Steaming Load of the Week
Steaming Load Award: Comrade Hillary blames USA for Mexico’s raging drug gang violence.Mexico is, by any objective standard, a very dangerous place to visit. It was never a veritable Eden, but recent events have it looking like a the kind of place only the Taliban could love. It’s hell on Earth and getting worse with each passing day, as Mexico devolves into utter chaos.
What happened down there? The facts speak for themselves. Due to this economic meltdown, the market for the drugs the Mexican gangs are pouring into America is decreasing. The weed and other drugs aren’t selling the way they did a year or two ago. As a result of this shrinking market, profits are down. Since that won’t be tolerated, the gangs are doing what needs to be done: eliminate their competition to grab a bigger piece of this dwindling American drug pie. Dog eat dog, sums it up nicely.
Eager to exploit this disaster, for his own political ends, Messiah Barry has his minions shoving it closer to the front burner. One of their first forays involves sending Comrade Hillary to Mexico to confer with what passes for a government south of the border. Determined to get off on the right foot, Comrade Hillary set the 'approved by Messiah Barry' tone, by putting ALL the blame for the Mexican drug wars on AMERICANS.
* American drug users caused the problems by importing their drugs from Mexico, instead of using home grown banned substances.
* American gun manufacturers and sales outlets in the Southwest exacerbated the problem by making and selling guns to Mexican nationals who take them ‘home’ with them.
That’s right, PIGsters, in Messiah Barry’s region of the Twilight Zone, America OPPRESSED peace-loving, hard working, Mexican fuzzballs into acting out their rage. Somehow, the only patriotic way for Americans to atone is to scuttle the Second Amendment, and start smoking more weed, the primary cash crop transported by the drug gangs.
As much as I’d like to help Messiah Barry with this one, I don’t see how turning in Old Betsy and Big Bang, then smoking more weed to help me get over that painful goodbye, is going to solve this problem. Maybe, I’d change my attitude if Comrade Hillary could explain how shutting off the flow of American firearms into Mexico will stop Mexican asshats from BEHEADING their enemies.
This sideshow is a load of neo-Marxist bull crap. It’s just an excuse to flush the Second Amendment down the crapper. Over my dead body, Dumbo-eared Sparky. I have a better idea.
First, we flush Messiah Barry, Comrade Hillary and all the other Marxist bastards down the crapper.
As soon as that’s done, we nuke the Mexican drug gang’s profits by repealing our weed-banning laws.
Finally, we put some heavily armed Americans on the border and keep them there, while the Mexican drug punks kill each other off.
It was Mexicans, not Americans, who created this circle of hell, so it’s only fair that they burn in it..Perpetrated by: Hambo
Friday, March 27, 2009
Steaming Load of the Week - Comrade Hillary blames USA for Mexico’s raging drug gang violence
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
HILLARY IS THE NEW WALLACE
Published in the New York Post on May 28, 2008.
In its final days, Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign has come to echo George Wallace's 1968 run.
Like Clinton, Wallace as a candidate stalked the Northeast exploiting white anger. Like her, he bypassed the nation's more educated and liberal parts to focus squarely on those who felt left behind, rallying animosity against elites.
But behind the mask of populism, it was race that fueled Wallace's campaign from the start. And it is race that has brought new life to Clinton's campaign in its final days.
Like Wallace, Clinton doesn't address racial prejudice squarely, but cloaks the appeal to our darker fears in seemingly neutral issues. He used opposition to school busing; she has played off Obama's alleged elitism and ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
To be fair, neither appeal is totally invalid.
Busing failed to integrate our schools and led, instead, to greater segregation as whites fled to the suburbs and/or to private schools.
Rev. Wright, meanwhile, is enough to scare the daylights out of anybody. To have a president who sat willingly in his pews, absorbing and seemingly condoning his hatred, is a worrisome prospect indeed.
But the basic fact remains that Clinton, like Wallace, is relying on race. Their tactics are similar, appealing to the same kind of voters for parallel reasons.
No, Clinton isn't a racist - but she's still using race to win elections. (So, by the way, did Bill Clinton in 1992, with his criticism of Sister Souljah and his much-publicized backing for capital punishment.)
Racism is as racism does. When a politician consciously exploits racial divisions, fears and animosity to win an election, he or she deserves condemnation.
But Hillary Clinton is neither a racist nor a populist; she's an opportunist. Discovering that the establishment consensus has left behind millions of disgruntled voters - the angry white men of yesteryear - she, like Wallace before her, is creating new fissures in the electorate in the hopes of upsetting a harmony that doesn't serve her ends.
Her advocates say that Clinton has found her voice. But this new voice is but an echo of a a discordant note in a discredited past.
In the coal mines of Kentucky and West Virginia and the former factory towns of Western Pennsylvania and Central Ohio, the anger into which this voice taps remains alive, hot and glowing. But most of America has moved beyond prejudice, beyond diversity, beyond even tolerance, into a post-racial era.
It was a proud feature of our politics in 2008 that we seemed to have crested this wave of progress - until Clinton, embittered by frustrated ambition, blew on the smoldering embers of racial fear to stage a comeback for the nomination.
It isn't her proudest moment.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
NO VEEP SLOT FOR HILLARY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 13, 2008.
It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it’s a hell of an idea!
Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life. They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama, but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama’s connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama’s links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn’t follow her into Obama’s camp just because she was on the ticket.
Obama’s key need in the election is to demonstrate his experience and ability to do the job despite only minimal federal experience. Running with someone whose experience he, himself, derided will hardly solve this problem. Voters only credit Hillary with having experience when her record is compared with Obama’s almost total lack of a record. Against McCain, she would do nothing to close the experience gap. Better for Obama to choose a senator with long tenure — a Chris Dodd (Conn.) or Joseph Biden (Del.) — just as Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bush chose Cheney, and Kennedy chose Johnson.
If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill’s income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra — the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan — and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?
Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare. There is no way that Obama could trust her. She would be a throwback to the old days when the president did not consult the vice president on anything, a situation which led Vice President John Nance Garner, FDR’s VP during his first two terms, to call the office “not worth a pitcher of warm piss.”
If Obama got into trouble, he would have to look over his shoulder at Hillary and he would always have both Bill and Hillary around to show him up, hog the limelight, generate controversy with ill-considered remarks, and make life difficult. Would Bill stop giving speeches and making money? Would his ties with Arab nations and questionable American and Canadian businessmen end? Or would Obama have to explain his VP’s husband’s business dealings over and over again.
And, the ultimate question: Can Bill Clinton be put back into the bottle? Is this recent spate of angry, finger-wagging bursts of inappropriate outrage a permanent fixture of his public persona? Does Obama want to take the risk of having him on the team and having to account for his conduct?
Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
HILLARY WON'T ADOPT THE HUCKABEE OPTION
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 7, 2008.
OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn’t knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won’t avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party’s prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn’t have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don’t beat up the party’s nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Go To
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!Monday, May 5, 2008
Hillary Can't Have It Both Ways
I feel Hillary did a good job of handling herself and most of all was able to answer questions with her version of the facts and not empty messages of O'Hope like O'Dope.
Enough with the cool-aid...
Cliton wants to have it both ways. She wants to portray herself as strong on terrorism, but will accept sanctuary cities. She believes that more illegal immigrants will report crime if they are not sent back to Mexico on a mule - this will help reduce crime rates. Then like a true democrat she acknowledged that many of these illegal immigrants are the ones that commit crime - huh? See why I'm not a democrat!
You ask how is this both ways? You cannot be tough on terror and be soft on illegal immigration - they go hand in hand. There has long been talk on the threat of terrorists infiltrating our country through the Swiss cheese like Mexican border. This is where most democrats miss the boat!
The crack down on our southern border has severely decreased the amount of illegal immigrants entering this country since 9/11. There are several contributing factors - but the extra vigilance is starting to act as a deterrence.
We can insert the democrat chorus here - the illegals contribute to the economy and help the work force....
From Fox News --
The downturn in illegal immigration has created labor shortages throughout the United States and several states are considering temporary-worker programs, especially in agricultural fields, where produce is going bad.
Mexicans in the U.S. are starting to send less money home, too.
Remittances soared in the early part of the decade to become Mexico's largest source of foreign income after oil exports. But they rose just 1 percent in 2007, reaching $24 billion and in the first quarter this year, they slipped almost 3 percent from the same period last year, Mexico's central bank said this week. More...
But this is not enough - the sanctuary cities If we got rid of the sanctuary cities this would be one less incentive for the illegal border jumpers to enter our country.
The guys at PIG correctly define Sanctuary Cities --
- SANCTUARY CITY, n.
A term that denotes a city which while 'technically' still part of the United States (umbilical to U.S. Treasury intact), it has been surrendered to the border jumping scumbag invaders who have transformed it into a third world cesspool. (link added)
Decreasing the amount of border jumpers also decreases the potential threat of terrorism from our southern border. Unless her head has been in the sand - it shows Hillary is unable to make the connection with terrorists and illegal immigrants in her dysfunctional democrap mind. It has long been established that terrorists are working with the Mexican drug cartels in the smuggling of money & drugs through the United States.
The traffickers from the drug cartels are becoming more violent in enforcing the established avenues of infiltration for their drugs - avenues that can be shared by & with Islamikaze terrorists!
David Johnson, assistant secretary for the INL, says that the illicit drug trade is directly linked to known terrorist groups in the Western Hemisphere and that these groups are employing terrorist tactics to traffic drugs into North America.
"These worrisome links have expanded to North America, and particularly in the case of some Mexican-based drug trafficking organizations,” Johnson said in a statement. “They have pushed past intimidation to employ terrorist tactics to enforce their drug trafficking monopolies on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.”
Johnson says the organizations have created a surge in violence that has claimed the lives of hundreds over the last several years and that the “future of democracy in the Western Hemisphere and our own (United States) national security interests are deeply and inextricably intertwined.” He called for the strengthening of regional cooperation to fight against the growing threat.
Because of the border crack down the drug cartels are becoming more creative in their ways of smuggling drugs into the United States - thus creating a continued national security threat.
From Drug Policy. Org --
Over the last two years, Colombian authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy have seized 13 submarine-like vessels outfitted for drug running. The five seized by American authorities were en route to Mexico or Central America, each loaded with 3 to 5 tons of cocaine.
The seizures point to a security threat that goes beyond drug trafficking. Many law enforcement officials are concerned that U.S. ports and shorelines could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks using such crudely built submarines.
"There could be 5 tons of anything on board these things," said a senior U.S. military official involved in the war on drugs. More...
If after reading this you are unable to see the potential danger posed by a porous border and creating safe havens - sanctuary cities - for the drug couriers & potential terrorists, please re-read the last sentence of the above U.S. military official.
Our next Commander in Chief or Comanderette in Chief must have a clear and objective outlook when dealing with immigration and the links with terrorism. If elected, clouded judgement like Hillary's may very well bring us a "Cloud" of fallout!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Democrat Party Great Divide Keeps Growing
While some Democrat party leaders and/or pundits claim it is good for their primary process to continue and others say Hillary should just stop now - almost all agree that once the Democrat candidate is selected, they will all rally behind that person.
Polls are saying otherwise...
From Yahoo.com --
In the AP-Yahoo poll — which has tracked the same 2,000 people since November — Barack Obama supporters with negative views of the New York senator have grown from 35 percent in November to 44 percent this month, including one-quarter with very unfavorable feelings.
Those Obama backers who don't like Hillary Rodham Clinton say they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain over her by a two-to-one margin, with many undecided.
As for Clinton supporters, those with unfavorable views of Obama have grown from 26 percent to 42 percent during this same period — including a doubling to 20 percent of those with very negative
opinions.
The Clinton backers with unfavorable views of Obama say they would vote for McCain over him by nearly three-to-one, though many haven't made up their minds. More...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hillary would Nuke Iran
According to the democrat standards, these below remarks would now classify Hillary as a "warmonger."
From WND --
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
...Clinton offered a new defense doctrine during the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia last week that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with nuclear weapons. (emphasis added)
Here's what Clinton said: "We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup." More...
Old Hillagoat sounds so ridiculous when she talks tough!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Dick Morris - HILLARY'S TERRORIST TIES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FOXNews.com on April 18, 2008.
In this week’s debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her “baggage” has been “rummaged through” for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.
Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization.
In 1996, the First Lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in the Wall Street Journal “Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate.’”
Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996. Emerson says that its leaders “have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad.”
The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the 90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that “Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s…White House reception.”
Alamoudi, Emerson says was “the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads.” Marzug took “credit” when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug “had never been involved in terrorism” and called his arrest “an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he “elicited contributions fro Marzug’s defense fund” and called him a “political prisoner.”
Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said “we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart.”
Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” But alert observers weren’t fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.
But by then, a few weeks before the election, she had abjured the use of soft money in her Senate campaign, so the donation was, in practical terms, useless, since it was well over the limits for hard money contributions.
The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view. WorldNetDaily.com reported on October 7, 2007 that leading terrorists have publicly called for her election. Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily’s Jerusalem correspondent, wrote, in his wonderful book Schmoozing with Terrorists, Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group said “I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.”
Senakreh has high hopes for a Hillary presidency. He told Klein “I hope also that she will maintain her husband’s policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy.
Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, noting that “the Iraqi resistance is succeeding,” said that “Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal.” Then he added, helpfully, &ldqu o;Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy.” He explained that “President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and give the Palestinians all their rights.”
Clearly Barack Obama should not have stayed in Rev Wright’s church and his campaign should not maintain a “friendly” relationship with William Ayers. But what about Hillary’s service on a board that gave money to a terrorist organization? And her hosting of a terror supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from that group? And the statements of terrorists that they are hoping for her to win.
These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Dick Morris - FISHY WAY OF SHEIKING THE MONEY TREE
Published in the New York Post on April 5, 2008.
QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presidential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?
A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?
ANSWER: No.
Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.
It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.
So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?
And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.
By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.
How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.
The returns released yesterday also reveal another outfit paid substantial sums to Bill - InfoUSA, a mailing-list company that was under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable senior citizens to telemarketers.
InfoUSA sold these con men lists like "Elderly with Alzheimer's" and "Gullible seniors" so they could be flee ced out of their life savings.
A lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders, founder and "Friend of Bill" Vin Gupta used corporate jets to whisk the Clintons around the globe for events, including political events, since 2001 - spending nearly $900,000 to do it.
The suit suggests Gupta used company funds to party with high-profile pals such as the Clintons.
Again, it's not clear what Bill did for this company.Hillary has called for more transparency in foreign government-funded sovereign wealth funds and for full disclosure of their activities.
Let that start at home.
Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Monday, March 31, 2008
Oh Boy - This is going to be fun!
Rev. Strickland is backing Hillahag and has pledged his vote as superdelegate. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, a Hillahag pledged super delegate, may also get dragged into the on going cat-fight between Clinton & O'Dumbo.
The concern - Hillahag is demanding the MI & FL votes and has vowed she is staying in until the Democrat Convention.
This is awesome - Go get'em Hillahag...
I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens over the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll settle it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.No worry Bill! How about some conservative caffeine so you can wake and greet McCain?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Dick Morris - IT'S TIME TO CALL IN HATCHET MEN AGAINST THE CLINTONS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Clintons are trying to steal the nomination from Barack Obama - and he can't let them.
The Clintons' campaign attacks put Obama in a bind.
If he doesn't answer in kind, he's toast.
But if he does, they'll have forced him off his winning message of hope and change from the bitter politics of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush eras.
If they pull him off his game and onto theirs, they can wrest away the Democratic convention victory that he's earned.
The solution for Obama is clear: Reply in kind, but do it through surrogates.
Obama must answer Hillary's negative attacks and make counterpunches of his own to rock her back on her heels.
His holier-than-thou posture is fine for the opening stages of a campaign, but when your opponent starts throwing mud, you've got to answer.
While Hillary takes aim at Obama's buddy, Tony Rezko, the Obama people need to explore the dimensions of Hillary's relationship with con artist Norman Hsu, who donated almost a million dollars to her campaign, money he'd scammed from gullible investors.
Obama needs to enlist the likes of Ted Kennedy and his other supporters in making the case against Hillary.
After her victories in Texas and Ohio, Hillary is once again in play. Negatives about her matter. A full frontal assault on her integrity and on Bill's conflicts of interest (remember they have joint finances) will work and will stop the bleeding in the Obama campaign.
The Clintons would like nothing better than for Obama to remain passive, clinging to his desire to raise the tone of our politics.
If Sen. Clinton resorts to negative ads in the remain ing primary states, Obama needs to do so, too, always keeping himself off camera and using an announcer to articulate his message.
As long as his attacks center on Hillary's and Bill's financial dealings and their relationships with lobbyists and special-interest groups, he will remain on message and his attacks will be in sync with his general approach to the race.
But Obama must make no mistake - it's time to fight back.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON'S MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.
The presidential candidates discussed this issue in their Nevada debate and Hillary was asked about it in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the FOX Business Network yesterday. She replied that she would not “stand in the way” of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for more disclosure and “transparency.”
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is totally unable to be objective on this key question of our national financial sovereignty because she and her husband have been so compromised by their financial dealings with the very countries at issue in the decision.
Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation?
Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE?
The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation’s control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison.
Neither Dubai nor Saudi Arabia would be permitted to contribute to Hillary’s campaign. Foreigners are not allowed to do so, precisely to avoid having potential office holders compromised by gratitude for their financial support. But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control. The extent of the influence their mi llions must buy with a family only recently, according to Hillary, in the “middle class” must be huge.
And it is for exactly this kind of situation that the Clintons should be required to divulge the extent of their involvement with foreign interests and exactly how much money their personal bank accounts and their Library/Foundation have received. (The Saudi donation to the Library and Foundation was only discovered by the New York Times when the information was inadvertently posted on the Library’s Web site. Soon after the story appeared, it was taken down. The Clintons refuse to reveal the donors to the Library or the related Foundation.) Hillary and Bill have also refused to release their income tax returns, despite the fact that Bill willingly released his when he was running for president.
Why hasn’t Barack Obama or John Edwards even mentioned this issue? Their attacks on Hillary’s links to lobbyists and other special interes ts are usually painted with a broad brush. But the journey of America’s banks abroad in search of a bailout makes this specific conflict a key question of policy and highly relevant to their campaigns. What better illustration could one have of Hillary’s conflicts of interest than this one?
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2008.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Can Hillary Fix Health Care?
Taking issue on her ties with lobbyists of the pharmaceutical industry, Obama & Edwards are picking on poor Hillary the Hypocrite again. Refusing donations from lobbyist's, Edwards & Obama are again giving the candidate that wanted to give away 40 acres & a mule a hard time.
With a wave of her wand, Hillabeans dismisses their attack with insulting everyday Americans by comparing them to lobbyists -
"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."
Hillacrite has received more money from lobbyist's representing pharmaceutical & health products than any other Democrat or Republican candidate to date ~ (Click here for list). But as usual, Hilllacrite - darling of the medical industry lobbyists - may not be accurate in her assertions....
From Capital Eye --
In total, 353 federally registered lobbyists (including those working at lobbying firms or in-house for corporations, unions and associations) contributed at least $787,300 to Clinton's presidential campaign in the first nine months of this year, more than they gave to any other candidate, in either party. Lobbyists who represent health professionals, including the nurses Clinton singled out, account for $82,805 in contributions to her, while those representing the pharmaceutical industry paid out $562,900.
Only 14 lobbyists who gave to Clinton reported representing health professionals, compared to 76 who represented the pharmaceutical industry. Nine lobbyists who gave to the New York senator represent clients from both groups. Of contributions listed on campaign finance reports, Clinton has not received a single donation from lobbyists working for the two largest trade groups representing the working-class Americans she cited in August, the American Nurses Association and the National
Association of Social Workers. More....
Appearing to be bought and paid for by these lobby groups and with health care being one of the single most issues hurting the United States today, ANYONE who believes she will fix health care should get a free lobotomy!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Dick Morris:HILLARY'S SECRET POLICE RETURNS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on Newsmax.com
Are the Clinton secret police back on patrol?
It looks like they may be making a late campaign comeback.
In a week-end column, Robert Novak alleged that “agents” of Hillary Clinton are “spreading the word that she has scandalous information” about Barack Obama, but decided not to use it. (How considerate of her!)
Obama has come out swinging, accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to swift-boat him and demanding that Clinton either release the information or admit that there is none.
The Clinton camp is shocked that anyone would ever think that it would use such tactics!
Clinton campaign Communications Director (and KGB enforcer look-alike) Howard Wolfson claimed that the campaign had “no idea” what Novak was talking about. Absolutely!And, as usual, Wolfson tried to turn the embarrassing issue for Hillary into a problem for Barack, claiming he was naive for believing what was in the Novak column.
“A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Othe rs get distracted and thrown off their games,” Wolfson said.
Does anybody really believe that Hillary hasn’t been gathering dirt on her opponents? Anyone with any experience in politics knows one thing for sure: Hillary Clinton plays the game rough and dirty — and she has a sordid history of using private investigators to find scandals in the background of anyone who gets in her way.
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she’s not doing too well.
Remember in the 1992 campaign when Gennifer Flowers and other women were harassed by private detectives? The Clintons used campaign money to pay over $100,000 to private investigators to scare off the women. (Now they’ve learned to bury their investigative costs in lawyers bills.)
And does anyone think it was a coincide nce that Republican speaker of the House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee were outed for extra-marital affairs just at the time that the impeachment vote was about to take place?
Or that there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker?
And what are the odds that the recent rumors about John Edwards came from Clinton operatives?
That’s how the Clintons try to obliterate their opponents, with Hillary at the helm. As she runs for commander-in-chief of the United States, she’s already the commander of the Clinton secret police.
The Clintons have no regard for the privacy of those who get in their way. Their clumsiness in bullying Linda Tripp cost the Department of Defense about $600,000 when she won her lawsuit for invasion of privacy after they arranged to illegally leak confidential information from her personnel file.
To paraphrase Hillary, privacy is just a word if you don’t have the experience and strength to know what to do about it.
And Hillary sure does know what to do. As she told Sidney Blumenthal when the Lewinsky scandal broke: “We’ll just have to win.
”Winning at any cost is the Clinton mindset. So watch for more dirty tactics whenever Hillary and her team feel under attack.
Can we really afford to have a president who acts this way?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A question for Billary....
The story on Hildebeast's "Staged" questions is getting better and better! I first posted on it here.
The young lady, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College, sat down for an interview with CNN. The student describes how she was NOT the only person asked to pose a "Staged" question by the Clinton campaign and feels posing "Staged Questions" is dishonest.
From CNN --
.....She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.
"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.
According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, " 'I don't think that's a good idea, because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans.' " Watch the student describe how she was approached »
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.
"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. "It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."
Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?" Watch the student ask the planted question »
And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on my word." More....
Billary sure is a chip off the old block of her cigar smoking hubby!
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Hillary 'Plant' Speaks Out
Playing to the media and wanting to delve deeper into her error filled energy plan, Hilldabeast plays her part to the hilt, does well in this charade - almost....
From Fox News--
Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.
"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.
Question: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?
Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming." More....
Clinton's campaign has admitted to planting the question and claims - "It will never happen again."
