whom she was much closer than Hillary Clinton, and that friend did not care for Hillary.

That friend was Molly Ivins.

Read "Remembering Ann Richards" and "A-men. A-women. A-Ann." These were written by Ivins shortly after Ann Richards died. In those remembrances you will find a warmth and knowledge that can come only from years of close friendship.

Also, take note of something Ann said about Molly at an event. The occasion was the 50th Anniversary party for the Texas Observer. Molly had just introduced Ann, and here is what Ann said about Molly:

I know it’s been a shock to all of us, but over the last ten or fifteen years our girl Molly Ivins has learned to dress, run a comb through her hair now and then, and give a fairly decent speech. The Observer was never better than when Molly and Kay were writing it. But then, we were all easier to please back then. A truly remarkable woman who goes around America making speeches and telling lies about me. And I welcome her attentions any time. May God bless this woman who has more survivor blood in her veins than anyone I have ever known.

You can also see the video of these remarks at the link provided above.

I'd say that is a bit more significant than the one link between Hillary and Ann shown in Hillary's ad, namely Hillary telling about Ann's advice on hair.

Now let's get back to the Hillogism. Hillary and her supporters tell us that there was such a deep bond between Hillary and Ann that it is a foregone conclusion that Ann would have endorsed Hillary. Well, let's look at that in the context of a longer, closer friendship--that between Ann and Molly. Here's how that logical construct might go:

• Molly Ivins had a much longer and closer friendship with Ann Richards than did Hillary.
• Molly Ivins was strongly opposed to Hillary being President.
• Therefore, Ann would have sided with her closer friend and would not have endorsed Hillary.

Now before you Hillary supporters start getting bent out of shape, I will say that this "reasoning" is specious at worst and highly speculative at best for the very simple reason that it cannot be proved because Ann Richards died before Hillary declared her candidacy. But that same criticism applies to the Hillogism that Hillary's friendship with Ann means that Ann would have endorsed Hillary. So quit trying to use Hillary's friendship with Ann to justify Hillary's bullshit and in extremely bad taste ad claiming that Ann Richards is endorsing Hillary from beyond the grave.

Coming in Part 5--Hillary's actions likely would not be condoned by Ann.

Hillary tries to claim a Texas endorsement from the other side. (Part 3: observations from someone who worked for Ann)

Glenn Smith worked for Ann Richards. In fact, he was her campaign manager in 1990 when she was elected Governor.

Smith declared on February 27 that he will remain neutral in the controversy over the "Ann endorses Hillary" ad.

Thus, I must state that in no way is this post trying to claim that Glenn Smith has expressly or by implication said that he disapproves of the ad.

However, on Februay 25, Smith published a post at My Direct Democracy comparing Ann Richards's 1990 campaign to Hillary's current campaign. And that discussion is relevant to the claims of Hillary supporters that of course Ann would have endorsed Hillary.

Smith's post is entitled "Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of," and provides another glimpse into Hillary's true nature.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

A capable, experienced candidate well-liked by Democrats runs headlong into a mysterious, almost trans-political force whose supporters just won't listen to reason. Sound familiar?

Well, I'm talking about the 1990 Texas Democratic gubernatorial primary, the one in which Ann Richards beat seasoned former Congressman and state Attorney General Jim Mattox.

Ann and Hillary were friendly. So it's a table-turning circumstance we're seeing here, as Hillary is acting like Mattox did as all his political advantages turned to dust when confronted with a charismatic candidate he didn't believe deserved to win.

*******

Mattox had been a solid attorney general. There were stories about his heavy-handed fundraising. He was notoriously mean. But his biggest negative was his ongoing negative attacks on Richards.

I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.

And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.

That Hillary would fall victim to the same sort of disbelieving myopia that plagued Mattox's campaign against her friend Richards presents an odd kind of symmetry.

Mattox this year is supporting Hillary Clinton, the friend of the woman he believes denied him the governorship of Texas.

(emphasis added). Let's put this in simple terms. Hillary is like Mattox in 1990, and Obama is like Ann Richards in 1990. Hillary is running a campaign similar to Mattox's, and Obama's campaign is like Richards's 1990 campaign. I surmise that Ann Richards did not approve of the style and tactics used by Mattox in 1990, and I wonder if she would approve of anyone using such style and tactics in a campaign today. And that makes me wonder if Ann Richards would approve of Hillary right now.

And if any Hillary supporters want to claim that Hillary is not using such Mattox-like tactics, I will revise this post to include links showing otherwise.

Ann Richards did not suffer fools, hypocrites, or arrogant people. I have detailed on this blog that Hillary is all three. Again, I will add links if need be, but the fact that Hillary has chosen to to claim that she knows what Ann Richards would have done is plenty of evidence.

Coming in Part 4--Molly Ivins and Ann Richards must be having an interesting conversation.