Posts Tagged → Hillary Rodham
The Chaos continues
After Hillary swept the Kentucky primary and Obama obliterated her in Oregon, two things are clear. One, Hillary has taken the clear lead in the Democratic popular vote, and two, Obama now has enough pledged delegates that Hillary can’t beat him without nearly all of the unpledged superdelegates hopping over to her side.
That’s unlikely to happen; with Howard (EEEEEE-AHHHHHH!) Dean running the party (and subscribing to more than a couple wine clubs), he seems intent on cleansing the party of Clinton influences and Obama is the beneficiary of his efforts.
That said, this whole thing would have been over several weeks ago, had it not been for Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos efforts to draw the Democratic nominating process out as long as possible by encouraging GOP voters to “become Democrats for a day” in states where they are able, and vote for Hillary to prevent Obama from locking up the nomination too early.
All I can say is, “Thanks, Rush!” The bloom is definitely off the rose for both Hillary and Obama. Obama’s currently running like Hillary’s already conceded, while Sen. Rodham announced she intended to stay in the race following her dominant Kentucky win that helped vault her into the popular vote lead among Democratic voters.
Barack, Hillary appear on Fox News
Despite an early vow to boycott Fox News Channel at the behest of liberal bloggers, Hillary Clinton recently appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. And guess what? The world didn’t explode! Although the heads of a few liberal bloggers did, which can be seen both as an improvement of the general blogosphere, as well as a beneficial effect of global warming.
Truth is, Fox News Channel isn’t nearly as biased as the major news networks and liberal media elites are every day. Yes, Fox News Channel employs Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, but it also employs Juan Williams, Greta Van Susteren and Allan Colmes. Yes, FNC talks to Republicans … and they’re more than willing to talk to Democrats, when the Dems aren’t thowing a hissy-fit about not being the only ones to have their opinions aired.
After their long luxury vacations from reality, both Dem contenders for the White House have realized that Fox News Channel isn’t exactly the devil incarnate. After all, it was so-called liberal allies like Tim Russert who dared to ask Hillary some hard questions and expect direct answers, a rare show of sanity on Russert’s part.
OK, that’s not completely fair; I will say that outside of Fox News, Russert has, for many years, drawn my admiration for asking tough questions of everyone who appears on Meet the Press, not just of Republicans.
That’s really all “fair and balanced” means or should mean; that the interviewer or reporter in question isn’t just going to lob softballs like “What kind of tree would you like to be?” at the politicians they like, while attacking, interrupting and talking over the ones they don’t like.
What “fair and balanced” means is, you ask the questions that need to be asked, regardless of who the guest is; whether you like or dislike them, you ask everybody the tough questions that gets to the real issues at hand.
Too often, network news has been cow-towed by top Democrats who threaten to take away “access” if the “wrong questions” are asked of them, and networks have bent over and thought of Texas the whole time. Asking tough questions is also not the same as “making crap up,” a lesson Dan Rather should have learned long before the Bush service record hoax.
What asking tough questions of everyone means is, you ask Barack about Rev. Wright; you ask Hillary about Whitewater; and you ask McCain about McCain-Feingold’s Constitutionality. You ask everyone the questions they’d rather avoid.
That’s what Bill O’Reilly does, essentially, in his “No Spin Zone” interviews; he asks questions and expects answers that address the question asked, not a bunch of spin that dances around the real issue. O’Reilly’s that way, it should be noted, with GOP as well as Democratic guests. Since when is saying, “Please give me the answer without the B.S.” evidence of a conservative bias? Quite simply, it’s not. Those are the kind of answers we want to hear from every candidate.
Barack’s interview with Wallace was no big whoop, because Wallace is a more genial interviewer. By showing she is unafraid to be interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, she faced a tougher interview and won more respect in so doing. In the battle of going back on their “no Fox News appearances,” it is Hillary who likely won the most respect in the process.
Only Democrats are supressing Dem votes
One of the biggest whoppers out there right now is the lie the Democrats are promoting that the GOP is trying to “supress votes” in Michigan and Florida by not allowing those stats a “do-over” on the Democratic primary. So let’s break this down as simply as we can, once and for all. Maybe we should even put it on some promotional products, so that no one forgets again:
The Democratic Party was the party that decided to punish Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida by decertifying their primary results. Why were their results decertified? Because the Democratic Party in those two states decided to hold their primaries earlier than the national Democratic party wanted them to. When Florida and Michigan went full steam ahead with early primaries anyway, they knew the penalty from the Democratic Party would be that their delegates would not get seated at the national convention.
Not a single Republican involved in ANY of that.
The state of Michigan has a Democratic governor – Jennifer Granholm. The state of Florida has a Republican governor, Charlie Crist, but he has said he supports a “Florida re-do” if that’s what the Democrats want; so he’s not in the way at all.
The facts just don’t line up for blaming this mess on the GOP; this is a mess created by Democrats, solely and exclusively. And it is typical of their approach to problems; make rules and, when you don’t like the results, change them on the fly.
That’s why, no matter whether the Dems eventually settle on Hillary, Barack or some last-minute, back room deal Democrat as their party’s nominee, none of them ought to be trusted with the power of the presidency.
How to lose to a guy in 10 weeks
Hillary Rodham may yet see a movie made of her campaign. With Kate Hudson starring as Hills, opposite perhaps Denzel Washington or Cuba Gooding Jr. as Barack Obama. It could be a follow-up to Hudson’s romantic comedy, “How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days.”
Only, in this case, it would be called, “How to Lose to a Guy In 10 Weeks.”
Senator Rodham will soon be laid up in a back rack from the whiplash the Dem voters are giving her; and now, she perhaps knows how former Democrat loyalist Joe Lieberman felt a couple years ago.
Hills is a dyed-in-the-wool, MoveOn.org socialist liberal, but she made one voting mistake; voting to support the war on terror. Obama, who has never been called on this, constantly points out that he never supported the war, “from the beginning.”
Hold on, Senator Obama, but you weren’t a US Senator back then! Sure, while you were serving in the Illinois congress, you may have been annoyed by the war, may have even opposed it, but you weren’t in a federal office to vote on the issue.
This overstatement is so obvious, and Hills’ team so afraid to critique Obama on the issues, that even though the statement is a whopper, no one has even once turned to him and said, “Senator Obama, I was a US Senator when that vote was cast. You weren’t.”
Seems simple enough. But for her lack of courage to even say the bloody obvious, Hillary’s campaign is going down in flames. I don’t weep for her, but it is things like this that have put her where she is.
Perhaps when Hudson’s movie version hits the screen, she’ll dump a philandering Bill, steal Obama from his wife, and marry her way into the White House once again, just like the faux femanist she’s always been.
The perfect spoiler
Hillary may be facing an uphill battle against Barack Obama, but at least on Super Tuesday II, Senator Rodham had the effects of a heavy dose of Alli on Senator Obama’s sprint toward inevitability.
Facing some genuine press criticism for the first time, Obama’s no longer getting a free pass by the media. And with a Rush Limbaugh-inspired crossover voting effort, Senator Rodham, as I write this, has already been declared the winner in Rhode Island and Ohio, and seems the likely winner in Texas.
While the Clinton campaign is unlikely to credit, or even acknowledge, Rush’s role in her reversal of fortune, there’s no doubt that the conservative talker had an influence in getting a large number of Texas GOPers to vote Democrat for a day in an attempt to extend the Obama-Rodham bloodbath.
Meanwhile, McCain quietly sewed up the GOP nomination, forcing Huckabee to drop out and endorse him; President Bush is expected to endorse McCain on Wednesday. With all last-shot challengers banquished, the Republican front runner can now save campaign funds and present a calm front on his side of the aisle as speculation turns not to primary results, but potential running mates and other “smooth sailing” concerns, including building a campaign war chest for the battle ahead.
The Dems, meanwhile, will continue having to spend big to make up their minds between Hillary and Obama.
