Posts Tagged → Hillary Rodham-Clinton
Paterson picks pro-gun Dem for Hillary’s seat
New York Governor David Paterson must’ve pulled a name from a hat and had it read to him. After wisely bypassing Caroline Kennedy, Paterson acted with little more wisdom (from a Democratic party perspective) by choosing Rep. Kirsten Gillebrand for the New York U.S. Senate seat vacated by incoming Secretary of State Hillary Rodham.
One thing Paterson overlooked is that Gillebrand is perhaps just about the only pro-gun Democrat in the state of New York; she is possessed of a 100-percent voting record with the NRA. Why is this woman a Democrat, again?
What Gillebrand lacks in digital signage of the sort that would have come with appointing Caroline in the city, she’ll more than make up for by bringing some common sense to her party caucus in the Senate.
Sure, they’ll eat her for lunch and spit her out in two years; but by that time, maybe she’ll be ready to run for the same seat as an incumbent turncoat Republican.
Hills can’t even manage a proper exit
A set of four flags became a set of negative exit poles for Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham (D-NY) as she capped a “nightmare week from hell” by botching an “exit stage left” move on Veteran’s Day. With the help of a careless aid sweeping aside a curtain for her, a set of four flags tumbled in front of the former First Lady, creating a ruckus that lent itself to political interpretation.
“I think the bases are not weighted enough,” Clinton said as she propped flags back up, according to an ABCNews.com report that includes a nifty video of the event. Be sure you have your HDMI switches working when you watch this one! You won’t want to miss a pixel.
Lots of fellow conservative bloggers are having fun with the whole “even the flag attacks her” political spin. I think the straightforward interpretation is preferable: Sen. Rodham’s campaign is a bit careless and mistake prone, lately, and it’s showing her vulnerability. Hillary is not beyond her own sort of Howard Dean moment. In fact, in the last week, she’s had hardly anything but.
People trust military more than politicians
I’ve always agreed with Mark Twain that there are three levels of falsehoods: lies, damn lies and statistics. Polls are a universal proof of this; if we went by polls, George W. Bush never would have been nominated, let alone elected, and we’d always elect a Democrat in the White House, just like the Aaron Sorkin-created drama, NBC’s now-defunct The Left Wing (known to most as the West Wing) told us life should be.
But sometimes the media screws up and the truth slips out, as in the recent CBS News-New York Times poll that said America trusts its military leaders like General Patraeus to navigate the US through the clean-up and stabilization operations in Iraq, far more than it trusts any politicians, be they in the White House, the US House, the Senate, or running to be the next resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
At last, some common sense from the media? Nah… that’s too much to hope for. In the meantime, maybe it’s time to offer Hillary a Florida vacation… before the hurricane season is over!
It’s a catfight!
The claws are out and the cats are warming up, even in the absence of Atlanta Falcon QB Michael Vick: Campaing 2008 is turning into a cat fight. In one corner, hailing from Illinois by way of Arkansas, Washington DC and New York, it’s Hillary “Maul His Balls” Rodham-Clinton.
And in the other corner, in the politically-correct-hued trunks, also from Chicago and, apparently, a kindergarten playground, it’s Michelle “He’s Black Enough for Me… Where It Counts!” Obama!
LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!
Where’s Michael Buffer when you need him.
The cat fight between Hillary and Michelle heated up over the weekend when she took a shot Sen. Rodham by suggesting that until Hill can keep husband Bill’s “slick Willie” where it belongs, she ought not be running for President.
“One of the things, the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like,” Michelle Obama said at a Women for Obama event. “And my view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.”
Not a bad turn of phrase, not a bad life philosophy. But Michelle, be very careful. Your hubby’s a Democrat; you just might have to live those words down someday. Especially if the Clinton Collective has anything to say about it. Since you libs apparently read more books than us conservatives, you should be able to anticipate this for yourself!
Don’t forget: Resistance is futile!
Schroeder a "book person"?
Former Colorado Democratic Congresswoman Pat Schroeder is claiming that liberal readers read more books than conservative ones. Of course, if you look past her posturing, it’s pretty much all B.S. and selective interpretation of the so-called “facts.”
But from whence did the one-time feminazi abortion-pusher suddenly become a source of all knowledge on books and the reading habits of political types? Apparently she lied Congress off her resume to land a job as the head of American Association of Publishers.
In the wake of another “1,000 carefully selected respondents to our poll tell us what YOU think even though we didn’t ask you” public opinion poll, which insisted that 22 percent of liberals “have not read a book in the last year,” compared to 34 percent of conservatives.
Apparently Schroeder and the AAP didn’t get the message from how prodigiously Ann Coulter’s Treason outsold Hillary Clinton’s Living History back in 2003: liberal books get trounced by conservative books when it comes to sales.
The poll also shows that there’s not much difference between liberals and conservatives who do read, though that was given the convenient brushover by Schroeder. Specifically, among political type who do read books, liberals average nine books a year, conservatives eight.
The kicker is actually what we learn about about the so-called “intellectual middle.” The wishy-washy types only average about five books a year, making them the least-well-read among literate types. Maybe if they picked up a few more books, they might actually learn enough to choose a side.
Of course, books aren’t the only things that measure how much a person reads; magazines and newspapers were not measured in the poll, let alone blogs, Web pages and such.
Sloppy work, Patty. When I want you’re opinion, I’ll ask you about animal print bedding, not reading habits.
Bloomberg a dangerous wildcard
Current New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is a dangerous wild card in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. He is especially dangerous toward the hopes of GOP candidates for office, a danger made more real by a recent online report suggesting Bloomberg is willing to spend up to one billion of his $5.5B personal fortune in a third-party bid for the presidency.
The popular media take is that Bloomberg is a change of pace from far-left Democrats and far-right Republicans, because he is socially liberal, fiscally conservative and from the East Coast. Yet that holds no water as a viable difference from at least two, and possibly three, current top presidential contenders.
First of all, Bloomberg is a virtual carbon-copy of top GOP presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani, who has the benefit of running as a major party candidate. Their views are nearly identical and Giuliani has the benefit of receiving a lion’s share of the credit for post-9/11 leadership in New York City. It Giuliani secures the GOP nod, there would be no appreciable difference between the two that would make a Bloomberg run make any kind of sense, other than to split the vote and allow a Democratic presidential victory.
Second is GOP candidate Mitt Romney, currently battling with Arizona Senator John McCain for second place versus Giuliani for the Republican endorsement. Just like Bloomberg and Giuliani, Romney is of the exact same socially liberal, fiscally conservative, East Coast liberal type represented by Giuliani and Bloomberg. Again, a Romney candidacy would provide no contrast for Bloomberg to run against, other than to split the anti-Hillary/anti-Obama vote and ensure a Democratic win. And it should be noted that McCain, while not an East Coast candidate, fits in lock step positionally with Giuliani, Romney and Bloomberg.
In fact, the GOP field is so packed with East Coast social liberal/fiscal conservative candidates, one has to wonder if there’s any hope for the conservative movement in 2008.
But I mentioned a third candidate who – arguably – fits the same mold. I’m speaking, of course, about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. Despite being slightly more liberal than Giuliani, Romney and Bloomberg, some votes actually have Sen. Rodham as more conservative than McCain on select issues. Sen. Rodham-Clinton is basically Mayor Bloomberg on Phentermine.
What I think motivated Bloomberg more than any real, substantive “difference” from candidates like Giuliani, Romnet, Bloomberg and Rodham-Clinton is something far more provincial: a good ol’ New York pissing contest. For the last several election cycles, East Coast candidates – and specifically New Yorkers – have been nonfactors in presidential politics, much to the chagrin of the New York-centric liberal news media. New York has taken a back seat to the deep South as the most influential voting block, and New Yorkers are eager to get back into the game of presidential politics.
Think about it.
Bush II/Cheney: Texas and Wyoming
Clinton/Gore: Arkansas and Tennessee
Bush/Quayle: Texas/Maine and Indiana
Reagan/Bush: California and Texas/Maine
Carter/Mondale: Georgia and Minnesota
Ford/Rockefeller: Michigan and New York.
So, you have to go all the way back to 1974-1977, a brief stint as Ford’s vice president, to find the last time a New Yorker was in the White House. That’s at least a 30 year absence and it’s clear that one of the largest states in the nation is eager to be “back in the game.”
By the way, Rockefeller was, in his day, the leader of the liberal wing of the GOP, so even he fit with the ever-more-bloated socially liberal/fiscally conservative mold that is so well represented in this election cycle by Bloomberg, McCain, Giuliani, Romney and – arguably – Rodham-Clinton.
To be blunt, Bloomberg’s “change of pace” proposed candidacy is no “change of pace” at all – it simply litters the field with another sound-alike candidate designed to blot out any legitimate conservatives from getting a foothold in the 2008 election cycle.
The only real hopes for a legitimate change in rhetoric in this election cycle are Fred Thomspon, Newt Gingrich, or – arguably – a dark horse emergence from someone like Mike Huckabee. Bloomberg doesn’t represent change in any fashion; but a potential third-party run could doom the country to a Democratic presidential victory.
