Monday, August 4, 2008

Oh, Where to START???

Original Link:

By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

Good grief - evidently, this is what I get for going to sleep at night. All KINDS of stuff has come up about Obamessiah. I scarcely know where to begin, and others are already writing beautifully about this at No Quarter, so I don’t want to be TOO redundant, but WTF about Obama wanting to seat Florida and Michigan NOW???? I know - we expected it - but still - what a piece of work, and I do NOT mean that in a good way. So, that’s one thing.

Then there are his minions hacking pro-Hillary, or anti-Obama, or pro-McCain, or pro- THINKING sites over the weekend, taking them down. There is LEGAL evidence tracing ISP addresses back to HIS campaign. Now, tell me again how he is not like Bush?? “You’re either with me or agin me!” And NOW do you understand why he voted FOR FISA?? His claims of being a Constitutional Scholar ring false in the evidence of his clear and utter disregard of, and contempt FOR, the US Constitution. Wow - who needs protected speech? I guess WE don’t, especially if Obama gets in the White House, because we sure aren’t gonna have any! Good grief.

I got a comment today about how I HAVE to vote for Obama, or else risk having a THIRD Bush presidency. See, here’s the thing: the way Obama has changed his policies in just the past month, his platform is pretty much the same as McCain’s!!! Now, I have said a gazillion times (for those of you keeping score) that I have no plans to vote for McCain. Now. But really - if the SuperDelegates don’t wise up to this sanctimonious, duplicitous, back-stabbing, lying, cheating, arrogant, sexist, and pick the best candidate (that would be HRC) who knows WHAT I will do come November?

Especially when you consider the following story I saw today on AOL:

Hillary and The Other Woman By David Knowles (Aug 4th 2008 10:05AM).

Yes,that is really what he wrote as his title. Anyway, since many of you (wisely) do not have AOL, I will include the entire article here:

Hillary Clinton is a pioneer. The first credible female candidate for president of the United States, she came tantalizingly close to securing her party’s nomination, and will forever command the respect of millions of supporters across the country. For many of them, the prospect of Hillary being named vice president is tantamount to an insult — a hollow consolation prize, beneath the dignity of a rightful nominee. To others, the VP is the least that Barack Obama can do, especially if he wants to secure their allegiance in the fall.

That sentiment was expressed in a recent article at Politico:

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given the right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Truly, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. And while Pappas is right about the many achievements of Clinton’s historic campaign, the hope is that Hillary has not blazed a trail only for herself, but one for all women to walk. Put another way, because Hillary has represented the best chance so far to see a woman become commander-in-chief, has she opened a door for other women to walk through, or simply reserved her own place at the front of the line?

The “next time around” argument is always difficult to swallow, no matter the cause. That’s especially true for many Clinton supporters because of how close she came. And though close only really counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, there’s something of a perfect storm brewing in the minds of many women who sense that Obama is about add yet another man to what has become a familiar one-two punch (except for Geraldine Ferraro) of male tickets.

What, then, if Obama chose a woman, but one that wasn’t Hillary Clinton? It is no secret that the other woman in question is Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a short-list survivor. Would the addition of a non-Hillary female help take the edge off the “Dream Ticket” hangover? According to Slate’s Christopher Beam, the answer from Hillary Nation is no:

It’s easy to see the logic for tapping Sebelius. Hillary Clinton put 18 million cracks in the biggest glass ceiling, as she told us in her concession speech. Why should it matter which woman shatters it? If anything, picking a woman other than Clinton reinforces the point that any woman can make it to the top. But selecting Sebelius could backfire big time.

The biggest objection, as voiced by Pappas: Hillary has earned her place on the ticket. On the other hand, adding Sebelius, a most qualified candidate for the job, to the ticket does affirm one principle that Hillary made so glaringly obvious: that women are up to the task. While there is certainly a segment of the population that did not vote for Hillary because she is a woman (just as a small percentage won’t vote for Obama because he is black), there are also many voters who love the idea of women in the highest offices in our land, but who simply did not want that particular woman.

In the coming days, the suspense will be over. The ramifications of Obama’s choice, however, are sure to linger.

SEBELIUS???? And she is SO qualified HOW, exactly?? Maybe he didn’t see her response to The State of the Union this year. It was the most boring bland speech IO have ever seen, delivered in the most boring bland manner. If Obama does pick her, I can see why: she will not upstage him one little bit. But she is NOT on a par with Hillary Clinton in no way, shape, or form!!

Grrr. You know, I was thinking that since Obama has floated some Republicans’ names up for VP to try to get the crossover vote, maybe McCain should consider Hillary Clinton as his VP. He has already said he has great respect for her, and has TREATED her respectfully (not just WORDS!). She has proven she can work across party lines. She IS a hard worker. And, frankly, since McCain is pretty experienced himself, she would not be seen as his handmaiden, or as much of an insult to her. She would still have have the (D) after her name - though after the way the DNC has treated her, I so NOT know why, bunch of backstabbers - and she could run as the Democratic candidate in 2012. I dunno, just a thought that came to me yesterday. I haven’t thought through all of the ramifications yet, but what do y’all think?

What I DO know is that Obama will be horrible for this country should he get to the White House by hook and by crook. I do not think McCain will be all that much better in terms of policies, but he does not seem as nefarious as Obama and AxelRove. Scares the crap out of me…

So - now that Obama has shown even MORE of his underhanded, diabolical plans, surely, SURELY, there are some SDs out there who still have a backbone, and a love for DEMOCRACY?!?!?! Right??


Philip Meyer said...

Since Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee there has been unprecedented campaign to force him to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I believe choosing Hillary would be big mistake especially in light of this effort to force his hand.

The Clintons have their good points. While I have problems with Bill’s ethics, I think his time as President was good for the United States and while I don’t think he deserves all (or even most of) the credit for the peace and prosperity that characterized the period from 1993 to 2000, he certainly deserves some. He made what I consider to be sound policy decisions. As for Hillary, I agree with her stated positions on many issues. However, none of this means she would be a good selection for Obama as his running mate. The reasons for not choosing her are clear.

Fundamentally, there are several factors for any nominee to consider when selecting a Vice-Presidential candidate. Obviously, the Presidential nominee would want to choose someone could assume the job of President but realistically, many potential Vice-Presidential nominees meet that criteria. The two more fundamental questions are 1) Does the Vice-Presidential pick increase the ticket’s chances of winning the general election and 2) Would that pick be a good fit in the future Administration?

As nears as I can tell Hillary is a wash on question 1. Several polls have shown Democrats favor putting Hillary on the ticket but most of them are likely to vote for the Democratic ticket anyway. However, other than a Fox News poll from last week, the most recent polls I could find suggested Obama-Clinton doesn’t poll much differently than Obama by himself.

On question 2, Hillary is complete flop. Vice-Presidents are supposed to be loyal to the President above all else and the Clintons have never played second fiddle to anyone, it is hard to imagine them starting now, especially to a man Hillary suggested was unprepared to be President. More than likely, the Clintons envision Hillary as Vice-President with greatly expanded powers and a portfolio for Bill as well; In effect, a tri-Presidency with Obama as the odd man out. That would be a disaster as this nation doesn’t need three chief executives.

Finally, there are the Clintons themselves. It might be tempting to take Hillary’s recent warm praise of Obama at face value but the problem is, how would one know? While even the most honest politicians fib a bit, Hillary and Bill have a record of mendacity that puts them pretty low in the trust scale. If someone isn’t accustomed the getting shot at, they tend to have a pretty good memory of when they did. It is hard to see Hillary’s repeated claim about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire as anything but a brazen lie. Also, because all politicians pander, pandering itself isn’t a disqualification but the shamelessness of the Hillary is amazing. There isn’t any serious Democratic policy analyst who favored cutting the gas tax and Hillary Clinton probably didn’t either. However, this spring she came out for a cut in the gas tax after having talked about the need for alternative energy and reduction in green house gases. Lower fossil fuel prices are the quickest way to make those goals harder to achieve. It would have been one thing if she called for a second stimulus package to, among other things, help mitigate the impact of higher gas prices. At least that could have been targeted to low income folks and because the recipients could spend the money on whatever they deemed necessary, the incentive to conserve would have remained. However, Hillary just couldn’t resist demanding a cut in the gas tax that would have benefited millionaire owners of Hummers, because she saw political gain. Not only was it dishonest given what she said she believed otherwise, it showed a lack of leadership and a lack of courage that Obama commendably showed on the issue.

Bill’s mendacity is well documented but perhaps he was being the honest one in this case, when he reportedly told someone Obama could kiss his behind if he expected support. All the more reason for Obama not to want a Clinton in his Administration.

Longhorn said...

Philip: you made very interesting points, the bottom line is that Senator Obama is unqualified to be the President of the United States regardless which VP he will choose, please refer to my previous post:, and check back this comment after Nov 2008 election.