Many of us have been wondering exactly what kind of experience Hillary Clinton has that qualifies her on day one to be president that Barack Obama doesn’t have. True she is in her second term as a senator while Obama is only in his first term, but that is the only difference when it comes to actual experience.
Hillary likes to claim that because she is married to a former president she has all this experience. While it is true that she accompanied Bill across the globe while he met with foreign leaders, she has been grossly exaggerating what her role was as first lady.
Former director of the policy planning office under Bill Clinton, Greg Craig, is now attempting to set the record straight.
According to Craig:
There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
While this is scathing enough, he then goes on to debunk many of the examples that she has given to prove her national security/foreign relations experience.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.”
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
Greg Craig goes on to site more inaccuracies in this article, it is a must read. I have found it laughable that Hillary Clinton has played this experience card by claiming that she has 35 years of experience because she is married to a former president.
The truth is that while she claims that Obama doesn’t have enough experience to be president because he is only a one term senator, she doesn’t have the experience either, being only a two term senator.
Just because she watched what Bill did while he was president, it doesn’t add to her qualifications.
Hillary Clinton Refuses to Comment on Spitzer’s Sex Scandal
Hillary Clinton is refusing comment on New York Democrat governor, and Hillary Clinton super delegate, Eliot Spitzer’s admitted frequenting of a prostitute. This seems to be a situation that Hillary has somehow found her way into many, many times over her years in public life. Her “experience” must tell her not to comment on this situation.
But Spitzer’s prostitution bust goes much deeper than just hiring a prostitute. He may be charged with federal crimes for wiring money across state lines for use in an illegal activity. This is far more serious than prostitution.
I find it amusing that Hillary is going to sit idly by and not denounce what Spitzer has done. Clinton has been bashing Barack Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko, who this week went on trial for money laundering, conveniently forgetting that she has ties to Rezko also.
Now one of her committed, soon to be incarcerated, super delegates is in serious trouble with the Feds, and she doesn’t feel the need to distance herself from him. Doesn’t she feel as though Spitzer should step down? Does she think this is a fire-able offence? Does she condone it by not calling for his resignation?
Her silence leads to these questions. Voters need to know that she thinks this is not acceptable behavior. Or does she?
The double standard continues.
Obama Rejects Clinton’s Proposal for a “Dream Ticket”
The Clinton’s feel it slipping away. Slowly but surely it is slipping away. Everything the Clinton’s have worked for since Bill left the white-house with his head almost as low as his pants were, is slipping away.
The Clinton’s plan since 2000 has been to get back to the white-house, to regain their power. They are obsessed with it, it consumes them. The reason Hillary carpetbagged it to New York was to use New York as a stepping stone for her run at the presidency so that the Clinton’s could wield their power once again.
But now it is slipping away and in the past week the Clinton’s have floated the idea of a 
Hillary/Obama ticket. The media is all aflutter at the possibility of this dream ticket.
Hillary can’t win the Democrat nomination, yet she tries to show that Obama is unqualified to be president. This is all just an attempt by the Clinton’s to wrestle the nomination away from Obama, who also can’t win the nomination before the convention. Hillary feels that if she can paint Obama as being unqualified to be commander-in-chief, that it will help her secure the top spot on a Hillary/Obama dream ticket.
Obama today struck back on Hillary’s transparent plan to wrestle the nomination away from him.
I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to somebody who is in first place,” Obama, an Illinois senator, told supporters. The crowd booed when he mentioned Hillary’s idea.
“I’m not running for vice president. I am running for president of the United States of America,” Obama added. “I am running to be commander in chief.”
“I do not believe Senator Clinton is about change because in fact this kind of gamesmanship — talking about me as vice president, but maybe he’s not ready for commander in chief — that’s exactly the kind of double-speak, double-talk that Washington is very good at,”
“If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I would be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?” he asked.
The arrogance this woman shows by basically telling Obama and his campaign that he should give up and join her as one and fall in line under her, even though he is ahead and, in all practicality, can’t be caught is astonishing.
Kudos to Obama for seeing this for what it is, and not falling victim to it. He is able to throw her line about him not being ready on day one back in her face now that she is willing to say he is experienced enough to be her VP. This is too funny.
Lets face it, neither Hillary or Obama has the experience one would hope for in electing a president. Hillary’s “experience” is laughable at best. Obama’s qualifications are non-existent to be blunt. Yet together these two are supposed to rule the country as a dream team.
The only problem is, Obama will have none of it. Obama is ahead and he is willing to take his chances with the super delegates to win the Democrat nomination. Something Hillary is apparently not willing to chance.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Governor Eliot Spitzer
As everybody has heard by now, New York Democrat governor and Hillary Clinton super delegate, Eliot Spitzer was implicated in a prostitution ring. To quote Hillary, “shame on you” Eliot Spitzer.
As a former New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer dedicated his life to bringing criminals to justice, but evidently he thought he was above the law. This is typical from the left. This hypocrisy of the left trying to tell other people how to live their lives while living theirs in a different manner is nothing new, as can be evidenced by Al Gore flying around the world in a private jet to tell us we need to car pool in order to save the world. We must sacrifice, not him.
This is the same mindset that Eliot Spitzer apparently adheres to. He made a living putting people like himself and the “workers” that they frequented in jail, yet he is no different than them. He is worse, actually because he pretends to be something he was not while he was sending people to jail.
Because he is a Democrat we will hear stories about how we must leave him alone for the good of his family. We will hear it is nobody’s business but his and his family. We will be told that he needs his privacy. We will be told that we must let him heal the demons that he must have hidden inside. It won’t be his fault.
This wasn’t true of Mark Foley or of Larry Craig, in their cases their resignations were called for immediately. We heard nothing about their privacy. In all likelihood Spitzer, client 9, will have to resign. But the standards that Democrats will hold him to will be much lower than the standards that they hold Republicans to.
It always is.
Tag, I’m It
Well, I was tagged by Ryan and now I am it. It is now up to me to list six random things about myself, so here they are:
-
I owned a 1974 VW Super Beetle years ago, my father and I gave it a custom blue and white paint-job
-
I want to own an old VW Beetle again someday, but I am hesitant because I feel I will be assumed to be a liberal. I know this is supposed to be a fun post, but I can’t help throwing the “L” word out there. 🙂
-
I am addicted to salt, I put it on almost everything.
-
When eating foods such as chicken fingers, or meatballs, I always eat an odd number. However when listening to the radio or watching television I always set the volume at an even number.
-
I love, and own, every Fred Astaire musical. Please don’t hammer me too hard on that one.
-
I used to take art class once a week and I painted landscapes with oil paints. I stopped going after my second son was born for lack of time. I hope to start painting at home someday, but time is still short.
Now it is my turn to tag five people.
Tag, you’re it!
This is perhaps the most fear-mongering, ludicrous article I have ever read about global warming. I know it is hard to believe with all of the stupid articles out there that blame plastic bags, light-bulbs, earthworms, and Halloween. Global warming has been linked to cats breeding too quickly. Hell, Cate Blanchett is going to drink her own urine to save the planet. But just look at the opening paragraph of the article:
The risks of climate change have turned from a threat to reality impacting the conflict in Darfur, migration from flood-prone Bangladesh and hopes for stability in the Middle East, according to a new EU report.
Global warming has now turned into a reality and is a reason why there is genocide in Darfur. Middle East peace is threatened because of global warming. Global warming is now a threat to national security. These people will stop at nothing, they will politicize anything, and they will take advantage of any situation to push their anti-capitalist, tax America, restrict the rights of the people, tree-hugging agenda.
The fact that these people will stoop so low as to say that the Darfur genocide is caused by global warming, and that stability in the middle east is reliant on curbing a problem that hasn’t even been proven to exist, just shows you what type of people we are dealing with.
These people don’t give a damn about either of these problems, all they care about is their eco-fascist policies. These people are ecochondriacs, to quote Mark Steyn, hell bent on implementing their environment friendly policies and regulations on everybody. It just so happens that all of their policies will cost Americans millions of dollars in tax revenues.
To tell you the truth, I am getting sick and tired of writing the same basic message here over and over, but when I see something written as obviously false and demeaning as this I just can’t help myself. If these people really wanted to help the people of Darfur, or the middle east they wouldn’t just use it as a conduit to push anti-American environmentalism, they would concentrate on the problems there and try to do something to help.
Darfur and the middle east are not casualties of a failed global environmental policy, they are casualties of dictators. The only way to stop either of these problems is through military might, not through feel-good environmentalism that will accomplish nothing.
Of course liberals want nothing to do with the military, and this is not an attempt by them to have the USA use the military to solve the problem. As I already wrote they don’t care about those problems or they wouldn’t have used them is such a despicable way as to claim that global warming is responsible for them.
These people are becoming more and more irrational every day, and the scary part is this kind of bullshit is being taught in our government controlled public school system.
More Good News From Iraq Goes Unreported
I feel obligated to report the good news that is coming out of Iraq whenever I find it 
because the mainstream media is negligent in it’s coverage of the war. Believe me, it is not always easy to find, and not because there is no good news to report, but rather because the good news is being repressed by the media because of their lust for a Democrat president.
U.S. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno recently reported about some of the successes that have been achieved in Iraq, I bet you haven’t heard any of what I am about to write about on the news.
From this article we read the following:
In the last week of October 2007, there were 30 attacks on U.S. soldiers in the Anbar province of Iraq, just one-tenth as many as the previous year, according to U.S. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who spoke at a conference on the war on Wednesday.
He further noted that civilian deaths in Iraq have fallen by 70 percent in less than a year, and by November 2007, the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq had dropped to their lowest level since 2004.
Attacks on United States soldiers are only one tenth of the number that they were one year ago, and civilian deaths are down 70%, and insurgence attacks are at their lowest levels in a few years. All of this SHOULD be reported by the media but none of it is. The general then goes on to say that the sectarian violence is all but over also.
Obviously, it’s too early to declare victory and go home, but I think it’s safe to say that the surge of coalition forces – but just as important, how we employed those forces – has broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq
As the war in Iraq continues to improve it will proportionately be removed from the every day news cycle. It will also disappear from the political campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain may still use it as an issue because he was in favor of the surge. This can only be described by me as being sad. I can’t get over the fact that all the good things that America is doing in Iraq gets buried, while all the media needs is one suicide bomber and the Iraq war is back on the front page. When I say that I can’t get over this fact, I don’t mean that I am astonished that the media would ignore what is happening over there, I expect that, I just can’t get over the fact that the media is so blatant in their anti-war, anti-American victory coverage that they don’t even try to be unbiased anymore. I am also astonished that so many Americans are swayed by this type of “reporting” and fall for it hook, line, and sinker without even questioning it.
But there is still even more going on that hasn’t been reported:
Helpful in this effort, said Odierno, was the “Sons of Iraq,” a grassroots group of Sunni Arabs who joined forces with the American troops and Iraqi government and formed neighborhood watches to combat al Qaeda. The group has become an effective security force, the general said.
“We were able to keep young Sunni men away from extremism, provide jobs and income, and gain valuable intelligence on the insurgency, which included finding improvised explosive devices and large caches of ammunition,” said Odierno.
The organization has branched out to include Shi’ites and sometimes mixed groups.
“They wanted to be a legitimate part of the government of Iraq,” said Odierno. “Every dollar paid to the ‘Sons of Iraq’ is spent at least two additional times as they provide for their families, and then local markets buy wholesale goods to stock their stands. In places where we have employed the ‘Sons of Iraq,’ we have a ten-fold increase in markets.”
All of this deserves national news coverage, but receives none. This is journalistic malpractice. While all of this unfolds, and a new Democratically elected government struggles to take hold and grow while American soldiers help to secure a new free people our media remains silent until their is a set back. Then we have the coverage again, then we have candidates calling this “George Bush’s war”, but when things go well in Iraq the media focuses on how the economy might be in a recession.
Funny how that works, huh?
Actually, it’s not funny, IT FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
On the heels of last week’s report that Obama’s campaign allegedly secretly contacted Canada to warn them that Obama was going to lie to the American people about NAFTA comes this story about Obama’s plan to pull out of Iraq.
What makes this story so interesting is that it comes from a former campaign adviser. Samantha Power, who resigned last week after calling Hillary Clinton a monster (evidently you are not supposed to speak truthfully about the Clinton’s), had this to say about Obama’s plan to pull out of Iraq:
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” she said. “He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”
She also said the plan he is promising is a best case scenario that he will revisit once he is elected. In other words, he isn’t going to pull the troops out as he says he is, this must be more “campaign rhetoric”, just like the NAFTA flap,and should not be taken seriously. He will sit down and consult with the people on the ground who, and this is the best part, he doesn’t have access with because he is not the president. She is basically saying that he can’t implement his bullshit pullout plan that he has been touting because he has to speak to the generals first. Isn’t this the Bush plan? President Bush has been relying on the people on the ground to tell him when we can scale down and pull out. This is what has drawn the ire of the left all these years and now we learn the truth is that Obama will do the same.
Clear thinking people realize that no candidate is going to order a pullout of the troops, they are merely paying lip service to the moonbats in order to get their votes. Once in office Obama, or Hillary for that matter, is just going to claim that now that he/she has more information and actually know what he/she is talking about, a pullout is just not feasible. Obama or Hillary would then say that as much as he/she wants to bring the troops home, the generals don’t advise it. Sorry.
Just more campaign rhetoric.
John McCain’s Nomination Could Benefit New Hampshire
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
I visited the New Hampshire GOP website yesterday and I saw a post that was written by NHGOP Chairman Fergus Cullen that I found interesting. As you know, New Hampshire is the state that sprung John McCain and set him on his way to becoming the Republican nominee. Fergus Cullen makes an interesting argument that John McCain’s nomination could be a blessing as to the direction New Hampshire may be moving come November. Here is his statement from the GOP website:
“Senator McCain’s nomination is great news for New Hampshire Republicans,” state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said today.
“Senator McCain has a unique bond with New Hampshire voters, including the 40 percent of voters who are independents and who decide elections in our state. Not only do New Hampshire Republicans get a nominee who is universally respected within our party, but New Hampshire Democrats get the one Republican they least wanted at the top of our ticket,” Cullen added.
“Senator McCain’s nomination guarantees that New Hampshire will be a competitive swing state in the general election. Coupled with what will be a very competitive U.S. Senate race, we are looking at a political environment in which neither party has a built-in advantage. Unlike in the tidal election of 2006, this election is shaping up to be an equilibrium election in which New Hampshire comes back into political balance. This year, down-ballot candidates will win or lose on their own merits, and consequently, we can expect Republicans to regain many of the seats we lost last election cycle,” Cullen said.
“New Hampshire party bylaws required our three members of the Republican National Committee to remain neutral so long as the nomination was contested. With Senator McCain clinching the nomination, I am pleased to announce that National Committeewoman Phyllis Woods, National Committeeman Sean Mahoney, and I heartily endorse Senator McCain. We look forward to working with Senator McCain and his campaign team to carry New Hampshire for him in the November election,” Cullen said.
At first I just shrugged this off as political spin but as I thought more about it I believe there is allot of truth to his statement. John McCain is very popular here as evidenced by the primary and he could swing Independents over to the Republican’s side come November. This, in theory, would help to return New Hampshire from the deep blue and move us a little more into the red as Independents influenced by McCain to vote Republican would then return more Republicans to office at the state level. There are a couple of problems with his theory though, and that is where I believe that there is some spin in this statement.
The first issue, or concern, is that yes many Independents may break towards McCain in the general election, but that does not necessarily mean that they will vote straight ticket Republican, or even for any other Republican on the ballot. Independents are not as likely to vote straight ticket as a voter affiliated with a party. So while he may influence the presidential electoral college in New Hampshire I am not sure how much of a change this will mean for New Hampshire’s state political direction.
The second concern I have with his statement is the fact that Democrat voters in New Hampshire in the primary outnumbered Republican voters by a wide margin. I am not sure that New Hampshire is ready to swing back toward the right. We still seem to have become a vastly blue state and one election may not be enough to right the ship.
However, this is going to be a long process, I have to show patience as this plays out over the coming years. Fergus Cullen makes the point that John McCain is the one candidate that New Hampshire Democrats did not want to see as the Republican nominee, and he may be right. John McCain as the presidential nominee, coupled with a hopefully strong Republican candidate for governor, could be the best case scenario for New Hampshire in this election.
John McCain’s nomination could be a blessing in disguise for New Hampshire, I just hope Fergus Cullen is right about this. Have I changed my tune on John McCain? NO, but looking at the bright side of this, he could be just what New Hampshire needed to balance the political landscape out a little bit.
Is Ron Paul Dropping out? Will he Run as an Independent?
As can be read here, Ron Paul left a video message on his campaign website that appears to say that he is dropping out of the race. Although he never did come out and say that he was, he hinted at it. There is one part of the story that I linked to above that I find interesting, and it is the last sentence in the article.
Paul said their job now was to plan for the next phase of their effort.
What does he mean by this? Could it just mean that he wants to continue to get his message out there? Possibly, and actually, probably. But could it mean that he is thinking about running as a third party candidate? Or should I say fourth party candidate, Ralph Nader is already running of course. I know that he has said repeatedly that he will not run if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, but he has a huge internet following and I believe he could be persuaded to mount a campaign. We have already seen how effective he is at raising money on the internet.
This would really make things interesting, as if they aren’t already interesting enough. You would then have Nader probably taking votes from Democrats with Paul taking votes from Republicans, and then there is the very real possibility that Michael Bloomberg could still enter the race.
I say come one and come all. With this many candidates to chose from I may actually be able to find someone to vote for.
