• Recently Written

  • My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
  • The bearded lady
  • And I wouldn’t have made shit up about Bosnia…
  • What time is it?
  • Hillary Is “Experienced” All Right: At Lying
  • We Can’t Handle the Truth
  • Coming Soon

• Categories

  • Featured
  • Politics

• Archives

  • March 2008

• Admin

  • Login
  • Wordpress
  • XHTML

• Search

Who would have thought over the past few weeks we would hear Bill Clinton on the Rush Limbaugh show, have the Clinton campaign circulate an anti-Obama article from the American Spectator (!?) and see Richard Melon Scaife interview Hillary?

So, the Clinton’s current allies are the person who called Chelsea the “White House Dog,” the magazine that brought us Troopergate and Paula Jones and the billionaire leader behind the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”

I’d love to comment but I’m not sure what more I can say.

Aside from accepting Hillary as Jesus, I will take James Carville at his word that Bill Richardson is like Judas for endorsing Obama.

In the back and forth of whether Carville should denounce, reject or apologize for this statement, an important point was missed. Specifically, upon what basis the Clinton campaign really thinks super delegates should cast their vote?

The answer: Loyalty.

This is in stark contrast to what we’ve heard for weeks from the Clinton campaign . That the support of super delegates should be based upon which candidate they think can beat McCain - a think bit of logic but somewhat defensible nonetheless. However it’s clear from this statement that Hillary’s camp felt that Richardson owed the Clintons his endorsement.

And it’s not the first time a Clinton super delegate has based their endorsement on loyalty rather than some other principle. Take Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA). Recently he was asked about endorsing Hillary in the face of Obama’s overwhelming Washington state victory. Dicks, not quite as clever as the Ragin’ Cajun, offered not a biblical reference but a more direct one, he said “it was a loyalty thing.”

So, in this vein, I will offer a new slogan for the Clinton campaign: Vote for Hillary. Because you owe her!

Hillary on Obama’s pastor:

“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”

Within this comment she has revealed the fatal flaw within her candidacy: Her inability to put principle over tactical advantage.

Is there a politician alive who has more first hand knowledge about the totally unfair and damaging effects of “guilt-by-association” tactics than Hillary? Other than Bill Clinton, no. And these tactics haven’t just hurt the Clinton’s, they’ve undermined the entire Democratic Party for years. When presented with an opportunity to stand on principle, dismiss these tactics as the tangential tripe that they are and ultimately help the Democratic Party, what does she do? She sells her soul and her party for short-term advantage.

This isn’t the only time abandonment of principle has hurt her campaign. Most recently it hurt her in efforts to get a revote in Michigan.

Hillary for many weeks held to the notion that the results there should count - as is - despite the fact that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. Then, when it became apparent that the only way Michigan delegates would be awarded was a wholesale re-vote, her argument changed. Then, despite the fact that she was right on democratic principle, her obvious self-serving shift undermined her position. Jonathan Cohn over at New Republic does a nice job of explaining how it all went down in Michigan.

Hillary apparently gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, here’s what she had to say about all that sniper fire:

On saying last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady:

“I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.”

Sort of undermines the whole 3AM bit, doesn’t it?

We’ve seen her resume and checked her references. She made the short list and we’ve brought her in for some follow up questions; the second round. It’s an arduous process, yes, but it’s also a tough job. This is the President of these United States, for crying out loud, and it’s important we know how she’ll perform.

She was doing okay for a while but then she gave us an answer that didn’t seem right. It was an incidental question so we took it at face value then did a little research. Turns out she was lying. She made the whole thing up. Sure it’s an incidental question but her answer tells us all we need to know:

Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the job.

First, let’s take her response at face value and ignore the lie. It’s a terrible answer. When the only example of experience you can cite to is a government paid junket chilling with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow, you are not qualified to be President. (Frankly that set list is so “B” I wouldn’t give her a job as club promoter). Even if the sniper incident were true it has no bearing on her “Experience.” (Would she have been less experienced if snipers didn’t shoot at her?) And yet this is what she points to; a meaningless answer.

But even “bad answers” have meaning. In the job interview they ask you about your experience but this isn’t what they care about; what they want to know is “how are you going to perform?” Questioning the past is merely a proxy to how you might do in the future. Your “experience” is listed on your resume; the point of the Q&A is to size you up, to gauge you as an employee. And in her answer Hillary’s qualities have been lain bare:

She’s a liar.

Hillary’s gut response is to lie. And enough with the Bush-esque double speak: this was not “misrecollection,” this was a bald faced lie. Her statement wasn’t spur of the moment, it was written in a speech prepared by her staff. Lame answers can be excused, lies cannot. I, for one, have had enough of lies fed me by my Government. The act of the lie itself renders her unfit for office.

And please Hillary supporters, stop with the justifications. She’s applying for the job, our job, the highest position in our department, President. There is not an employer in the world who would keep or consider her if she was caught telling a lie like this. Don’t tell me this is how politics is and it means she’s tough. Take the toughest professions in the world — stock broker, mercenary, sniper, whatever — not one of them would consider “lying” as an integral component of that position. “Lying” is never a positive job qualification.

As our prospective employee we should expect the whole package. Ability, knowledge, strength, and character. Hillary doesn’t have it.

Colonel Jessup Was Right: America Can’t Handle the “Truth”

If you haven’t heard — and you probably haven’t because the media is ignoring it — Hillary boosted her “experience” cred by claiming that she traveled to Bosnia as First-Lady and was forced to take cover from sniper fire. Here she is discussing the “heavy fire” she endured.

As the Washington Post reports, this is a bald-faced lie.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, below, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

Why is this not getting more attention? This is not a lapse in recollection, either she endured sniper fire or she didn’t. If you came under fire and were forced to flee the tarmac it would be burnished on your memory. You don’t simply “forget” or “misunderstand” such a fact.

Obama is assailed for statements made by his Reverend six years ago. Hillary flat out lies and is apparently getting away with it. If you are a Democrat why are you putting up with this? I’m not suggesting you abandon Hillary, but shouldn’t you demand accountability and party support? At what point do you vote with your feet and leave her campaign?

Welcome to YesWeCount.com!

We will be up and running by the end of the week.

• Blogroll

  • The Atomic Punk
  • WordPress Planet

• Obamania!

  
  

• Our Sponsors