Who can it be now? Evidently it won't be Hillary Clinton...

She gave him a derby-esque run for the roses during the primaries, hanging on as long as she could before conceding, and then offered her support for his campaign as she suspended hers. Now it seems the final snub of Hillary Clinton is being readied.

It's one of the most anticipated announcements of the year. The announcement of the running mate for likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Over the past few weeks, names have been bandied about across the country as analysts and pundits have speculated on who the candidate for Vice-President of the United States will be, but one thing seems clear: it won't be Hillary Clinton.

There are so many, many reasons that Clinton is the obvious choice for Obama to pick as his running mate. A master politician in her own right, Clinton was the ultimate insider during the administration of a former President, having been First Lady to husband Bill during his own terms in the White House. She's connected, she's definitely been vetted as a candidate, and she has a huge following among Democratic voters, which gave her the wherewithal to run such a tight race against Obama in the primaries to begin with. With Hillary as Vice President, Obama would have the potential for a more intimate relationship with former President Bill Clinton.

And yet she hasn't even been vetted as a potential running mate by team Obama.

Obama has often said, most recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 27, that Clinton “would be on anybody’s short list.”

But apparently not his.

“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?”

The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.

Perhaps it's no wonder that a Clinton supporters are outraged at the DNC for playing such an active role in the rocket rise of a candidate that no one had heard of nationally two years ago. The Democratic party is in such disarray that the upcoming Democratic National Convention slated for next week in Denver is already a media and public relations circus, with local law enforcement officials clearing room in the local lock-ups to handle a large number of out of hand protesters, should the need arise. And given the punitive measures placed against Florida and Michigan for their holding primaries ahead of the approved Democratic National Party schedule having possibly been the determining factor in Clinton's failed bid for the nomination, there is little doubt as to why she would be a less than whole-hearted supporter of Obama in rallies across the nation, as mentioned by one Democrat campaign worker noted after a rally in Boca Raton, Florida.

Minutes after pushing through the rope line to thank Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for “all that you do,” Robin Shaffer said she was worried. She feared that the senator she respected and admired for being tough and experienced had not done all that she could to unify Florida’s fractured Democratic Party while campaigning here on Thursday for her former opponent.

“It was good that she said my supporters need to now support Barack Obama,” said Ms. Shaffer, 46, reflecting on Mrs. Clinton’s speech before about 700 people. But, she added, “I wanted her to repeat that one more time.”

Many who had supported Mrs. Clinton’s run for president shared Ms. Shaffer’s opinion. Democrats who said they had recently accepted that Mr. Obama, of Illinois, would be the Democratic presidential nominee greeted Mrs. Clinton’s 30-minute speech — her first rally in Florida on his behalf — with warmth but also demands for more.

The reasons for Hillary Clinton not being selected for the Vice Presidential position can and will be speculated over for some time to come, as well as the "what-if" factor had she been chosen for the spot and Obama winds up losing to McCain in the November race. The presence of unhappy Clinton supporters in Denver also shows a severe lack of the purported party unity that the Obama camp keeps harping to the media, lending itself to a potential black eye for the convention before it even has a chance to begin.

Party of unity? Don't bet on it.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

THIS is Unity?

The debate on who will be the nominee for the Democratic party is over. Sound familiar? As said with another "hot" issue, anytime someone tells you something is over, bunker down. The real fighting hasn't even started yet.

It's one of the most tenuous, shakey alliances in recent political history. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Two bitter rivals for the same position coming together for the sake of party unity. It's a coalition of great idea and sound concept, built on a foundation resting in quicksand.

Why?

Because a large and growing number of Hillary supporters are walking away in disgust at being forced with the prospect of Barack Obama as the nominee for the Democratic party in the November elections.

Despite the media events, the public rallies, and photo op after photo op showing a smiling Clinton and Obama greeting the assembled, things are far from well with the Democratic party base. The party is in trouble. And it's in denial about the trouble that it faces.

Unity was spared the banality of unanimity.

Carmella Lewis, with her Hillary T-shirt and Hillary placard, came all the way from Denver to make sure there would be plenty of ambiguity, duality and ferocity in Unity.

Just as Hillary was testing out the unfamiliar familiarity “Barack and me” Friday and talking about “his grace and his grit,” Carmella began loudly booing and waving her sign.

“We want Hillary!” screamed the 57-year-old retired ad saleswoman and Clinton delegate.

“It’s over, lady!” yelled some Obama supporters a few yards away.

But is it really over, at that?

Dissension in the ranks begins with the formation of such grass roots movements as PUMA and the determination of existing groups of Clinton supporters such as HireHeels.com, working as a loose confederation, called Just Say No Deal, representing a large and growing number of women voters who state that they will do whatever it takes to ensure that Barack Obama is not elected to office. These women, who supported and believed in Clinton, backing her to the end and beyond, are not ready to simply "let go" after seeing their candidate leading in popular votes but losing to a slim margin of delegates.

In actuality, I can understand their reasoning, as can, perhaps, other southerners observing the situation, better than voters in other parts of the country, for reasons of our own and a shared concept of another dream that was taken away from it's supporters.

In response mainly to PUMA, the forerunner organization spearheading the Hillary backers in self-imposed exile, Governor Ed Rendell has formed a PRO-Unity group that goes by, interestingly enough, HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided). The purpose behind Rendell's group is to ensure that there IS party unity and harmony, and to work with patience and understanding to bring the PUMA women back into the fold of the Democratic Parties.



So, a group named for a type of dog is going to try to herd like wayward sheep another group named for a mountain lion...

Does anyone else see the potential for some badly chewed up hounds in this equation?

They should, because a recent press release by PUMA has declared that Rendell and his HOUNDs "are missing the point."

Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide - The Just Say No Deal Coalition issues the following response to Governor Ed Rendell’s counter movement HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided). While we thank the governor for recognizing us as a fluid, viral, viable and ever growing movement— we PUMAs and members of the Just Say No Deal Coalition want to respectfully point out that Governor Rendell and his crew are missing the point.

In HOUND’s credo Governor Rendell states, "PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity…We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama…"

The philosophy on which the Just Say No Deal Coalition was founded is plainly stated as this:
We, as millions of disaffected voters or PUMAs have banded together to form a Coalition of the unwilling. We fervently believe in Country Before Party. If political parties won't uphold core democratic principles, who will? If the voters don't hold the parties accountable, who will?
The answer, "We (PUMAs) will at all costs!"

For the veterinarians in the audience, remember, these are actually people we are talking about here. But I'm sure that local hospital emergency rooms will accept the volunteer service of your skills as trained medical professionals once the cat and dog fight begins in earnest...

In the meantime, there are other segments of the Democratic party, or individuals just in general, who don't care to see the Rock Star candidate elected to office. At least 60 Orlando municipal vehicles have suffered vandalism in recent months, with most of the graffiti messages painted onto the city vehicles, bearing such messages as "Obama smokes crack."

Unacceptable behavior regardless of one's candidate of choice.

Currently, there is no clear solution to resolve the fracture in the Democratic party. Hillary's supporters remain steadfast in their insistence that the nomination was basically stolen from her and that she, and husband Bill, were treated badly by the media, the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party as a whole.

In reading over the PUMA rebuttal to Rendell's Hounds, in which they basically tell him WHY that dog won't hunt as the party continues to implode, some are whispering in other corners, observing the situation from the outside, two words: Operation Chaos. It does make one wonder...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

"Hell Hath No Fury" on a National Level

Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and pledged her support for likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Nothing, however, says her grass roots supporters have to go along with her...

William Congreve once wrote "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. In light of recent events transpiring within the Democratic party, this quote from the play The Mourning Bride may very well be shown to be the classic understatement as the United States approaches the November general elections and the time comes to elect our next President.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have announced that they will work together for party unity. After a bitter campaign, and a perceived mistreatment of Clinton by the media and the Democratic Party in general, Clinton supporters are less than thrilled to be faced with the option of candidate Obama. Some are taking their frustration and turning into activity, working at a grass roots level to work against the expected nominee for the Democratic candidacy.

Diane Mantouvalos is an anger-shaker. The night before Clinton announced the suspension of her campaign, Mantouvalos was at home in Miami checking posts on her blog and sensing a mood that went beyond disillusionment, beyond sadness, beyond "I'm upset and bummed out." As co-creator of Hireheels.com, which describes itself as "a forum of power chics for Hillary," Mantouvalos hangs out on the sassy edge of the blogosphere. Feeling more empowered than embittered, the public relations consultant wondered: "Wouldn't it be great if we could thread all of these disparate factions and form one coalition?" A brassy coalition of rebels.

On June 8, the evening after Clinton conceded the Democratic presidential contest to Barack Obama, Mantouvalos organized a conference call with some 40 bloggers, political activists and other hardened loyalists of the New York senator's, in what became "a jam session of very intense opinion" -- about the party, its leadership, its presumptive nominee, the media. Five hours later, Mantouvalos, age "north of 35," had built a new Web site, JustSayNoDeal.com, which has become a clearinghouse for the renegade forces that are now confounding Democratic Party officials and Obama campaign operatives.

While polls would suggest that most of Clinton's supporters, including a large majority of her women supporters, have now thrown their support behind Obama, perhaps doing a little more digging is in order to find the full story on how many women are displeased to be left with the prospect of Obama as the party nominee.

Another of the "rebels" who are going on the attack against Obama from the Clinton supporters is Darragh Murphy, founder of P.U.M.A, an acronym for People United Means Action. Murphy, in an interview with NECN.com, outlines her reasons for founding P.U.M.A. Receiving a whopping 35,000 hits in the first few hours of the site's existence, Murphy explains in the interview, "The immediate, ultimate goal, is to let the party/leadership know that millions and millions of us are not going to support the candidate. That we believe the nomination process was flawed beyond belief -- that it was unfair and biased."

With the loss of delegates from Michigan and Florida and that Clinton held a larger number of popular votes than Obama, it isn't hard to see why so many female Clinton supporters are up in arms against the party.

Things aren't going so well behind the scenes for funders of Clinton and Obama, either, now that the two camps have intermingled for the sake of party unity. Insiders report that there are hard feelings between the two thrust together factions; there is animosity, and yes, one of Obama's favorite emotions to bring up, bitterness.

I know this is supposed to be a marriage, but behind the scenes, it feels more like a divorce.

There's a lot of sadness and hurt between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton camps, with both sides fighting over money and loyalty.

Before the unity fest to began here in Unity, N.H., I was on the phone with some top Clinton supporters who attended a big gathering of major donors in Washington, D.C. last night. It was hosted by Clinton's team, and to many in attendance, it didn't feel like a reunion. It felt like the arrival of a repo man.

"Hillary was sad, even pitiful I have to say," said one of her top donors.

"It was like, this guy is coming to take my family away."

No uncomfortable public event could be complete without the inevitable loss for words, given at this event by Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, who, with a pregnant pause, announced Clinton as "the next...speaker!" Some speculate that he was struggling not to use the word "president."

What does all of this spell for the Obama campaign at this point? The Travis Tritt song, "I Smell T-R-O-U-B-L-E" comes to mind. Obama is now dealing with a combined campaign involving members that he knows, or should know, if arrogance has not taken control of him at this point for being the presumptive nominee at this level of (in)experience in the arena of national politics, were not supportive of him but rather of Senator Clinton and are working for his campaign now for the sake of party unity, a disenfranchisement of his "rock star" status by members of the media, who have stopped portraying him as the Second Coming, and a growing number of angry women voters who are fighting against him, could things be going more wrong at this critical point in his bid for President?

Wellll, yes, actually, they could. In an op-ed for McClatchy's Washinton Bureau, Margaret Talev poses the question "Is Obama turning out to be just another politician?"

He abandoned public campaign financing after years of championing it. Backed a compromise on wiretap legislation that gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for helping the government conduct spying without warrants. Dumped his controversial pastor of two decades — then his church — after saying he could no more abandon the pastor than abandon his own grandmother.

He said he wouldn't wear the U.S. flag pin because it had become a substitute for true patriotism, then started wearing it. Ramped up his courtship of unions. Shifted from a pledge to protect working-class families from tax increases to a far more expensive promise not to raise taxes on families that earn up to $250,000 a year. Turned to longtime D.C. Democratic wise men to run his vice-presidential search and staff his foreign-policy brain trust.

Presidential candidates often tack toward the center after securing their party's nominations. But all this tactical repositioning by Obama suggests that he's a more complex, pragmatic and arguably more opportunistic politician than the fresh face of "change we can believe in" that he presented during the primary season.

And as we have seen earlier this week, he has given a continual snub to the American Muslim community backpedaled on the Second Amendment, and given the go ahead for a new television network consisting of nothing but reality shows. Um, strike that last one. The point is, Obama, now the front runner for the Democrats, is in a key position to make positive, real changes, rather than the numerous and tremendous flubs and fumbles he seems to be making as his campaign enters the last, and most difficult, leg of the election cycle.

No wonder John McCain prefers to be the underdog. He isn't having to deal with the fury of a woman scorned, multiplied exponentially across the country.

I'm just glad it ain't me for a change...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Picking Up Bill and Throwing Muslims Under the Bus

Barack Hussein Obama has picked up the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton. Given the help that Bill gave Hillary's campaign, can this be good for the Obama camp, as he tosses the Muslim community under the bus while stopping to pick up Bill?

Senator John McCain can start writing his inaugural address now. There is no need to wait until the results are in in November, his win over Senator Obama has just been secured. Former President Bill Clinton has announced his endorsement of Obama, and pledges to give his support and effort to the Obama campaign.

What a difference a few (political) days makes. Several days ago Reuters reported that former President Bill Clinton smilingly — and pointedly — didn’t answer when pressed by reporters whether he’d endorse Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama. But things happen and change in politics.

Perhaps the Reuters report raised some eyebrows (and perhaps some voices) in Democratic party elite circles: today it was announced Bill Clinton supported Obama.

Curiously enough, however, the announcement came through Obama's spokesman rather than from the former President himself. Journalists from the Washington Post to the LA Times have speculated that Clinton is less than enthusiastic in offering support, perhaps still angry over the way the Obama campaign portrayed him and his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, during her campaign against Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Strange bedfellows?

The move to show support for Obama by the Clintons is seen as one to reunify the Democratic party, which has shown signs of severe fracturing during the Clinton/Obama race for the party nomination. Several pro-Hillary sites are still showing their dismay at the treatment of Senator Clinton by the party, and are urging their followers and Clinton supporters everywhere to vote for Senator McCain in November.

This is not good news for the Obama, who has offered himself up as the candidate, of "hope, change, and unity." Nor does it bode well for Obama that a growing number of members of the Muslim community in America are equally disenfranchised with the candidate of hope and change.

As recently, or as long ago, depending upon your perspective, as December of last year, the Obama campaign began showing a growing trend of snubs at the Muslim community. At an event scheduled for that month, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, the nation's first Muslim to be elected to Congress, was eagerly anticipating showing his support and offering his help to the Obama campaign, offering to speak on behalf of Obama at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the nation's oldest Muslim enclave. The trip, however, was cancelled by the Obama campaign, with the reason given of that it might stir too much controversy. Ellison is quoted afterward as having said, regarding the visit to his office by an Obama aide, "I will never forget the quote. ‘We have a very tightly wrapped message.’ ”

It would appear that this tightly wrapped message excludes the Muslim community from playing a part in Obama's appearances and campaign stops.

When Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign, Muslim Americans from California to Virginia responded with enthusiasm, seeing him as a long-awaited champion of civil liberties, religious tolerance and diplomacy in foreign affairs. But more than a year later, many say, he has not returned their embrace.

While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.

In interviews, Muslim political and civic leaders said they understood that their support for Mr. Obama could be a problem for him at a time when some Americans are deeply suspicious of Muslims. Yet those leaders nonetheless expressed disappointment and even anger at the distance that Mr. Obama has kept from them.

“This is the ‘hope campaign,’ this is the ‘change campaign,’ ” said Mr. Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. Muslims are frustrated, he added, that “they have not been fully engaged in it.”

Hope, change, and unity.

Obama aides, of course, have denied allegations that the Senator has kept the Muslim community at arms length, pointing out television and radio messages in which Obama has reached out to Muslims, and his support in a radio spot for Indiana's Representative Andre Carson, the second Muslim to be elected to Congress, and the May meeting with the leader of a mosque in Dearborne, Michigan, which is the home to the largest population of Muslims in the United States. According to Ben Labolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, “Our campaign has made every attempt to bring together Americans of all races, religions and backgrounds to take on our common challenges”

Given the number of appearances that Obama has made at churches and synagogues across the country, one could speculate that this bringing together of all races and religions as one big happy family would be the equivalent of bringing the Muslim community into the family as step-children. This second-class citizen approach by the Obama campaign is fueling feelings of resentment on a daily basis. According to Safiya Ghori of the Washington office of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, "“The community feels betrayed.” Added into the mix are the strong denials by Obama that he is secretly a Muslim, which further enflames the Muslim community. According to a Pew Research Center poll, ten percent of voters believe that Obama IS secretly a Muslim no matter how strongly he denies it. A new section of Obama's site reportedly calls such claims "a smear."

Hope. Change. Unity.

Perhaps it is fitting that former President Clinton should be boarding the Obama bus at the same time that it is running over the Muslim community. President Clinton is used to a bumpy ride, and as the campaign progresses, the bumpier the ride is getting for the Senator from Illinois on his road to the November general elections. Given all the help that Senator Clinton gleaned from having her husband stumping for her, I'm sure that Bill's involvement in the Obama campaign will be precisely as productive as it was for his wife.

Just remember, for those of you who may think about getting off the bus at the next stop, to tip the driver. Senator Kennedy is a natural behind the wheel of this bus, don't you think?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

An Open Letter to President Bill Clinton

Mr. President,

We recognize that you have devoted your life to a cause and a dream, following the tenets of the Democratic party and it's teachings and virtues. However, in taking a look at the party from outside the workings of the Democratic Party, we can see, perhaps, a little more clearly than you on certain issues that are personal and close to you.

Mr. President, the Democratic Party has written you off as irrelevant, and have shown, by their choosing and pushing for the nomination and candidacy of Senator Obama, that they no longer regard you with the respect due to you as a former president.

The party has shown that they have no regards for your experience, your insight, and the wisdom that you have garnered during your tenure of eight years in the Oval Office, leading this nation through turmoils and trials, maintaining the dignity and virtue characteristic of the President of the United States of America. May I be so bold as to offer you a suggestion that would show the Democratic Party and the American people that you are not only a vital and relevent national resource? You, yourself, have seen, with the wisdom of one who has held the office, that Senator Obama has not the experience to lead this great nation. My suggestion would be this: to withhold your endorsement of Senator Obama, declare yourself as an Independent, and endorse and support Senator McCain. Can you think of a better way to ensure your continued place in history as being a man of the people, and at the same time to show the Democratic Party the error of their choice in treating Senator Clinton in such a disrespectful manner?

I implore you, Mr. President, to consider this as an option for this election cycle, leaving yourself an opening to return to the Democratic Party before the next cycle to ensure your wife gains her spot as President, as well, thus further marking you both down in our nation's history as being the first couple to have both held the office of the President.

Thank you for your time.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Finding Respect for Hillary

Hillary Clinton has pulled out of the primary race, leaving Barack Hussein Obama a clear path for nomination for the Democratic Party at the Denver Convention. But in the final analysis, despite the odds from the start, Hillary endures.
I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton. From before her husband's first term in the White House, something about her just put me off.

Before you start thinking the term "misogynist," let me put you straight from the get go. It had nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman, nor the fact that she is a strong willed, determined woman. It had to do more along the lines with policy issues and political theory.

For years, I would cringe whenever I would see Hillary on television and change the channel to something more palatable.

Bill ended his second term as President, and I hoped that we had heard the last of Bill and Hillary Clinton, but that wasn't to be the case, as Hillary went on to win a senate seat in New York. And from there she went on to enter into the run for the Presidency.

If I had had hair at that point, I would have been pulling it out by the roots. I was even seriously considering and looking into how to best make a move to Mexico for the duration of her Presidency if she won the nomination and then went on to take office next January. By the time she and Obama began to emerge at the front of the pack, I had decided that it was time to leave my years standing spot as a die hard independent and declare a party, choosing to declare as a Republican. For the first time in my life, because of two candidates, I was and am affiliated with a party.

Politics has always held a strong fascination and appeal to me, however, and so I naturally had to follow the course of both the Democrat and Republican fights for the President. My own choice for candidate, Fred Thompson, entered the race late and didn't make it to the finish line. I wasn't happy about that at the time, but in retrospect, looking over the campaigns and at the nation as a whole, it wasn't the right time for Fred to come into the Presidency.

And so I continued following along, weighing things in my mind that have yet to find their way into words that can coherently be followed by others, and I noticed a few things.

First and foremost, Bill Clinton, God love him, is a narcissistic megalomaniac. A few years back, I could almost feel sorry for Bill and it was because of my feelings about Hillary that inspired that sentiment. From the reports of their screaming matches in the White House, with Hillary throwing things at Bill during arguments, her ice water reputation, and all the bad dirty business that seems to shadow Team Clinton, I couldn't stand either of them, her moreso than him.

Watching things more closely this year and with a different approach, having political science training and practical experience in my background that I didn't have at the time of Bill's bid for the White House, I could see things profoundly differently now than I saw them then.

Bill Clinton is an albatros around his wife's neck (for those of you who have never read Ryme of the Ancient Mariner, you need to check it out here. Between his philandering and his temper, he has done nothing, really to forward his wife's campaign. Generally, an appearance by Bill on Hillary's behalf tends to be like Al Gore showing up to discuss global warming (see Gore Effect). If you're running for President, you don't want anything to have a negative impact on the campaign to be coming from within your own camp. And Bill is a definite negative for Hillary. Hillary can't even have her moment to withdraw gracefully from the campaign without the negative shadow of Bill lurking in the corner.

I have to admit, I was pretty amazed at my own reversal of thinking in taking an in depth look at Hillary's candidacy. And I have to say that despite her faux pas, despite her gaffes, despite the pushing by the DNC leadership, Hillary soldiered on and stayed the course until the final numbers came in to put Obama over the top.

That speaks volumes to a strength of character that I, personally, didn't believe possible out of Hillary Clinton until I watched her continue on, despite overwhelming pressure from the media and from her own party to drop out of the race so they could hand the nomination to Barack Hussein Obama. It speaks to her belief in her cause, and while I may not necessarily agree with her on several issues of policy, I have to say, this weekend, I am sitting here highly impressed with her integrity and her endurance to continue on until the ultimate and final decision being made; that decision being Obama reaching the required number of delegates before Clinton. She has definitely, despite my differences of opinion with her on policy matters, earned my respect.

So what next for Hillary Clinton? She's already forwarded the notion that there will be another bid for the White House. That means that she definitely plans to be working on that as a goal in the future. Let's go into total analytical mode for a moment, and put forth a hypothesis. The Democratic party is in a state of transition. They don't want to admit it, but lets be honest with ourselves here, it is. So is the Republican party. There are Democrats who have supported Clinton who are on the record that they will under no circumstances support Obama, they will support McCain instead. Honestly? I don't blame them for this position, McCain does know how to work with both sides of the aisle and break the party line. McCain is in a position where he is set to reap the rewards of a splintered tree, picking up votes from Clinton, as we draw closer to the November general elections.

There is a way McCain could secure ALL of Hillary Clinton's votes, however. Obama has made it pretty clear that he won't be asking Hillary Clinton to be his running mate for the November ticket.

That doesn't, really, if the cards are played right and the hand unfolds the way that it would need to in order for it to happen, necessarily mean that Clinton couldn't be in the running for a spot as Vice President of the United States, during a time when both major political parties are on the verge of losing members to third party movements anyway...

Just a little notion than ran through mind in sitting back and contemplating things political in discussion with a friend earlier today.


I can easily believe, that there are more invisible than visible Beings in the universe. But who shall describe for us their families? and their ranks and relationships and distinguishing features and functions? What they do? where they live? The human mind has always circled around a knowledge of these things, never attaining it. I do not doubt, however, that it is sometimes beneficial to contemplate, in thought, as in a Picture, the image of a greater and better world; lest the intellect, habituated to the trivia of daily life, may contract itself too much, and wholly sink into trifles. But at the same time we must be vigilant for truth, and maintain proportion, that we may distinguish certain from uncertain, day from night.

-- T. Burnet, Archaeol. Phil. p. 68 (1692)

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Introducing Vice Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton...

It's coming down to the wire. Obama has states, and Clinton has votes, I read on another analysis about the Democratic contest. Stacking the two candidates up side by side, what's the difference, really, when it comes down to it? They both want to socialize...everything. They both are liberals. They both have basically blown off their senate terms in the race for the White House. Neither of them gives a rat's ass about our troops mission in Iraq, and the damage that would be done if we pulled out our combat forces and left non-combat forces behind. They're both willing to surrender to terrorists by cutting and running. They're both clueless on how to handle the economy. They're both desirous to raise taxes on the American people. And despite claims to the contrary, they're both are really, technically, within range of picking up enough delegates to put either one over the top to be the nominee. Obama is ahead in number of delegates, but Team Clinton has pulled rabbits out of their as...errrr...hats, before.

But realistically, it does look like Obama is going to be the front runner to come out of the nominating process and head into the general election come November to face McCain. Barring, that is, something untoward happening to Obama in June, as Clinton inferred the other day, causing such an uproar, referencing the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 68. Perhaps she knows Sirhan Sirhan's relatives?

I digress.

Many pundits have referred to an Obama/Clinton ticket as a way to bridge the gap that has been created in the Democratic party this election cycle. Bridging the gap, mending the rift, sewing up the split crotch in the straddle of the pants, whatever analogy you wish to use. Screaming Howard Dean and the other heads of the DNC would love nothing more than for this whole thing to be over and done with so that they can get back to the business at hand for the Democratic Party.

Robbing the American public blind.

Um, I mean, doing the people.

Doing the people's business. That's it, doing the people's business. Doing business to the American People. Or ON the American people. OH WAIT, doing business FOR the American people.

Ok, now we're back on track and are phrasing things correctly in order to mislead people more than we had intended (to paraphrase the late Peter Jennings).

Since there is basically no difference between Obama and Clinton other than that she's a woman and he's a man, and of course that skin issue (referring to thickness, and his lack of it, I'll leave the race issue to the Democrats), why not put the two of them together on the ticket as a team, him for President since he's in the lead, her for VP since she's, well, not in the lead...

Let's look at the pro's list for teaming the two of them up in this capacity, shall we? You'd have a Presidential candidate who's running mate would be totally and completely on board with turning the United States into a socialist regime, you'd have a Presidential candidate and running mate who would be totally and completely on board. They both seem to have a bit of trouble differentiating between fact and fiction, they both have controversial spouses, they are both lawyers (back to that trouble differentiating between fact and fiction again), neither has any executive experience, and both will be willing to hand us over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the United Nations.

Isn't that a fabulous dream ticket? If this was some sort of Science Fiction movie, one could argue that really, Obama and Hillary are the same person. That would work out well for Bill, come to think of it, because then he'd have access to Michelle...hmmmmmmmmmm. Okay, let's not go there, shall we? The thought of Clinton and his willy...anyway. Policy wise Obama and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable.

Let's leave it there.

Then there is the popularity issue. He has roughly half the Democrats sewn up and on his side, so does she. Put the two of them together, and you have almost the entire Democratic party all sewn up and in one giant happy bed together. A veritable orgy of liberal-socialist policy and program planning for the next four years. And since the Democrats are the party who are so very much in favor of gay marriages, civil unions, free love, and all that, yes, I do think that orgy is an appropriate term for the Obama/Clinton years to come.

Why is that? Think about it, very, very carefully. At every orgy, someone is going to get fucked.

Grab your vaseline, America, and get ready. If either or both of these two win in November, you can guess who's gonna get fucked for the next four years...

Just an observation.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Hillary steps in it, with both feet?

She doesn't understand it and finds it curious.

That's what Hillary Clinton says about why people are pushing her to withdraw from the Democratic race. She does understand, however, that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

What that has to do with anything is anybody's guess.



One can only speculate as to why she brought the assassination of Bobby Kennedy into the conversation. Wishful thinking, perhaps, inspired by the Return to '68 movement?

She has, of course, apologized for this outlandish reference that has no bearing on anything.

But one has to wonder, what the hell is going through her mind? Is this fatigue and desperation beginning to show on Senator Clinton's part? Or does she know something and this was an accidental slip? Politics, maybe, an attempt to rattle the mind of her opponent?

I'm going to go with the last option. The Clinton's do nothing, say nothing, without having carefully considered the consequences and all possible outcomes. The Clinton machine carefully orchestrates each public appearance so that they make sure that each word that they say has the maximum political benefit for whatever task is at hand for them.

This has been their history since coming onto the scene as a political power, and I doubt very seriously team Clinton did this just as a Freudian slip.

Just an observation.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Should Hillary Clinton Stay In The Democratic Race?

Hillary Clinton has vowed to stay in the race for the Democratic nomination until the last primaries and on into the Convention, hoping to convince the party SHE should be the choice to run for the November general election. What do the polls say?

According to an ABC poll, six out of ten democrats say Hillary SHOULD stay in the race for the Presidency, saying that there is "no rush" for her to make her withdrawal from the primary process. What's surprising in the survey is that of that 60% of democrats who think she should stay in, 42% claim to be Obama supporters.

That's not a majority endorsement of Clinton's candidacy; Democrats by a 12-point margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that's held steadily in ABC News/Washington Post polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out contest will hurt the party's prospects. Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent).

A copy of the questionnaire can be found here in PDF form.

In breaking down the results, many explanations are offered, from the hope that perhaps there will be some sort of "reunification" of the party at the end of the primary race to the prospect of an Obama/Clinton ticket for the November ballot, putting Clinton in the VP slot for the Obama candidacy.

Perhaps there is another reason, unspoken by the pollsters at ABC, for the reason so many democrats think that Hillary should stay in the race. Perhaps there is, possibly, the slip possibility that in light of the negative attention Obama has had to contend with and his difficulties in handling controversy and criticism, some have changed their minds about whom they wish they had voted for.

Of target? I don't think so. In my daily life I'm surrounded by "yellow-dog" democrats (a term given to democrats who would vote for a yellow dog over a republican if the yellow dog was their only other choice). The comment was made to me this very weekend, during some Obama fawning telecast by one of the Big Three dinosaurs (I think it WAS CBS) that the American democrats may have made a big mistake and put the wrong one up as the front runner. This was said to me by someone who has been, thus far, a staunch Obamite. I was amazed, and asked for expansion upon that notion. The explanation was astounding for me to hear, and that was that Obama wasn't coming across as brilliantly as he did in the early days of his candidacy, and if he couldn't take the pressure from the Clinton machine how was he going to be able to handle the pressure of being President? The others around who heard this nodded their heads in agreement (mind you, I was the "token" republican in the group).

John McCain pulled a spectacular coup off in gaining the top spot for the republican nomination. At points during the primary race, he suffered polling numbers that dipped nearly into the single digit category of other contenders such as Ron Paul, but managed to defeat all other comers and emerge as the last man standing.

Given this recent ABC poll, could Hillary Clinton be possibly clutching the ears of her own rabbit deep inside the magicians hat as well?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Hillary Clinton: Democratic Party Heroine or Political Parasite?

At what point should a political candidate bow out of a primary race and concede victory to an opponent? After winning in Indiana but losing in North Carolina, can Hillary Clinton manage to pull a rabbit out of her hat and win the Democratic nomination?

With the current delegate count from previous primaries at 1,847 for Obama and 1,696 for Clinton, the gap to be bridged for the required number of 2,025 pledged delegates for either candidate to claim the party nomination stands at 187 remaining needed for Obama, 329 for Clinton. There are only 217 remaining delegates remaining that have not been committed to either candidate. The final determination will likely come from the so called "super-delegates," of which there are 795, 235 of whom come from the House of Representatives. At current standing, Obama has pledges of 80 of that 235, Clinton has 79, and the remaining 76 have yet to commit.

There are six primaries remaining to be held before June 3.

And then there are the Florida and Michigan primaries, both of which had their delegates stripped from the contest over failure to comply with the DNC national election calendar. Clinton is wrangling to have both states readmitted into the primary process in an attempt to garner those delegates to her side.

But how much clout does Hillary Clinton have left? She is being urged by friend and foe alike to withdraw now, after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, rather than to continue on as she has vowed to do.

Publicly, Clinton advisers mapped out what communications director Howard Wolfson called her "path to victory." It first envisions Sen. Clinton winning next week in West Virginia, then doing well in the other five contests, though Sen. Obama is favored in several.

Mr. Wolfson, asked if campaign advisers had discussed whether Sen. Clinton should drop out, was brief: "No."

The key to success for Sen. Clinton is to win her disputed claim to a majority of the 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party disallowed both delegations because the states held primaries in January earlier than party rules allow. Sen. Clinton won both, though no candidates campaigned in the states due to the party's sanction. Sen. Obama and several other Democratic contenders at the time removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Party talks to reach a compromise to seat them have so far been fruitless.

But even the admission of Michigan and Florida wouldn't be enough for Sen. Clinton to overtake Sen. Obama's lead in delegates. So her hopes ultimately hinge on what is proving harder than ever after Tuesday's outcome: persuading superdelegates that she would be a better candidate against Sen. McCain than the less-experienced, less-battle-tested Sen. Obama.

The key to success for Sen. Clinton is to win her disputed claim to a majority of the 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party disallowed both delegations because the states held primaries in January earlier than party rules allow. Sen. Clinton won both, though no candidates campaigned in the states due to the party's sanction. Sen. Obama and several other Democratic contenders at the time removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Party talks to reach a compromise to seat them have so far been fruitless.

But even the admission of Michigan and Florida wouldn't be enough for Sen. Clinton to overtake Sen. Obama's lead in delegates. So her hopes ultimately hinge on what is proving harder than ever after Tuesday's outcome: persuading superdelegates that she would be a better candidate against Sen. McCain than the less-experienced, less-battle-tested Sen. Obama.

To further make her push in making sure the Florida and Michigan delegates are admitted into the contest, Clinton has written a letter to Obama urging him to join her in supporting allowing the two states elections to be counted in the race, arguing on behalf of the residents of those states not being allowed to have their voice count in the national process of choosing a candidate.

Obama, on the other hand, is rumored to have chosen May 31st as his announcement of declaring victory in the race for the Democratic nominee.

It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.

The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates - a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination - a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.

“We don’t accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan,” said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton’s two chief strategists. “It’s a phony number.”

It boils down to Michigan and Florida. Clinton, along with Obama and other Democratic candidates still in the race at the time the decision was made to exclude the two states from the process, signed her name in agreement not to campaign in either state. She's now crying foul, demanding that their delegates be included. Clinton was the only candidate not to withdraw her name from the primaries in both states.

Was this a calculated ace in the hole strategy on the part of Team Clinton to make sure that they had a point of contention with the process should she not be the front runner in the final analysis? Or is Hillary Clinton simply grasping at straws in a last ditch final assault before the shrieking, kicking and screaming end of her bid for the Presidency?

The bottom line regarding both Michigan and Florida is that both state conventions were aware of the consequences that would be imposed upon them by the national party if they moved their elections up. They did so anyway, and Hillary Clinton joined in with the rest of the candidates and the party at large in making sure that those consequences were imposed. Would baseball fans tolerate a major league team calling for a change of the rules in the seventh inning stretch of the tie-breaker game of the world series? Would football fans stand for a team to demand that the rules be changed in the last 30 seconds of the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl?

Hillary Rodham Clinton: heroine of the Democratic Party, or political parasite to the system?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Is Hillary Inhaling?

I have a very, very serious question to ask. Let me preface it with this: it has been proven that the use of marijuana affects memory. The more mary jane used, the more the memory is affected.

Now for my question. Does Hillary Clinton prefer a Colombian crop, Jamaican, or some of that sticky California stuff? (Note, I'm going by hearsay, of course, as I actually have NO experience with this stuff...at least, not that I can remember...).

Or maybe she just likes to slide the blade into Bill's back at every opportunity and give just the right twist while coming across as trying to blame Bush for things?

This is reminiscent of the story she told about the uninsured woman who died after giving birth in Ohio because she couldn't get medical care during her pregnancy, who turned out to not only to have been insured but to have been under the care of a doctor her entire pregnancy and had never been denied treatment.

Maybe it's something stronger than mary jane?

The newest "twist of the blade" comes in the form of a story about a plant in Indiana that was bought out by a Chinese corporation and subsequently closed by them, with Hillary laying the blame for the closure at the feet of President Bush.

If she were president, she says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband.

And again we find the guiding hand of that eminent globalist George Soros. Coincidence? I think not. I don't believe in coincidence. Neither, it seems, do voters in Indiana, some of whom have been writing the newspapers in letters to the editor to call Senator Clinton's hand on yet another "caught with egg on her face" moment where she's being less than truthful.

A lot less than truthful.

Or maybe that's just the way she remembers it? If that's the case, can we possibly be looking at the legalization of marijuana under Hillary Clinton if she's elected President?

Just a thought.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Hillary Clinton Talks Tough to Iran

Hillary Clinton has made every effort not to make any firm or committed statements during her current campaign regarding her plans for policy with Iran concerning it's nuclear development programs. Today we see a different Hillary Clinton on ABC.

It's down to the wire in Pennsylvania. With voters heading for the polls today, the last ditch efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters for today's election was carried out yesterday. Or was that the end of it? Both candidates made appearances on ABC's Good Morning America this morning

Obama stated during his interview that he's had to say some "sharp things about Clinton" because of the attack campaign he said she has been running against him, stating, "You've always got to measure if somebody throws an elbow at you and after three or four times of getting elbows in the ribs, you know, at what point do you sort of say okay, you know, we -- we, we've gotta put a stop to that?" A far cry from what he said on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night when he said Clinton was doing him "a favor" by putting him "through the paces," comparing the campaign to spring training." Obama played basketball in school, a sport he still participates in today.

Clinton, however, also appearing on Good Morning America, was asked how she intends to handle Iran and the growing concern over the Iranian pursuit of a nuclear program and their threatening stance against Israel, stating that were Iran to attack Israel: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

An interesting stance for Clinton, who last October wouldn't answer the question asked by moderator Brian Williams in an MSNBC debate as to what her "red line" would be "concerning when to, if to attack Iran."

Clinton at the time wouldn't answer the question, even when pressed by Williams, who had to come back at her after she gave a lengthy non-responsive answer.
"Respectfully, Senator," Williams said, "same question though: Do you have a threshold…?

Clinton would only say, "I want to start diplomacy….I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons."

Her current remarks are quite a contrast from that cautiousness.

Political posturing in an attempt to win votes and the nomination of the party, or a true statement on her planned policies for Iran? That's ultimately up for the voters to decide. However, given the team Clinton history of saying whatever seems to be expedient for the moment, one has to speculate that this sort of posturing is done with the same careful, calculated motivation of addressing an issue based upon public opinion polls.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Hillary Clinton Dogged by Terrorist Ties?

Given the rich opportunity afforded to Hillary Clinton surrounding Barack Obama's documented ties to terrorist organizations, why is she not using them in her campaign? Could there be something she doesn't want us to know about her own history?

A few days ago I posted a piece outlining Barack Obama's ties to known terrorists. George Stephanopoulos addressed it in the Philadelphia debates, and the left went ballistic in the blogs and in commentaries afterward.

The question has arisen, however, in light of the Philly debates, of why Senator Clinton didn't go for Senator Obama's political jugular over the issue? There may be a very good reason for that, as a little digging and research uncovers that the Clinton's have their own connections to terrorist groups and individuals who have been known to commit acts of terrorism or governments supporting them.

In 1998, during the administration of her husband Bill, the FAA granted permission to "commercial" flights from Cuba to cross U.S. airspace en route to Canada using one East coast flight route, and one west coast. This permission was granted despite the known ties of the Cuban government to terrorist sponsoring states in the Middle East, and in despite the knowledge of the Clinton administration of Cuba's biotechnical manufacturing plants [biological warfare]. Fidel Castro, then dictator of Cuba, was also on the record with his hatred of the United States.

In a 2001 Judicial Watch report warned that the United States government was ignoring the threat of Cuba to the nation. Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey presented the following findings at a Congressional hearing:

# Three suspected Afghans were arrested in the Cayman Islands with fake passports after transit to Cuba.

# Cuban spy Ana Belen, only recently arrested after working at the Pentagon for years, provided classified information to Cuba.

# Cuban spies recently convicted in Florida provided Castro with detailed information about the U.S. mail system. (This could cause raised eyebrows, given the recent anthrax problems at postal facilities and mailrooms in and out of government.)

# Castro recently visited Iran, following interchanges that have for years existed between scientists in Cuba and Iran and the documented cases of terrorists who have sought and achieved safe harbor on the island just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that he was "not familiar" with most of the findings, a situation that Judicial Watch called "scary," as he had earlier announced his desire to soften the Cuban embargo.

It should be noted that Powell was Secretary of State during the first term of the Bush administration, a position currently held by Condoleeza Rice.

Then President Clinton also issued pardons to several individuals who had been involved in terrorist activities. In 2001 a pardon was issued to former Weather Underground member Susan L. Rosenberg, who had been convicted and was serving sentence after being arrested in 1984 "while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car." Rosenberg was being sought at the time of her arrest for suspicion of involvement in a 1981 Brinks armored car heist that left two police officers and one guard dead, a role she has denied playing any part in.

In 1999, 16 Puerto Rican nationals were pardoned by Clinton, who were responsible for the bombings of more than 100 U.S. political and military installations, upon their promise to renounce violence. These attacks had left six people dead and dozens wounded. Clinton justified the pardons by saying that none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

Hillary Clinton's involvement with terrorists and terrorist organizations isn't limited to her involvement with her husband Bill, however, as reported by LankaNewspapers.com, a Sri Lankan news outlet.

According to a fundraising web site for the Senator, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) activists are involved in raising funds from 100 Dollars to 2300 Dollars to help elect Senator Clinton as the next United States President.

New Jersey residents have expressed the fear, that LTTE or the Tamil Tigers could flush supporters with millions of dollars, to buy influence over the next possible President of the United States of America by infiltrating into democratic fund raising machine.

An email distributed by a female activist, Pat Pathmakumar for the group under the name `Tamils for Clinton` has appealed to contribute for the Clinton fund by sending checks to her or a man named Ram Ranjan, a man who organized the LTTE Heroes day meeting in New Jersey last year. Ranjan has publicly admitted he raised funds for LTTE front, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO).

To be sure, Hillary Clinton has attacked Obama on a great many points and issues. Her campaign has been accused of "mud-slinging" and the use of smear tactics, but then this is what we expect from team Clinton, the use of the politics to their advantage in every way they deem necessary. Perhaps a historical look back at the Lincoln-Stevens debates is necessary, from time to time, as well as a look back at Andrew Jackson, a noted duelist of his day, in his own bids for public office, in order to give us, today, a full appreciation of the Clinton's sense of history in their conduct during political campaigns.

But this issue, this key issue that is being covered by some media sources concerning Obama, is for some reason taking it's time in coming to the forefront concerning Clinton. Even FOXNews has not to date given this the coverage that has been given to the Obama terrorist ties.

Perhaps the Obama connections having light shed on them have opened the door for the Clinton connections, as well. Only time will tell for that. In the meantime, the fact does remain that both Democrat candidates have their share of ties to terrorism.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

John McCain wins Philadelphia Democratic Debate

I'm not really sure who sponsored the Democratic debate in Philly last night, but it should have been Excedrin. Or maybe BC Powders or Goody's. One thing is for sure, just the opening statements were enough to induce a migraine.

I want to pose, as an opening question before continuing into this analysis of last night's debate. How much government involvement do you want in your life? A second question that is being revisited from earlier campaigns rises as well: does character matter?

For a change, Senator Clinton wasn't given the opening statement last night, the result of a coin toss. Last night those honors went to Senator Obama, who immediately went into his spiel about poor working class Americans and how he can help them.

(Full transcript of last night's debate can be found here.)

SENATOR OBAMA: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there.

You know, Senator Clinton and I have been running for 15 months now. We've been traveling across Pennsylvania for at least the last five weeks. And everywhere I go, what I've been struck by is the core decency and generosity of people of Pennsylvania and the American people.

But what I've also been struck by is the frustration. You know, I met a gentleman in Latrobe who had lost his job and was trying to figure out how he could find the gas money to travel to find a job. And that story, I think, is typical of what we're seeing all across the country. People are frustrated not only with jobs moving and incomes being flat, health care being too expensive, but also that special interests have come to dominate Washington, and they don't feel like they're being listened to.

I think this election offers us an opportunity to change that, to transform that frustration into something more hopeful, to bring about real change. And I'm running for president to ensure that the American people are heard in the White House. That's my commitment, if the people of Pennsylvania vote for me and the people of America vote for me.

Senator Clinton weighed in with her opening statements, paying tribute to the founders of the nation in her remarks, and then delivered her opening of how she can help the average American citizen.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, we meet tonight here in Philadelphia where our founders determined that the promise of America would be available for future generations if we were willing and able to make it happen.

You know, I am here, as is Senator Obama. Neither of us were included in those original documents. But in a very real sense, we demonstrate that that promise of America is alive and well. But it is at risk.

There is a lot of concern across Pennsylvania and America. People do feel as though their government is not solving problems, that it is not standing up for them, that we've got to do more to actually provide the good jobs that will support families, deal once and for all with health care for every American, make our education system the true passport to opportunity, restore our standing in the world.

I am running for president because I know we can meet the challenges of today, that we can continue to fulfill that promise that was offered to successive generations of Americans starting here so long ago.

And I hope that this evening, voters in Pennsylvania and others across the country will listen carefully to what we have to say, will look at our records, will look at the plans we have.

And I offer those on my website, hillaryclinton.com, for more detail. Because I believe with all my heart that we the people can have the kind of future that our children and grandchildren so richly deserve.

Is this what we want from the Presidency? Is it the responsibility or even the role OF the President to create jobs? Since when do we elect people into office to create jobs? WHERE in the United States Constitution can it be found that the role of government, ANY branch of government, is the creation of jobs?

It was during the first commercial break that the first packet of BC Powders came out for me (I'm not paid to endorse them, they're just what I use). More big government talk. Isn't that just what we need to hear? It blew my mind that Hillary Clinton could pay respects to the Founding Fathers in one sentence and then go totally against their intention, their Constitutionally mandated intentions, by bringing up, again, the notion of the "nanny state."

It got better.

Much better.

There are plenty of people out there today complaining (mostly from the Obama camp) that last night's debate didn't deal enough with the issues.

On the contrary.

To a great many people in the United States, the question of character is still a viable issue, and the character of both candidates was called into question by moderators Charles Gibson and former Bill Clinton White House staffer George Stephanopoulus (the involvement of whom [Stephanopoulus], in a debate featuring a candidate with whom he has ties, is a questionable thing in my opinion).

Senator Obama faced several "tough" questions last night, from his association with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who many see as a racist after his much publicized "God DAMN America" and "United States of KKK America" statements, his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers (who has stated that he felt they hadn't done "enough" in their bombing campaigns during the late 60's and early 70's), to his own statements last week trying to explain the "bitterness" of Americans.

Senator Clinton didn't escape unscathed, either, having to answer for her comments about coming into Bosnia under sniper fire (like the Secret Service would have allowed her to land under sniper fire), her treatment of General Petraeus ("a willful suspension of disbelief," a statement made by Senator Clinton before the General had given his report), and her backpedaling on her support of the war in Iraq.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?

She of course answered no to that question, going on to say that she couldn't predict the future and that no one else could, either. Senator Obama then fielded his response to the question of removal of troops from Iraq, stating that it was the job of the President to set the mission, and the job of the generals and the troops to carry out the mission, then said that Iraq was a bad mission, and that he, as President, would be the one to determine what missions would be conducted by the military, stating "ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

That sounds an awful lot like micro-management to me. I don't recall seeing any military experience in either Clinton nor Obama's resumes.

So let's see what we have so far. Big government, cut-and-run, Clinton's lies and Obama's ties to terrorists and anti-American sentimentalists.

Another BC Powder is in order.

And both had to get in their shots at the Bush administration, of course.

The bottom line is this from last night's debates: on the one hand, we have Senator Clinton, coming across as calm and in her environment, and on the other, Senator Obama, trying very hard to do the same but clearly uncomfortable in being in the hot seat rather than following a prepared speech. Both candidates advocating a larger role of government in issues ranging from jobs to health care. Is that the role of government? Is it the job of the President to micromanage the economy, the military, the job market, health care, etc.?

Or is it the job of the President to lead the country at the head of a government that allows individuals their freedoms, a government that works for the people instead of the people working for the government, a government that isn't an invasive part of the daily lives of the American citizen?

That, I think, is the real issue here.

Not whether ABC treated either candidate "unfairly," as the Obama campaign is claiming with an ad that has come out today in response to last night's Philadelphia debates.

Did you see the debate last night?

If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country.

In fact, it took more than 45 minutes before Barack was asked about the economy, health care, or foreign policy.

Regrettably, Senator Clinton seemed all too comfortable with that type of debate. She's running a 100% negative campaign in Pennsylvania, taking every opportunity to make personal and discredited attacks against Senator Obama.

(...)

Senator Clinton's false, negative attacks are exactly the kind of say-anything, do-anything politics that the American people are tired of.

That's why polls show that the majority of Americans think she's running the most negative campaign, and 58% of voters do not find her honest or trustworthy.

Barack Obama wants to end the politics of division and distraction in Washington so we can bring about real change for ordinary Americans.

The stakes are too high to play the same old games. More than 1.3 million supporters have responded to Barack's message of change, and with your help we can reach 1.5 million by May 6th.

Is this the strength of character that we need in the White House dealing with the House, the Senate, and with foreign leaders?

What do you say, Americans. Does it take a village, or does it take the strength and determination of the individual?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Watching the "Inevitable" Meltdown

If you look on the liberal blogs, you'll find something interesting happening. The bloggers are going ballistic. Now, normally, this isn't such an unusual thing and would pretty much go beyond the notice of the attentions of those of us from the middle to far right, but here's the interesting thing: the bloggers are going ballistic on each other rather than on things that we, conservatives and moderates, are doing.

So what's going on on the liberal side of the aisle that we're no longer the focus? Internal bickering and fighting. Conflicting issues. Power struggles and power plays, not just by the candidates, but by their supporters. Different factions are turning on each other, liberal bloggers are attacking other liberal bloggers, and the entire situation seems to be hitting a feeding frenzy mode of lib blogger eat lib blogger. One blogger at DailyKos makes this observation:

I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution. I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately. I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.



I don't even have to do any research on this one to know that it's liberals attacking liberals here. DailyKos is not well known as a bastion of Conservative thinkers.

But this is just one isolated incident, one might argue. One blogger who feels "picked on" by the other hens in the chicken yard, so to speak (simply putting things in terms where the concept of a "pecking order" is more visual to the mind of the reader. Trust me, you don't want me to try to draw chickens pecking each other in a chicken yard. One of my psych professors tried doing that. It wasn't pretty). No, this is merely one very visible and telling indication of what's going on in the blogosphere: the liberals are suffering something of a cyber-civil war, and the conservatives are sitting back scratching their heads wondering what, exactly, to do.

Why do I say it's a liberal civil war? Let's examine that, shall we? Grab you fedora's, your bullwhips, and your colt .45's (the pistol, not the malt liquor), it's Indiana Jones time for just a little bit as we go on a little adventure: comparing the conservatives to the liberals to examine what the hell is going on.

Picture, if you will, a conservative. Get a good mental image of what you THINK a Republican Conservative would look like if you passed one walking down the street on any given day. Got it? Good, because I want you to hang on to that thought for just a moment, I may just be on the verge of shattering the image you conjured forth in your mind. Brace yourselves, now, this might hurt just a bit. Are you ready? Good. If you pictured a portly gentleman in a three piece suit, bald head, smoking a cigar, gold watch chain stretched across his ample paunch leading to a pocket watch stuffed into the pocket of his vest, you've just envisioned the Hollywood and dinosaur media perpetuation of what a Conservative Republican looks like. Shake your head, clear your mind, get that image GONE, it has a place, but we don't need to conjure it forth again just yet. Now, breath in, breath out, and focus. Picture for yourself a man climbing a pole on a set of hooks, safety gear at the ready to lock into place when he reaches his working height near the top of the pole, be it cable, telephone, or electric. Picture the soccer mom driving the crumb crunchers to school in the morning and taking them to ball practice this afternoon. Picture your neighborhood church's pastor. The small business owner. The entrepreneurs. THESE are more likely to be the kinds of people who are more adherent to the conservative line of thinking today. That other fellow, the big guy in the business suit who's enjoying a cigar while telling you that he needs to raise the taxes on your cigarettes? That's more like your modern day liberal than you can imagine. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty, PLENTY of working class liberals out here, too. I bet, I would just BET, that if I had asked you to envision a liberal, you would have had trouble coming up with any one clear, concise image of what you had in mind that a liberal might look like.

If you ask the average conservative what makes him (yes, I use "him," it's grammatically correct and refers to both male and female in instances such as this. If you're looking for ME to be politically correct, don't hold your breath. It ain't happening. I'd rather be grammatically correct) a conservative, you're going to get a basic rundown of answers that fall in line with the conservative mindset: limited federal government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and rugged individualism. There might be other inclusions into that according to the individual, but that's going to be pretty much the answer if you ask more than two or three of us separately.

What do you suppose the answer would be if you asked a liberal why he's a liberal? Can you imagine the number of answers you would get going from individual to individual asking this question? I've asked this question of liberals; I've yet to see any binding thought process behind liberalism other than bigger, stronger, more controlling governmental legislation to fix everything.

Wanting the government to control things isn't a guiding principle. Wanting the government to control everything is giving up yourself unto the control of someone other than yourself. Whether by force and coercion or by choice, the giving up of ones rights to another is a form of slavery.

So if the liberals want us all to become slaves of the government, according to that thought process, why all the internal bickering and fighting among the liberals? Let's go back to the conservatives for a moment. Among the conservatives, you have a clear, defined, coherent set of core beliefs that, as a group, the conservatives adhere to. It isn't brainwashing, it isn't "group-think," it's individuality expressing itself in the common thought process that man is a creature who longs for, and strives for, and will die for, to attain a goal, and that goal is individual freedom and individual responsibility. That doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who don't do volunteer work in the community, it doesn't mean that there aren't conservatives out there who won't help their fellow man, it doesn't mean that conservatives are self-centered and self-absorbed people who look out only for themselves and care nothing for others. If you'll examine who the conservatives are in your community, you'll more than likely find them giving their time to coach little league baseball, serve as volunteer fire fighters, and lead in other community projects. And they do so quietly, for the most part, without the need to feed their egos with the gratitude and platitudes of the mass public. Their satisfaction comes from knowing that they are doing something positive, and by choice, and that they're doing the things that they want to do rather than being forced into doing something against their will. There is a binding, unifying common thread among conservatives that cause them to stand together under the idea of a common thought process, and the code for that ideology is what I mentioned before.

But the liberals, as I said, are turning on each other, devouring each other, and doing their best to do each other, and ultimately themselves, in. There are so many causes that fall under the umbrella of liberalism that lie in contradiction with each other that they are finding themselves unable to survive the existence of each other.

I have often said that contradictions can not exist. Modern liberalism is proving that theory to be correct. When you have a party, such as the modern Democratic party, that hosts so many conflicting points of view, it's going to come apart at the seams.

What are these contradicting points of view, you ask? I'm glad you asked that. Let me point out just a few of them. When you have a governor who proposes, as we do in Tennessee, that everyone should stop smoking, who puts forth legislation to stop smoking in public places, and then sets forth legislation to raise the taxes on cigarettes in order to fund education projects, that is a contradiction. You can not force people to stop smoking or curb their habit and yet and still rely upon the taxes raised from smokers to fund anything. To have a party that promotes abortion on demand and opposes the death penalty for capital crimes is a contradiction. Both activities mean someone is going to be killed. For a party to demand to live in freedom and yet ask that the government take more control of their lives and take care of them from cradle to grave is a contradiction. For a party to demand that all religions be respected equally unless they are based in Christianity is a contradiction.

And the list goes on. There are literally thousands of other examples. Save the dolphins, but not the tuna? That's always been one of my favorite examples. The point is this: contradictions can not exist. A contradictory thing will struggle to center itself to a point where it no longer lies in contradiction. And that is what we are seeing coming out of the liberal blogs.

When you see news footage of liberals protesting, how are they acting? Are they marching along peacefully, as they did in the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of my favorite liberals, by the way, from a time when being liberal truly did mean being progressive)? Likely you'll see them shouting, as the Code Pink members protesting in front of the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley. A great, great many liberals feel like they have to shout and go on the offensive to make their point. That's why it's referred to as militant liberalism. Unfortunately for the liberals, the generals are clashing (everyone is a general in the militant liberal movement, by the way. There are no privates. Well, there are, but, um, never mind). Group A is attacking group B while reacting to an attack from group C who is being assisted, for the moment, by group D while fending off a counter-assault from group E, who just recently decimated in an onslaught of rampant verbiage groups G, H, and J (there is no I in liberalism, it is all, "we").
The save the polar bear people are attacking the save the baby seal people because that's what polar bears do, they attack and eat baby seals.

The plastic baggers have just recently sacked the paper baggers.

The save the whales people are treading water amongst the save the sharks people. We're still waiting to see what happens there when the save the dolphin and bottle nosed porpoise people show up with the save the orca people in that one.

The save the predatory ocean bird people have egg on their face because of exposure from the save the sea turtle people.

It goes on and on and on, but seems to be centering itself in a conflict around "do we want Hillary or Obama?" Each side has decided that they will do what they need to do to shout the other side down. The side that shouts most loudly wins, rights? The question is, what are they shouting about, and why are they shouting in the first place? At some point, during the 1960's, someone, possibly Abby Hoffman, decided that liberals should shout to make their point. Yes, I know King shouted, too, but honestly, how many Baptist preachers have you ever listened to in your life who didn't shout? I'd say not very many. Not that old school, Bible thumping, fire and brimstone type of preacher, anyway.

Part of the problem that the left is facing is that the "inevitability" factor of Hillary Clinton didn't quite pan out the way that they expected. According to (pardon the tongue in cheek moment here, but I have to) conservative thinking among the left, Hillary Clinton had all but been anointed as the next to take the throne. And then along came the newly appointed pastor of the Church of Hope and Change. And people remembered, with a new player on the scene, "Hey, I don't LIKE Hillary Clinton." The "inevitable" has suddenly a heated race for the top spot. And as the smearing and mud slinging heats up between Clinton and Obama, expect it to pick up in the blog world.

Just don't let me run out of buttered popcorn that was popped in coconut popcorn oil while we're watching them slug it out. And if anyone wants to bring along some ice cold Corona, we might even watch them with the windows open this spring, listening to the coyotes yipping across the distance...


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Top Clinton Strategist Quits after Columbia Trade Fiasco

The government of Columbia has ended it's contract with the lobbying firm of Mark Penn one day after he made a statement that meeting with members of the Columbian government over a pending free-trade agreement was "error in judgement." Columbian officials have stated that the now former chief strategist of the Clinton campaign failed to show them proper respect, calling the statement an "unacceptable error in judgement."

Following Roman tradition, Penn has chosen to metaphorically fall upon his own sword, resigning from the Clinton campaign.

Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.

Trade has been a major battle point for the Clinton and Obama fight for the nomination for the Democratic party, with both candidates having suffered losses in the polls after failed negotiations of their staffers with foreign governments. Both candidates have publicly called for a slow-down of foreign trade, stating that continuation costs jobs for American workers. Both candidates, however, have had embarrassing situations arise from the meetings that members of their campaigns have had with foreign officials.

The current trade agreement Penn was discussing with Columbian officials is one that had been set in place by the Bush administration in 2006, and has faced heavy Democratic opposition.

The question is how many more black eyes can Hillary Clinton, or indeed Barack Obama, take before the August convention in Denver? They only have two eyes apiece, and yet they are both constantly taking negative hits in their attempts at showing themselves to be capable leaders ready to take on the mantle of office of the Presidency.

Penn, spokesmen for his lobbying firm, and spokesmen for the Clinton campaign have all declined comment. Perhaps this is best, as the situation itself speaks volumes without trying to add additional spin to it.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Gore Emerges as Democratic Nominee?

With the Texas Primaries second phase behind them and still no clear cut lead for either candidate, the Democratic Party is starting to prepare for a brokered convention, and the possibility of a compromise candidate.

Have you ever seen a tug of war competition between the two strongest, most able bodied people that you know? They're fairly close in size, weight, strength, and endurance. Put them one each end of a rope to face off with one another, and they're likely not going to make much headway unless one or the other of them blunders and falls. NOW, at our hypothetical community picnic, let's turn around behind us at the OTHER tug of war contest; this one between two of the smaller, more sickly, more conniving and less than honorable people you know, still about the same build and whatnot, but the personalities are different. It's a bit different to watch, these two are scrapping it out for every inch they can take from the other, but there's a difference; neither side is playing clean. They're kicking sand at each others faces, name calling, and sending people to their opponents saying "Why don't you just quit now?"

Definitely a more interesting battle, right?

So what happens if someone else comes along, steps in the middle between these two smaller dirty players, takes a pair of shears, cuts the rope in two, watching the other two fall backwards and blink in shock and outrage as he declares to the crowd, "I win?" Everyone looks up at him, trying to figure out what he's doing there, in his plaid shirt and beard looking like he's just hugged a Ponderosa pine (wait, scratch that, let's rewind just a bit here and put him in a suit and tie, clean shaven, and sporting a Nobel prize).

Confusing to consider, isn't it? Mind boggling to say the very least, according to some. I've been predicting this for weeks, along with others of significantly more influence than I have (i.e Rush Limbaugh and Steve Gill among others). For some of us, it was obvious. It was the only solution. It was the only thing that we could see that would unify the Democratic party before November. And now they're admitting that they're considering it.

Al Gore may very well walk away from the Democratic National Convention as the nominee for President of the United States.

If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the "super-delegates" - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.

Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: "If it goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket." This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing.

Following a brief flurry of speculation that he might jump into the race last year, Mr Gore claimed he had "fallen out of love" with politics, but he has pointedly refused to rule out another tilt at the White House and said that the only job in public life that interests him is the presidency.

The fallout from a move like this on the part of the democrats? Not good. The Democrats have created this situation for themselves in large part by the creation of "super-delegates" and coming up with such complicated methods for choosing their candidates to begin with, not to mention the fact that they have put forward two candidates for the final bid for nomination, each candidate clearly despised by nearly half the party, causing the two halves to be split on making a nominee choice.

In walks Al Gore, after having been properly courted by the DNC upper echelon. He's clean shaven, he's in a new suit, he's holding his Nobel Prize, and there are no splinters visible as the wooden boy steps out of the back rooms to take the stage and say "I accept the nomination of the party" in August.

That may actually send Obama over the top with screams of "Allah Akbar" and make him charge the stage with a scimitar, while Hillary finally has that final overload of circuitry and mutters "target acquisition mode: engaged" as she points her finger at Gore like a gun, surprising everyone as the tip falls aside on a hinge to expose a barrel.

I wonder if they'll be wearing parkas? Al Gore, speaking engagement, hmmmm. It might do well to check the weather one last time before flying into Denver this August come convention time.

There is a problem with bring Gore in as the nominee, though, and I'm not quite sure that the Democrat leadership has really taken this into consideration. Now be easy reading these next few words, I know this is going to come as a shock to many reading this, especially those with leanings toward the idea of a Gore campaign for 2008. It's big. You might pass out from shock at what I'm about to say. Ready? Deep breath, hang on, it'll be over before you know it...Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee last time he ran for President when he actually RAN for President in the fully campaign race. So how is it that the Democratic leadership thinks that Gore can be the savior of the party when he didn't even win his OWN bid for the Presidency and by bringing him out as a compromise candidate it's going to cost them votes?

The closer it gets to the Convention, the more panicked Democrats are becoming in trying ANYTHING to win the White House. By bringing Gore out, cleaning him up, dusting him off, checking him for termites, it becomes more obvious just exactly how desperate they are becoming.

I'm just glad Gore gave us the internet so we could follow it all.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.