The Nation — Hillary Clinton showed her teeth the other day. They are sharp.

In her running spit-ball spat with Barak Obama, her sardonic side popped out on the CNN /YouTube debate when she asked in that cutting voice of hers, "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" She was referring to Obama’s calling for what he says is a new, better, happier brand of politics in which hope takes the place of fear.

This is part of a larger spat over Hillary’s foreign affairs claim to be the deeply experienced senior person compared to Obama, the junior person, who lacks seasoning and judgment. This sounds good but how much experience making critical decisions does Hillary have? Her one big public responsibility as First Lady was to get a health care program up and through Congress. She botched that one so badly that her failure on health insurance and not being like Tammy Wynette are the two things she is most famous for, if you do not count Bill.

For the record, Obama has had as much experience in public office as Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson had when they were elected.

In foreign affairs what has Hillary done? Matt Stearns of the McClatchy Newspaper chain answers that question by saying, "…Clinton has wrapped herself in a cloak of experience–and drawn a sharp distinction with Obama, who’s served in the Senate less than three years. But being a well-traveled first lady isn’t the same as being a president. And having years of experience traveling the world isn’t the same as making wise decisions; her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war has dogged her throughout the campaign. So in some quarters Clinton’s claim to foreign-policy expertise is met with skepticism. How much should visiting 82 countries as first lady count?"

If Hillary Clinton does have foreign policy experience, where did she get it? Maybe it was during those years her husband was fighting for his political life that she picked up the experience she’s claiming. Maybe while he was closeted with his lawyers and fighting impeachment, she was running the country.

If that’s the case she may not be legally eligible to more than one term. The Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution says that, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, (emphasis added) for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Constitutional lawyers, take note! Obama, Keep on keepin’ on! And Hillary, watch where you sink your teeth, girl.

Source: Yahoo News

Asked which parent Chelsea Clinton most resembles, friends tick through the mother-daughter similarities. There is the habit of pre-empting questions by asking lots of them. The passionate interest in health care. The tendency to sound a bit scripted when talking about policy, even in private. The way both borrowed on family contacts to establish post-White House careers, but won over skeptical colleagues with their diligence and enthusiasm.

And if her mother, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, manages to become the first female president of the United States, Chelsea Clinton could be in a historic, head-spinning position of her own: the first first child twice over.

She certainly brings experience to the job. At 12 years old, she appeared in Bill Clinton’s “Man From Hope” video, testifying to his fatherly virtues. (Mr. Clinton also told viewers of his daughter’s forgiving reaction to his admissions about marital transgressions.) During the Monica Lewinsky scandal six years later, she was photographed hand in hand with her parents, seemingly holding them together.

When Mrs. Clinton ran for the Senate, her 20-year-old daughter crisscrossed New York State by her side. Now, at 27, Ms. Clinton is still clapping and beaming on her parents’ behalf. She accompanied them recently on trips to Aspen, Colo., Germany and Israel. Her fund-raising efforts helped bring in more than $20 million for her father’s foundation.

Along the way, she is playing a more glamorous version of her lifelong role: model daughter.

“It’s ‘The Truman Show,’ ” said Jill Kargman, a friend of Ms. Clinton’s, citing the movie about a character whose entire life is a reality television program.

Read the rest of this entry »

Feb. 2000 - Peter Paul is induced to support Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign with the promise of access to Bill Clinton to be able to make a proposal to come aboard Stan Lee Media as a rainmaker when he left the WH

June 9, 2000 - Paul pays for two Hillary Clinton fundraisers at Spago and the home of Cynthia Gershman … the costs are never declared by the campaign (note: a previous fundraiser through Rendell for Al Gore, paid for by Paul, was also never declared; Rendell also never declared a 150K stock pledge) … at the Spago lunch, Paul spent considerable time with Hillary and discussed his plan for her husband’s employment… see the 20/20 report from 2001…Amazingly, in her declaration of 4-7-06, Hillary acts as if she barely knew Peter Paul and claimed she couldn’t remember anything they might have said. Besides the email comments, Paul has video of her going on and on about how Stan Lee was a genius for hiring Paul. She is really excited about Paul’s idea of a cartoon character of Al Gore, and she wants to talk to Tony Coehlo and Terry McAuliffe about it. Her failure to remember is simply a lie.

June 23, 2000 - Kelly Craighead (a White House employee, not part of any joint funraising committee), Jim Levin, David Rosen (all agents of Hillary and Bill) meet with Aaron Tonken (agent of Paul and fundraiser for Ed Rendell) to originate the idea for a major fundraising event for Hillary as part of the Aug. 14-20 DNC Convention in L.A.

July 11, 2000 - conference call between Peter Paul, Tonken, Craighead, Wolfson, Levin, and Rosen in which Paul is solicited to pay for the Hollywood Gala….he is asked to pay $525K, and it is expected that Cynthia Gershman will pay a like amount….it was acknowledged by all that the fundraiser would cost over a million dollars

July 17, 2000 - Paul films the SMOKING GUN VIDEO. This video was withheld by an assistant US ATTY while investigations were proceeding. Hillary is shown soliciting and coordinatinG the $1.6 mil in-kind, hard money donation. Kelly Craighead kept her completely briefed and she offered any help she could. David Kendall’s claim that this was a joint fundraiser, and thus hard money, won’t fly. Craighead was a White House employee who solicited the money on July 11. Hillary was part of closing the deal on July 17.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama “irresponsible and frankly naïve,” Barack Obama fired back that electing Hillary Clinton could mean “continuing with Bush-Cheney policies,” and finally Hillary Clinton asked, “What’s ever happened to the politics of hope?”

So went the first full-throttle front-runners’ spat in the Democratic race, and among the many consequences of the earlier-than-expected (and Hillary-instigated) sniping should be the muting of talk of a Clinton-Obama ticket.

On paper, such a pairing would be the perfect recipe for a party hungry to win back the White House and too keep it for some time, with the youthful Mr. Obama lending his irresistible personality to a ticket led by the more experienced but less warm Mrs. Clinton. Then, after helping Mrs. Clinton win in 2008 (and, for the sake of this scenario, 2012 as well) Vice-President Obama would be clear to seek the presidency on his own, untroubled by suggestions that he’s too green for the national and international stage.

From a strategic standpoint, the Clinton campaign may regret throwing the first punch this week, since doing so gave the lagging Mr. Obama an opening to define his candidacy against Mrs. Clinton’s in more specific terms; previously, the prevailing Clinton ploy had been to mute issue differences with Mr. Obama and to assert simply that Mrs. Clinton is the more seasoned and inevitable choice.

But even if Mrs. Clinton now reverts to holding her fire, this week’s flare-up hints at very real tension not just between the two front-runners’ campaigns but between the candidates themselves. And that, in turn, suggests that Mrs. Clinton, should she ultimately secure the nomination, will be inclined to thumb her nose at any pressure from within the party to tap Mr. Obama as her running-mate. (There is no serious thought that Mr. Obama, if he were to win, would face similar pressure to fill out his ticket with Mrs. Clinton.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Source:  Orwellian World View

It’s Star Wars but not in a galaxy far away, no its happening right here on planet earth during the campaign for the 2008 elections! David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, and George Soros all are attempting to use their "Force" to influence events around who the next Democratic Presidential nominee will be, its big Liberal money and insidious politic manipulation which will be the determinate in choosing who will carry the Presidential banner for the Democrats.

Clinton or Obama, Obama or Clinton, will Hillary’s negatives be to stifling for Democrat support? Will Obama’s inexperience prevent Democrats from embracing his candidacy?

The most influential and popular woman in TV has said that Barak Obama is her guy and is putting all the force of her endorsement behind his candidacy.

While other Hollywood illuminates are aligning behind their political choice Democrats are polling to see if the Democrat front runner has any dreaming chance of winning the Presidency.

Two in five people recently polled by The New York Times hold an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton and of those with an unfavorable view, 71 percent have a "strongly unfavorable" view, while those with a favorable view aren’t as passionate.

In another recent poll, more than half of respondents said they wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton in the November 2008 election.

In the recent Times poll, for instance, 46 percent said they would definitely vote for her or consider voting for her, while 34 percent said they would definitely not vote for her.

If Clinton still has high negative numbers once the primaries start in January, Democratic voters in primaries and caucuses might vote against her even if she is their preferred nominee. Out of the White House for eight years, Democrats are hungry for a winner. They don’t want a candidate who can’t deliver the general election. –J. Patrick Coolican, Las Vegas Sun

Will Oprah’s endorsement cause Hillary the black vote and the women’s vote? One thing is for curtain, with such high negatives Hillary can ill afford to lose these two voters blocs and remain a viable candidate.

Can a Oprah endorsement deliver a presidential nominee and are Hillary’s negatives so impacting that Democrats will jettison her if they feel that her candidacy in 2008 will cause them to lose the White house?

With no more Bush to kick around Democrats will be forced to look at their own faults for a change. They may even come to the conclusion that the “anybody but” meme, is fitting for someone who Democrats wouldn’t even vote for in their own primaries.

“Anybody but Clinton,” now that would be ironic wouldn’t it? Maybe that’s the message that Oprah has already sent.

Source:  Orwellian World View

Tired of seeing Hillary Clinton in virtually every political media report?

Well, that’s not surprising, for according to a new Pew Research Center poll, the junior senator from New York was named by 42 percent of respondents as being the candidate "heard the MOST about in the news lately."

The next nearest was Barack Obama, who was named 22 percent of the time.

By contrast, the top Republican candidates - John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and the not yet announced Fred Thompson - were each only named by two percent of the respondents.

As reported in the poll summary (emphasis added, grateful h/t to unknown e-mailer):

Democratic candidates continue to have a clear advantage over Republican candidates in terms of visibility. When asked which candidates they have been hearing the most about in the news recently, 67% of the public named a Democrat while only 8% named a Republican. Even Republicans themselves name Democratic candidates more readily than GOP candidates by a better than two-to-one margin (54% name a Democratic candidate, 21% name a GOP candidate).

Hillary Clinton leads the pack as the candidate Americans have heard the most about in the news lately. More than four-in-ten (42%) name Clinton, while 22% name Barack Obama. Only 2% name John Edwards. The gap between Clinton and Obama has widened since last month when Clinton was named by 32% of the public and Obama by 20%.

Think this might be helping Clinton’s campaign to be perceived as getting twice the amount of press coverage as her closest Democrat competitor?

Now, look at how much the public perceives Republican candidates are being covered:

The major Republican presidential candidates remain at the periphery: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson were each named by only 2% of the public.

Yet, the public’s view is not totally supported by the facts, as the actual coverage has not been anywhere near as lopsided:

For the month of June, 43% of the campaign coverage on national news outlets focused on Democratic candidates, 34% focused on Republicans (another 9% focused on both parties).

As the summary explained, this could be due to Republican voters’ current apathy regarding the campaign. After all, Election Day is still more than fifteen months away:

Not only are Republican candidates lagging behind in terms of visibility, GOP loyalists are less engaged in the campaign and more critical of campaign coverage. Throughout the year, Democrats have consistently paid closer attention than Republicans to campaign news. In addition, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to believe the presidential campaign is being over-covered by the media. Four-in-ten Republicans say news organizations are giving too much coverage to the campaign. Only 19% of Democrats feel the same way. Among Democrats, a majority (56%) say news organizations are giving the right amount of coverage to the campaign, and one-in-five say they are giving it too little coverage. Independents are closer to Republicans in their views about campaign coverage - 37% say the campaign is receiving too much coverage, 21% say it’s getting too little coverage, and 34% say the coverage has been about right.

Something the poll and the summary didn’t address was the possibility that the public’s perception of coverage has something to do with the reports’ positive or negative view of the candidate in question. It is, after all, possible that the public perceives Democrats and Clinton getting more coverage because reports about them are more favorable than those dealing with GOP candidates.

This certainly bears watching as the elections draw closer.

Great catch by Newsbusters - Read them daily!