Scandal haunts Clinton campaign USA TODAY’s article "Clinton focuses on female bonding" about her fight to capture women’s votes made me disappointed in the women who might vote for Hillary ("Clinton focuses on female bonding," News, July 23).

From StrikebackUSA:

Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most feared politician in America. She was the center of the political maelstrom that was the Clinton Administration. She was at the heart of every major scandal. These important scandals never seemed to gain any traction. Examples include Chinagate, Filegate, Travelgate the “suicide” of Vince Foster, the plane crash that killed Ron Brown (or was that a gunshot from a .45 that killed Brown, the autopsy will show, wait what autopsy?)  etc. She even covered for Slick Willy when it came to rape allegations.

 The one scandal that “stuck” had to do with biological material stuck on a fat interns dress. Hillary had nothing to do with that sticky mess! The Lewinsky scandal was the one that got Slick impeached. There were so many far more serious scandals that perhaps the Clinton administration let this one “stick’ to defuse the more contentious ones swirling about this “most ethical administration.” Hillary would have to wait eight more years for a turn to be president. The Clintons always planned on 16 years in power.  Read more at www.strikebackusa.com

As far as impeachment went, the political fix was in. There was no way Bill would be convicted and thus he would serve out the remainder of  his second term as president, and continue the slide of the U.S. into the abyss.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Clinton’s urging of a truce between Obama and Hillary isn’t terribly shocking; it’s in keeping with her strategy.

As frontrunner, she needs to bat down any argument that another candidate would make a better nominee for the Democratic party than her. For a rival to be better, there needs to be a distinction; if they agree on all the issues, the party might as well stick with the frontrunner. You’ll notice in every debate, Hillary emphasizes, "That’s why all of us agree…" or "I think every Democrat on this stage would make a better president than any of the Republicans…" (Right. Gravel over Rudy. Kucinich over Romney. Dodd over McCain. Biden over Thompson.) She’s trying to persuade Democratic primary voters that there’s no reason to change their current order of preferences.

The reason the should-the-president-meet-with-dictators debate got such attention all of last week and on the Sunday shows was that it was one of the first real, substantive disagreements between Obama and Hillary. (You can only talk about 2002 opposition to the Iraq war for so long.)

Of course, some of us think sending either a Secretary of State or a President for a smiling photo-op with a dictator usually ends up benefiting the dictator a lot more than it benefits us anyway, so we’ll find the argument moot. But this is a big deal to Democrats, who believe that Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmedinjiad, Hugo Chavez, etc., are reasonable guys and can be talked into mutual cooperation if we just compromise enough.

This is why Team Obama needs to emphasize every policy difference they can find - starting with something like federal funding for needle exchange programs. He supports it, Hillary doesn’t.

Source: The Campaign Spot

Not sure I agree 100% - I think Dick Morris is on to something by referring to the polling data that showed that she was losing this round - and Bill Clinton was tapped to come in and smooth the waters.

From the Doug Ross Journal

UK’s Guardian is reporting that British intelligence had pinpointed Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts on two separate occasions in 1998 and 1999. A thorough report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee details the British offers of information to the Clinton administration under one condition: no torture of the Al Qaeda kingpin was permitted. The Clinton apparatus refused to make that guarantee and Bin Laden escaped to kill another day.

So let’s recap. Before Abu Graib, before the Iraq War, and before 9/11, Bill Clinton’s administration refused to accept Bin Laden’s location — despite suffering a series of catastrophic terrorist attacks — because the U.S. wouldn’t promise not to torture Bin Laden.

I’d like to use the words irony and hypocrisy here, but neither has sufficient weight. And because it is a double embarrassment for Democrats, the mainstream media is completely ignoring the story (only one U.S. news source, the powerhouse Bismarck, ND station KXMB, has mentioned it).

IowaVoice sums it up concisely: "If Clinton would have done his job while in office, we wouldn’t have had a 9/11 or a war on terror." I wonder how many lies will be told by the left to spin this stunning report? The over-under says 1,000.

Source: Doug Ross Journal

I’ve got my reservations on this article, if you didn’t know - the Clinton Administration would NOT allow the CIA or groups that were to capture Bin Laden to do so unless they traveled around the country with a comfortable chair for Bin Laden to sit in with straps that would not make him feel uncomfortable!

Clinton Lawyers Fretted Over bin Laden’s Comfort

The CIA’s former bin Laden desk chief revealed Thursday night that Clinton administration lawyers warned counterterrorism agents that Osama bin Laden had to be kept as comfortable as possible if they captured him during planned raids into Afghanistan.

"The lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden`s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him," former bin Laden desk chief Michael Scheuer told MSNBC’s "Hardball."

"We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, [for] special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair," Scheuer explained. "They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn’t irritate his beard."

"The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community," the former CIA man lamented.

Concerns like that, as well as foot-dragging by the White House, resulted in one missed opportunity after another to get the al-Qaida terror mastermind, Scheuer said.

"We had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act," he claimed.

Although sharply critical of President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, the CIA counterterrorism specialist put the blame for bin Laden’s escape firmly on Clinton.

"In terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton’s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day," Scheuer said.

I’m not saying the British Report is false - I just think the Clinton Administration was doing EVERYTHING they could to NOT deal with the situation. By NOT promising the British they would NOT torture Bin Laden - they knew they would not have to deal with Bin Laden IF the British were to have captured him!

Had the British ignored their policy on torture - Clinton would have thrown another roadblock up to avoid having to deal with terrorism.

What is it with Dems and hedge funds? Not long ago we learned that Mr. Two Americas worked for one. Today we find out, in a front-page profile in the New York Times, that Chelsea Clinton also works for a hedge fund.

But the Times was strangely shy about divulging the fact. Only those who persisted through 18 paragraphs and 977 words were rewarded with that noteworthy nugget. And even when the Times did get around to informing us, it managed to find a sympathetic spin to place on Chelsea’s decision to work for what many liberals like to portray as the poster child for evil capitalism gone wild.

Last fall, Ms. Clinton moved on, taking a job analyzing investments at Avenue Capital, a hedge fund run by Marc Lasry, a loyal donor to Democratic causes generally, and Clinton-related ones specifically. The company invests its $18 billion in the debt of troubled businesses.

Friends say financial independence is important to Ms. Clinton; she may improve on her low-six-figure McKinsey salary by hundreds of thousands of dollars at Avenue because of potential bonuses, according to industry headhunters.

Get it? Chelsea isn’t greedy, like those other hedge funders. No, it’s simply that "financial independence is important" to her. Wouldn’t want to be a burden on the folks, let alone end up on food stamps.

Why do I suspect that if the child of a prominent Republican candidate worked at a hedge fund, the Times might have played things more prominently, and less sympathetically?

Great comments from Newsbusters - bookmark and read them daily.

The polling is in, and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations.

According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55 percent-22 percent. Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the "insider" position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong.

Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without preset conditions.

At the South Carolina Democratic presidential debate, Hillary and Obama clashed over Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran if he were president. Hillary said that she would not do so and would not allow herself to be used for "propaganda purposes."

All week, Hillary pounded out her message, enlisting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her possible future secretary of state, Dick Holbrooke, to speak up on behalf of her position. She blasted Obama as "naïve," one of her few direct attacks on her opponent. For his party, Obama ridiculed her position as "Bush Cheney lite," a comment that got under Hillary’s skin.

The exchange had little real significance during the two hour debate, but Hillary’s obsession with the issue all week has given it real importance. She made a big mistake in the debate and amplified it all week.

Why? Perhaps Hillary is not using polling the way Bill always did — to pretest and post-test all important issues. If she had, she would not have locked into the minority position among Democratic primary voters and would not have stayed with that view all week.

Maybe her campaign staff was caught flatfooted for once.

The fact is that this week’s debate was the first time the two Democrats have clashed seriously since the contest began early this year.

This round definitely goes to Obama.

Source: Newsmax

Is this why Bill Clinton was sent out to soften Hillary and Obama’s dust up over meeting with Foreign Dictators?

If so - why can’t Hillary run on HER OWN two feet instead of sending in Mighty Mouse?

Looks like the Hillary Camp saw the polling data and had to send in Bill Clinton (Mighty Mouse) to play the good cop bad cop role to fool Democrat voters!

Bill Clinton said Monday that he had no interest in wading into “that little spat” that broke out last week between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama over whether the next president should commit to meeting with the leader of several U.S. adversaries.

Play the Mighty Mouse Theme Song

Then, in the next sentence, the former president waded right in — in a way that sounded like the Clintons might be seeking a truce with Obama in the debate over the proper role of presidential diplomacy when dealing with assorted bad guys on the world stage.

While Hillary Clinton and her team pounced on Obama’s pledge to meet with leaders of such countries as Iran, Syria and Cuba as “naïve,” her husband took pains in a speech to centrist Democrats to emphasize that all the candidates basically agree on the big picture.

“We have to get back to more diplomacy,” Clinton said, adding, “I’ve heard no fewer than four of our candidates say in the last month, remind us that in the middle of the cold war, in the darkest hours, we never stopped talking to the Soviets at some level. So no one disputes that.

Advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton bridled at an early version of this story, which stated that the 42nd president’s remarks might be a sign that Obama had succeeded in his pushback last week against Hillary Clinton. In response to her criticism that it was “irresponsible” to give the foreign leaders a propaganda victory by meeting with a U.S. president without forcing concessions in advance, Obama said Clinton sounded like President Bush in refusing to practice diplomacy with adversaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat — a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.

So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.

Joining Tata Consultancy’s chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York’s depressed upstate region.

But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.

Now, as Clinton runs for president, that signal is echoing loudly.

Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

Read the rest of this entry »