Among Democrats in Iowa, negatives add up for Clinton
A lot of Democrats in this state agree with Jana Linderman and Yvonne Weber.
With Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses less than four weeks away, they’ve made a conscious choice not to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And their rejection of the national Democratic front-runner is carefully reasoned and deeply felt.
"I think her politics and her style are very much the same as the Bush White House and the Karl Rove political playbook," said Linderman, a young lawyer from Cedar Rapids, who’s supporting Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. "As a Democrat, I’m tired of that, of people talking down to me, using political tactics that have been focus-grouped."
"She’s at the bottom of my list," said Weber, 53, a schoolteacher from Mason City, who’s undecided. "She has too many corporate connections, and her position on Iran really steamed me. But if she’s the nominee, I’ll be 100 percent behind her."
Clinton might win the Iowa caucuses; recent polls have her a close second to Obama, within the margin of error. She has assembled a strong political organization and has a committed base. And even if she fails to win Iowa, she’ll still be in a strong position to win the nomination.
"It’s been a yearlong dialogue in Iowa, and people have been very receptive to Sen. Clinton," said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for the campaign. "We have identified a lot of supporters, many of whom have never gone to a caucus, and if we can turn them out, we’ll do fine."
But in this state, where the initial battle of the 2008 presidential campaign is being waged, Clinton is confronted with legions of doubters within the party - nearly all of whom, it should be noted, say they’ll support her if she wins the nomination.
A poll published this month by the Des Moines Register found that 30 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers have an unfavorable opinion of the New York senator. Only 13 percent had unfavorable views of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina; for Obama, the figure was 14 percent.
Quote of the Day
If feminists want the first woman elected to the highest office in the land to be successful, they will be a little more patient. If they want to show the country and the world that a woman can lead the United States just as effectively as a man, they will wait for a truly accomplished, competent, and worthy candidate to emerge from their ranks. They will find someone who can unite the country and leave a legacy they, and the rest of us can be proud of.
And they will tell Hillary, “You go girl! - right back to New York.”
CNN and Hillary Destabilize Pakistan
By Cliff Kincaid
In the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Wolf Blitzer of CNN made much of an e-mail, exclusively provided to him by a close associate of Bhutto and a Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton is Jimmy Carter on Steriods!
When Jimmy Carter pulled the Persian rug out from under the Shah, we wound up with the Ayatollah Khomenei and a line of spiritual/political descendants culminating in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Terence Jeffrey has now pointed out that by her highly-critical statements undermining Pervez Musharraf, Hillary Clinton
The editor-in-chief of CNS News.com, NB’s sister organization, has thus described Clinton as "Jimmy Carter on steroids."
Source: Newsbusters
Why Bill Really Wants Hillary to Lose
“Is it possible that Bill Clinton secretly or unconsciously is sabotaging Hillary’s campaign?” asks new media pundit Thomas Lifson, adding that after all, nobody “has access to the private thoughts of the man…”
This is true, but private thoughts are not the criteria by which people are, or should be, judged. The only empirical evidence we have of the interior life of any person lies solely in his or her behavior. And when it comes to behavior, Bill Clinton has told us for decades, and is telling us now, everything we need to know about him and his motives.
Without repeating many of the issues I’ve already written about the former president – his misguided policies, which compromised our national security; his cringe-producing, lip-biting public appearances; and the treasonous speeches he’s given against the current administration, on foreign soil and often to our enemies – my intention here is to affirm Lifson’s suspicions.
During his eight years as president, Bubba told us repeatedly that:
- Lying to the American public was perfectly okay
- Serial adultery was none of our business
- Deeply embarrassing his wife, child, mother, and country was “a private matter”
- Placing his entire cabinet in the untenable role of supporting his lies was his imperial privilegeImpeachment for perjury and being disbarred were mistakes of our country’s century’s-old legal system
- The few journalists who wrote about his innumerable flaws and failed policies were “unfair”
- Violating the sanctity of the White House’s Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky was okay
- Misusing the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash was okay
- Selling our most precious national-security secrets to our enemies for cold hard campaign cash was also perfectly okay
All of these behaviors benefited one person and one person only – Bill Clinton. Who acts like this? Who thinks like this? What kind of person believes that anything he does or says or wants or needs trumps common decency and, in Clinton’s case, national security?
Narcissists do! And malignant narcissists like Bill Clinton lead the pack.
What Is Narcissism?
According to the DSM-IV, the bible of the American Psychiatric Association, narcissism is described as both a personality and character disorder, with the following symptoms:
- A pervasive pattern of grandiosity
- Self-centered, egotistical behavior
- An exaggerated sense of self-importance
- A lack of empathy
- Exploitative interpersonal relationships
- Taking advantage of others to achieve one’s own ends
- The need to be seen as special and unique and the expectation of special treatment
- The need for excessive admiration, adulation, attention, affirmation, deference, and praise
- The impulse to strike out in rage
- A sense of entitlement
- Lying without conscience
- Always blaming others
- Ignoring or denigrating the accomplishments of others
- Envy of others
Over the course of Clinton’s lengthy political career, hundreds if not thousands of authors, journalists, commentators worldwide, and also victims, have documented or testified under oath to all of the above, leaving no doubt about the ex-president’s voracious appetite for attention, insatiable lust for the spotlight, spectacular exploitation of everyone from his family to his underlings to his girlfriends, as well as his liberal replacement of facts and truth for whopper lies, to cite just a few examples,
Hillary’s Universal Pre-K and Governor Rounds
I don’t know how many of you have seen Hillary Clinton
Before I get into that and the current situation regarding Hillary, I will first provide some background information, which you will find links to at my "Public Education Linksa" section of my sidebar. First I will address the "voluntary" aspect with this excerpt form the FedEd: Education for the Global Government link:
Thus even though the exact wording of bills like Goals 2000 described them as "voluntary," in the postmodernist-Orwellian universe of FedEd where nothing means what it says, and where HR 6 stipulates that the U.S. Department of education can simply withhold federal money from any state not signing on to the new program (pp. 92-93), states won’t choose autonomy. Surprise, surprise; "voluntary" or not, all 50 states eventually signed on. After all, school districts were already dependent on federal money, and every federal dollar comes with strings attached. They had no choice except to introduce the official textbooks of FedEd, such as the above-mentioned We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. Despite the title, this text portrays the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as superior to the U.S. Constitution.
Another means of enforcement is through gaining control of early childhood education, including infant education. It is interesting to compare such statements with one of the slogans thrown around back in the 1990s, associated with both Goals 2000 and STW: "All children will begin school ready to learn." Ready to learn how, by what means, and in what respect? What this statement is really promoting is not families’ beginning educating very small children but rather "arrangements involving families, communities, or institutional programmes, as appropriate…" (quoted on p. 107).
Hillary’s move to benefit from Bhutto’s Assassination
I must admit I was not surprised by the reactions to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Our presidential candidates, from both sides, offered condolences to her family and "grieving" nation. That is, except for Hillary Clinton
"I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile."
Even though they met once (maybe twice) during the Clinton Administration’s eight years, it didn’t take long for Hillary’s campaign to release a relevant photo.
During a conversation with Laura Ingraham on Thursday night’s "The O’Reilly Factor", she interviewed a former member of CAIR for reaction. He said something like the assassination of Bhutto was of the same magnitude as when John F. Kennedy was killed.
Funny, I don’t remember Americans taking to the street in mass grieving, and quickly evolving into murderous rabble. Nice try….
But what many don’t seem to have noted is that the terrorists have now officially graduated from merely killing civilians en masse. They now seem quite comfortable creating their brand of chaos by targeting political leaders. Judging from the results in the streets, it may not be long before we see more leaders targeted, as many in that part of the world are easily whipped up into a frenzy, taking to the streets in violent protest.
