It's just the truth..err my opinion.

If Hillary Clinton was just Hillary Rodham, she would not be in this position. If she wasn't the wife to Bill Clinton (or any ex-president), she would not be in this position. She happens to be very opportunistic to have fucked and married the 42nd President, and stayed with him for political purposes. The country's less intelligent folk seem to have forgotten that.

Olbermann Rips Hillary

Kickin the truth to the young brown youth.

Dispelling Hillary's Claims

This past week, specifically since Tuesday, I've been riled up against Hillary Clinton's claims of experience and fairytale predictions of how she'll better win a general election. Never have I been so repulsed by a campaign's spin as I'm by HRC's.

[Foreign policy points taken from the Chicago Tribune, The Telegraph, and Dailykos.com's Maineiac]

First, I'll discuss her claim that she is oh so experienced with foreign policy.

CLAIM: Taken from her official campaign website: "As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act."

FACT: It would seem like HRC worked rigorously and had a significant contribution to get the FMLA into law. HOWEVER, Bill Clinton was inaugurated on 1/20/1993, and the FMLA was signed sixteen days later on 2/5/1993. At face value it seems improbable Hillary or Bill had anything to do with the FMLA. It is actually the work of Chris Dodd (great 2008 candidate, by the way) in 1986, 7 years before Bill signed it [not worked on it, only signed it]. Bill had nothing to do with the proposal other than not vetoing it like Reagan and Bush before him. The FMLA was not worked on by HRC or passed by HRC or worked by BC. It was first envisioned by Chris Dodd, but the Hillary campaign would make you think "As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act." Thought I'd copy and paste it for emphasis.

Hillary remembers her trip to Bosnia in 1996 fondly where she "Negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." She forgot to mention it was her, Sheryl Crow, and comedian SINBAD who "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo."



CLAIM: She played an integral part in the Northern Ireland Peace Accords.

FACT: She had tea with a group of women on one occasion. In fact,

"negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years." [link].

In that link can also be found this quote from Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party.

"She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already...[she] was a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument."

CLAIM: She influenced Bill to coalesce a military effort to fight the genocide in Rwanda.

FACT: This occurrence is inexplicably absent in the memoirs of not just Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright but HRC's as well.

Hillary's claim for foreign policy and executive experience has been predicacted on the notion and "position" she held from 1993-2001 as, uhm, FIRST LADY. Her visits to those 80 some odd countries she brags about consisted of speeches, ceremonies and dinners. All things someone like Laura Bush does -- so is there going to be a Laura Bush/Lynn Cheney 2012 ticket? This is not at all a sexist remark. It is not enough to claim your experience and competence by stating you were married to a President. That would've made someone like Marilyn Monroe able to run for president, or Monica Lewinsky.

The simple fact about senators and presidential candidates is, and I quote the Chicago Tribute:

"Indeed, Obama doesn't have much in the way of experience managing foreign crises, nor does Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for that matter. In fact, it is rare for any president to have that kind of experience before coming into office."

HRC's saving grace that causes any inkling that maybe she did have an influence would be the private counsel with her husband....that can't be documented or proved.

The irony is, most of her visits that qualify as foreign experience are, ha, based on one speech she makes during her trips. And she accuses of Obama to be running on one speech he made in 2004. But to give credit to where credit is due, HRC is obviously a little more savvy in the political arena than Laura Bush, but think about it. She has no real and verifiable executive experience (closest being: wife to president and her position on WalMart that she happened to remove from her biography) and she's a senator just beginning her second term.

FACT: Barack Obama has more years serving in public office than Hillary does, did you know that?
ALSO FACT: Mr. Obama did not do much in the senate, partly due to his own naivety and the simple fact you can not do much in the senate. However read this and you'll see he should take credit for co-sponsering, authoring many many progressive bills. Hillary has done the same but more often then not her proposals would not be co-sponsered by anyone other senate members.

CLAIM: Part of the HRC spin as of late has been to showcase her majesty as the tough (code for dirty) candidate while Obama is the secretive candidate. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. This is the lady and her campaign who accused Barack Obama of negating his promise to renegotiate NAFTA by meeting with the Canadians. Instead, the HRC camp quoted Obama as saying what he said was for political positioning.

FACT: A memo released by the Canadians stated it was indeed HRC who met with them and whom also told the Canadians to take her recent position on NAFTA "as a grain of salt." and she'd not try to do anything to NAFTA if she were president. A full memo released by the Canadians also showed and reiterated what Barack Obama has been saying all throughout the last few weeks. Which is, he would not opt out of NAFTA if we could reform labor standards and environmental standards. All of which are right in the memo. There is some parts to the memo that the Obama folks are calling foul on -- but overall it is HRC who was the bold faced liar, do what you can to win bitch.

My hero, Keith Olbermann took Hillary to town on this specific issue on his show Countdown with Keith Olbermann. View the segment on this cover-up.



Tsk tsk. Hopefully MSNBC and other mainstream news outlets takes this and runs with it.

"Why on earth are you ranking John McCain ahead of any Democrat"

What's been especially ridiculous to me is HRC's continuous remarks that Barack Obama should be considered the third choice, behind both HRC and John McCrazy. Now as it stands now, Mr. Obama has a far likelier chance of grabbing the Democratic nomination.. So what has Hillary done? She's bloodied her own comrade in the utterly selfish desire to be president.

Another Keith clip





CLAIM: She can fair better than Obama in the general election and win more democratic stronghold states.

COMMON SENSE: The democratic base of the working class will not sit out an election because of Hillary not being on the ticket.
FACT: A recent SurveyUSA 50 state poll shows Barack beating John McCain by a larger margin of electoral votes than Hillary Clinton beating John McCain.

Hillary (276) - McCain (262)

Barack (280) - McCain (258)

From that it clearly seems Barack would run a 50-state campaign while Hillary seems focused on the typical coastal, big state approach...that's not really change now is it?


Now, I subscribe to the belief anyone who runs for President typically has some sort of fuck upped-ness and overachieving aspect to their personality. But such a remark not only makes her seem like a traitor, but of course greater diminishes the chance of a Democratic win in November. This is a women who does not care about her party but simply a title she feels entitled to. I also subscribe to the idea that the single reason she has not divorced or separated the former President is purely and unequivocally for political reasons. The same can be said for Barack Obama -- that he used his 2004 convention speech as a launching pad. I'm fully aware. But, when it comes down to authenticity, their work, their judgement, their objective -- Hillary fails.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with calling Hillary a monster....... We all were thinking it and saying it anyway. And for the hell of it...

CLAIM: Barack Obama is a muslim.
FACT: No, Hillary he is not and you can take my word for it, doofus.

the drama!

i'm in the rutgers' campus center/dining area and two tables across me are a group of friends (1 hispanic/non-white looking guy and 3 black students) yelling at each other about the democratic nomination. and then to the table to my right are 4 muslim/arab girls talking about the election. it is very loud in this dining area, and i hate it.

like i said, i'm not supporting either candidate right now but i do support the democratic party so in the end i'll be fine with either candidate. however, what's irritating is this false notion hillary will end up as the nominee because she won in ohio, and other big states, primarily with her populist message that she ripped off john edwards. but good for her. i'm very disappointed that barack hasn't fully embraced john's message and come through with the promise he made to john about making poverty a central issue. it doesn't help him any when she capitalizes on that demographic in ohio and, soon enough, pennsylvania. but i guess i've gone on a tangent... the idea she can win in... DEMOCRATIC states in the general election is not a valid enough argument. democrats win new york, new jersey, california, and will win them even more so this year when the republican party should have a one in a millionth chance of holding onto the white house in 2009.

barack needs to pull out all the stops in pennsylvania (i'm talking big guns like the kennedy's, john kerry, his new 50 superdelegates waiting in the wings). and he NEEDS to secure a john edwards endorsement at least a week before pennsylvania, where it's so white, and less college educated, and so blue-collar folk. he doesn't need to win in pennsylvania, he just needs to lose by his margin that he lost in texas (which was a 4%). it should be noted he will end up grabbing more delegates from texas than hillary did, though. also, inspiration is fine, barack but you need to inject a whole lot more policies into your speeches (or if not yours, then at least have your opener speaker list down some policies). she can kill you by saying your not substantive enough, and so can mccain (if mccain is the president in 2009, hell has frozen over). hillary can not, in any wild or rational scenerio, surpass barack in pledged delegates for one single reason -- i'd bet my life she will not blow him out in any upcoming state (if texas or ohio are any indication). she can however say "look how far i cut his delegate lead." right now he's leading by roughly 140 delegates. and he lead by that same amount before tuesday. if she can somehow cut that down to around 90 then that's terrible news for BO. not going to happen though. he needs to win by his typical 8-10% margin and lose only by 4-8% and he'll be a-okay.

yes, this will goto the convention but should it have to?

i'd say no. here's why. he will have more pledged delegates no matter if it is a lead of 150 or 50. he will more than likely have the popular vote on his side. he WILL have more states won (primarily red/purple states where a black man won so kudos), he has the youth vote, he has the independent vote). she has very old women, white women, hispanics, and the working class. all typically democrats. there is no risk in those demographics completely disappearing in november if mr. obama is the nominee. there is a far greater risk when you take the flakey youth vote's candidate away from them. it's a risk if you take the independent voter's choice away and you have mccain on the other side. it's risky when you say "no, i know you have the popular vote but you knowwww." she's staying in the race in hopes of cutting his delegate lead (where the chances are abysmally low) and consequently swaying super delegates. well, if it's not mathematically possible to surpass him or tie him, and it's improbable she can close the gap by more than 20 or 30 - how does this warrant a continuing run for the nomination?

barack obama needs to get tough and point out all the corruption and skeletons about the clintons. he needs to appeal to her bases far more. do wisconsin all over again. he needs to point out that his opposition to the iraq war was important but he knows where iraq and america needs to go from here. i honestly don't believe any of this would be hard to do.

in any other election, she would overwhelming be the nominee -- just not this election. it's possible she could end up being the nominee, but only if she subverts democracy. and trust me that will not be a very wise move. with that said, i'm glad it'll be after mississippi, it will be 6 weeks of no contests. I NEED a BREAK.

Well alright...

I was almost right?
HRC won primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island and probably Texas. 
My estimate for Vermont was way off, he blew her out. And, he probably will win the Texas caucus by a fairly large margin.

Vermont is a key state because that's going to be the state where he picks up his most net gain.
As of 11:48pm, both candidates have gained 119 delegates so far. Hillary is exactly where she was this morning with no net gain (and i'm not including the new superdelegates for BO.)
Oddly enough, Barack will walk away tonight with winning more pledged delegates  while losing more primaries. He seems to end the night by extending his lead with new pledged delegates and 3 newly announced super delegates. According to Tom Brokaw, Obama has at least another 45-47 new superdelegates that will endorse him relatively soon.
I read two separate articles on Hillary's chances of reaching 2025 at all, much less before Barack. (1,2)
So if she can win the next 16 contests by large margins, and still be behind nearly 60 delegates (not including the superdelegates Barack will aquire during this time), why is she still running?
So if she can not realistically or even magically catch up to Mr. O, how does she expect to wind up the democratic nominee? Well she could always subvert Democracy - that just may be possible.
Is Hillary the new Mike Huckabee? Staying in the race where it's "a mathematical impossibility" to win?

Either way, congrats to her on winning states she should have won handedly anyway.

1. [Forget Tonight..Hillary's Math Problem.].
2. [Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers].

Tonight...

I do not count Hillary out at all. I predict her to win Ohio by around 5-8%, and Texas by 2-3%, lose both Vermont and Rhode Island by 12-15% and 6% respectively.  Obama will still probably technically win the majority of tonight's delegates but she has a semi-convincing case to not drop out.

I predict her to rush back and take the nomination in late May.

If she were to lose Texas (which is possible), she should drop out by Thursday.

 

1 - the delegate math is against her (even if she won both states); 

2 - she doesn't have much of a case to show the DNC.

I've basically dropped my support for either candidate because I have questions about both.

Onward and upward to tonight.

Hey Hussein!

My writing isn't the most grammatically correct or colorful, so sorry?

I don't know if you guys knew, but that Obama guy may be a terr0r!st! This is of course on top of his desires to bomb Pakistan and eat Jew babies for supper.

The geniuses at the Drudge Report (is there a vomit face on blogspot?) leaked a photo of slightly younger Barack during a visit to Africa. In the photo to the right, Mr. O is in traditional Somalian clothing. Now, one can't blame it all on Matt Drudge because guess who sent it to him? One of Mrs. Clinton's campaign staffers where the photo was circulating for x-amount of time. 

As the photo became public, the typical hoopla occurred - the GOP had something new to attack Mr. O about and Hillary's desperate attacks on him were simply not owned up. It's silly season, all over again.

I suppose, well rather hope, you are a rational thinker and see why all of these events are completely ridiculous. 

First, using a photo that purposely misrepresents a man is pitiful.  A well known fact to many is that Mr. O is a member of an Afro-centric Church in Chicago, not a member of a Mosque in Chicago or Mecca for that matter. Second, the attempt by any party or candidate to use inaccurate information or imagery is nothing new to elections/politics sure. When you're attacking a figure for a new way of going about elections and politics, those inaccurate attacks do fall flat - and only fuels his supposed cause and why his campaign has been so successful. (Note: I'm supporting Mr. O, not Mrs. RC.) But, my support for either candidate is irrelevant to why this is so infuriating. This is setting aside policy differences and personal affection to a candidate.

The fear that *gasp* a non-Christian (Catholicism is a denomination, calm down) could be a PRESIDENT of the United States of America is somehow frightening? How is that so? Y'know nevermind the fact Barack is actually Christian, never mind his mom's from Kansas, nevermind all the true facts about his life and ethnic background. Why is this a referendum to scare up votes? 

I understand the context of the Earth as it is today -- as ridiculous of an excuse it is, I get it! I'd like to think only in a post-911 world that this photo could cause a stir (refer to the video below) - but I don't. The simple fact is we are melting pot -- but not really. America is "this experiment in multiculturalism" (Jon Stewart), but somehow a majority of us can still be dumbed down and swayed by false, hateful, and racist fears. It's somewhat hypocritical that we pride ourselves in multiculturalism, yet have this common identity of "American." when we only elect Christian presidents, and the party that ruled for nearly 7 years put forth Christian-tinged proposals.

I especially liked this clip of Michael Eric Dyson had to say about it:

Unlike the race that went on in the Republican party (the party of tradition), the final two remaining Democrats are a woman and black man. And with all of the Democratic party's flaws, this is something to be proud of. BUT Talking about how historic it is, indeed, has been talked to death. They represent a HOPE for a Post-racial or Post-gender, and hopefully ultimately a Post-irrelevant shit America. Neither Barack or Hillary will single handedly get us to that point in their Presidencies (if they do indeed win the general election), but it's meant to be a start. Barack, and in my little brown eyes to a lesser extent Hillary, represent a broader, unifying sense that: Our differences are far out weighed by our similarities and desires. For me, it's the notion things LIKE debating who can get married is blocking REAL and IMPACTING policies to be worked on and passed.

That dumb female host on the broadcast alleged Mr. O's campaign made it a big deal and otherwise it wouldn't have been one. To think seeing a black man in muslim (even though it isn't muslim garb) dress isn't going to be a big deal...

.......Right.