Hillary's Lame Argument

While testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday on the effectiveness of torture techniques, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (sorry, I can't help but giggle) was pressed by House Republicans.

They want the administration to release more documents which, according to former VP Dick Cheney, will show the program's success.

Hillary thought it was a perfect opportunity to slam Cheney stating,

It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information.

I can almost hear Obama supporters cheering at the line.

Problem. If Hillary thinks Cheney is so unreliable, why not release the documents he says the Obama administration is suppressing? Wouldn't that prove her theory?

Let's shed a little more sunshine on the subject Hillary. Unless of course you know it will make you look like a fool.

It's Official

Hillary just made it official, she's throwing her delegates to Obama. The Democratic party has selected Barack Obama to be its nominee for President of the United States.

Actually, a well executed show for the Dems. And a gift for the GOP!

DNC Night Two - Barack Will Re-Define Time

While watching MSNBC last night - don't ask me why - I heard Spike Lee make a comment during an interview from the convention floor and nearly spit my beverage across the room.

Referring to how much things will change with an Obama presidency, Lee stated,

It's going to be before Obama, B.B., and after Obama, A.B. - and some folks better get used to it.

Never mind that Spike apparently can't form a proper initialism, I was convinced it would be the last time the remarks would see the light of day. Thanks to this article, I see I was wrong.



Hillary's speech last night, combined with Bill's earlier in the day, doesn't seem to indicate the Clinton's are ready to give up just yet.

Until the actual delegates are counted, I still see a possible fight brewing. That will be Must-See-TV.

Summary...Strrrrrettttccchhh

Passed Over

Call Off the Fat Lady?

This report comes courtesy of Drudge. Hillary supporters are remaining true to their darling heroine. Two groups, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) and the Just-Say-No-Coalition, claim they will never support Obama in the fall campaign.

The groups are planning protests at the Democratic convention in Denver later this month. Despite Obama's call to seat all of the Michigan and Florida delegates and Hillary's (uh hem) fully-pledged support, these groups intend to continue fighting.

Unofficial reports indicate Operation Chaos embeds are ready to stir the pot, inciting the leftists' rage.

On another note, the Dems are sure to mark two key anniversaries during convention week with all the pomp and circumstance only victim-based whining can create.

August 26th will be the 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (giving women the right to vote), and is the same night as Hillary's prime time speech. One can just envision the tributes by the MSM.

However, those will pale in comparison to the evening when Barry takes the stage. Historians and Obama's campaign will be sure to remind us that August 28 is the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream' speech on the mall in Washington.

Of course, page13 will be raising its glass to another date in history - the 40th anniversary of the Chicago riots.

Clinton, 'Change the Constitution'

Hillary wants to change the Constitution (see this) to give full voting rights in the House of Representatives to all United States territories including Guam, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Samoa. Currently, such representation is only bestowed upon states.

Not exactly an earth-shattering stance, but since Guam was in the spotlight, why not pander? It didn't help Hillary much however, Obama wins by 7 votes.

Forget super delegates, now that the residents of Guam have weighed in on the battle, is there any more to be said? The idea is just as good as the current Democrat process, isn't it?

The victory in the tiny South Pacific island caucuses does nothing to breathe new life into Barack's campaign. The wheels are clearly coming off his train.

Notes from the Battle Field

Random thoughts following Pennsylvania's primary...

Hillary wins by double digits. Cheers went up in at least one Republican gathering last night.

The newest MSM question is, why can't Obama seal the deal? If only they had come up with the question on their own.

The MSM exposed themselves as the biased frauds they are, as shown in this article, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

Finally, Jesus Christ got 6 write-in votes in one Montgomery County polling location. The same poll had multiple mass-produced Republican sample ballots (the green pieces of paper volunteers distribute before you enter polling locations) which appeared to be official. One problem; committee people can not be endorsed as these fraudulent ballots claimed. It seems Lisa Paolino isn't the only Republican attempting to pull the wool over voters eyes.

Primary Winner?

Now that the Democrat Circus tour of Pennsylvania is almost over, let's review.

In the first Philly debate in November, Clinton whiffs on a simple question about illegals in New York being given drivers licenses.

In February, Clinton whines about having to field the first question in debates.

The Abington School Board gives in to pressure from Josh Shapiro and the Obama campaign, to reverse school board policy 48 hours before the March 13th rally.

Obama gives an empty speech about race March 18th, not to disassociate himself from clear anti-American rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright, but rather to point fingers at the typical white folk who make the reverend feel the way he does.

Clinton manufactures and exaggerates the danger she faced when traveling to Bosnia. Sniper-gate (I love the irony for the former Watergate lawyer) cements the notion that Hillary will say anything to appear as though she has gravitas.

Obama, showing his true opinion about Democrat middle-class white folk, makes his guns and religion clutching comments, followed by a awkward backpedal.

Obama and his supporters whine over tough questioning last Thursday from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. Both Clintons pile on, calling Barack a whiner. Hey Hill, remember the first question?

Add President Carter's embrace of Hamas, it's not an impressive six weeks from the Democrats. The primary winner in Keystone State? Clearly, McCain and the GOP.

'Limbaugh Republicans' with Hillary?

Hillary Clinton made an odd proclamation while going door-to-door in Chestnut Hill, yesterday. She stated, "a Rush Limbaugh Republican told me he is a supporter, because at 46, he finally realized he didn't have health care".

Hillary, following sniper-gate, should be more careful telling tall tales. Democrats are proud to boast about record-breaking registrations in the Keystone State, but to think she has convinced ditto-heads to vote for socialism is more than a stretch.

Of course it's possible she bumped into an covert agent of Operation Chaos.

Watergate Conspiracist?

Hat tip to Pajamas Media for a story by Dan Calabrese about Hillary and her methods of operation. It's a fascinating look at the young Clinton and her unconstitutional attempts to deny an American citizen legal representation.

Clinton was fired by her supervisor, House Judiciary chief of staff Jerry Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, as a result of her behavior.

Surprised? Not I.

Major Policy Dud

Poor Hillary can't catch a break.

After Obama dominated last week's news, Clinton may have thought the country was ready to hear from her again. Hillary's major policy speech on the economy should have been refreshing, uplifting, and well covered, right? After all, the topic was focused on the economy, stupid.

But timing is everything. While she didn't do herself any favors by scheduling a speech at Montco Community College later in the day, to talk about "women's issues", double dipping on policy wasn't her biggest problem.

The 4,000th soldier deaths in Iraq, a story the MSM just couldn't wait to pounce on, overshadowed the major policy speech on the economy. Then Detroit's Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, completed the Democratic hat trick for sex scandals this month, later in the day.

Perhaps it's best for Clinton Inc. her message(s) came and went without much fanfare. The more the American people hear, the less impressed they'd become.

By the way, 4,000 in Iraq (plus 498 in Afghanistan and the Philippines) in 5 years verses...
(All theater and non-theater deaths - source)
116,000 in WWI
405,000 in WWII
29,000 D-Day Invasion alone
54,000 in Korea
90,000 in Vietnam
1,900 in 1st Gulf War

Operation Chaos Working

Up front, this is Limbaugh's plan. So props to Maha Rushie.

For those of you who don't know what I am referring to, here's a brief summary.

It started in Texas, when callers to Rush's show suggested they were going to switch parties to vote against Hillary; putting the then-assumed final nail in her primary coffin.

Rush dropped the suggestion that keeping Hillary in the race would be a better idea. He felt it was to GOP's advantage to keep the self-assumed-heir to the White House throne alive. The ensuing battle between the two democrat camps would be entertaining to watch, if nothing else.

The next phase was to point out an underlying issue within the democrat party. Clinton Inc., who always championed themselves as the party for African Americans, would never let their goal to re-capture the White House be interupted by anyone, let alone a Jonny-come-lately.

What's followed couldn't have been planned, so in that respect Rush didn't craft the details of operation chaos. No, democrats instead created the chaos themselves.

First, they tinkered with the idea of changing their own primary rules after it became clear Clinton couldn't mathematically win. They've chosen instead to leave 2 mojor states delegates out in the cold, hoping they will forget come November.

Then came Reverened Wright and Obama's suddenly-awkward response to his ridiculous statements. Some in the MSM would like us to believe Barack gave a King-like speech last week, but voters nationwide were not moved.

Now we are back to the super-democrat-delegates picking their candidate, never mind what the voters want. Can someone say selected, not elected?

After 3 weeks in the spotlight, Pennsylvania is helping to mold the national picture. Since the Democrat version of Keystone Cops arrived in Pennsylvania, John McCain is suddenly leading both Clinton and Obama in the polls.

Sure, registration numbers for democrats in the Keystone State are surging. But the view in the rest of the country is souring on the party of change. The donkey's don't need to win PA, this state is blue already. It's the 2004 red states where they need to make inroads, and so far, they're not doing a good job.

From Pastor Disaster, to disenfranchisement, to a lack of accomplishments by either candidate, democrats have got themselves in a pickle. Do you think they will ever notice? Shhh, I'm not telling them.

Selected Not Elected

Remember the outrage of leftists following the 2000 election when electoral votes gave the Oval Office to Bush, despite losing the popular vote?

Sidebar - once upon a time, and occasionally still, they cried about how the Supreme Court gave Bush the office, not the American people. Until they couldn't find a single independent study to prove Gore won Florida's popular vote.

The Democrat primaries have failed to provide a clear winner. Each side claims their candidate is more deserving than the other. Obama followed the rules and has both the popular vote and delegate lead. Hillary has the big momentum and super-delegates to fall back on.

It's an interesting quandary for the Democrat party. The rules established before the primaries began prohibited Florida and Michigan from moving their primary dates forward. When they did it anyway, leaders (Clinton lead at the time) chose to punish those states by stating their delegates wouldn't be recognized at the convention.

The Clinton machine never saw the possibility of Obama making this race competitive, so they thought they had nothing to lose. Hillary after all, was supposed to have this thing wrapped up by this point.

Now that she failed to secure the nomination, it's the Clinton camp arguing to count those two states while Obama is claiming (much like Republicans did in 2000) you can't change the rules after the results have been determined.

Florida and Michigan voters are saying, "hey, we count too". If the Democrats disenfranchise those voters, it can't possibly help their chances come November; two states they desperately need.

Younger voters who signed on for the Obama campaign, only to see it stolen right out from under them, will not be enthused about being denied their wish. Older voters with an ability to recognize socialism when they see it, will not hop on the Obama bandwagon and will turn to the more moderate-appearing McCain. A bonus for McCain are the veterans, who unlike their younger counterparts are reliable on election day.

Finally, Democrat voters are being shown their party for what it is. They are both hopeless agents for change, and lawyer-istic bullies who manipulate rules to gain what they want. Democrats are getting a good dose of what Republicans have been saying for years.

Seems funny to me, every time Presidential elections get complicated, Florida is somehow involved.

Getting Nasty

Unbelievable story about a nasty fight between a Collegeville man and his brother in law over their favorite presidential candidates.

Two interesting observations. First, according to the story, the stabber (and Hillary supporter) is registered republican?? Second, if this is what's happening to democrat voters now, how bad will late October be?

Post New Hampshire

Ok, so the comeback kids won New Hampshire, and the point is? The first primary has been known to give life to otherwise floundering campaigns, but can the Live Free or Die State really have a lasting impact on the remaining primary battles? The primary did make this race an open one, on both sides. Clearly, the Dems are down to two candidates; the GOP though still has at least four viable options.

If Clinton doesn't get the democrat nod. The potential for a Hillary-less general election fight changes the entire landscape. The main motive for my early rooting interest in Rudy was his contrast against Clinton. The comparison between Obama and Rudy isn't as appealing.

Against Obama, if Barack is indeed the new front-runner for the donkeys, Rudy looks old and frail. Against the charm and charisma of Obama you need a confident and informed candidate. And with that potential battle on the horizon, Romney is starting to look like quite an interesting alternative to the shaky Giuliani.

Romney put the issue of immigration (top conservative issue after the war) out of the park on Fox's Sunday night debate; amnesty in any form is not acceptable. Second, Mitt was on target regarding changing the culture in Washington (another conservative sticking point). At last, Romney appears to be finding his voice regarding the difference between Pennsylvania avenue and the rest of us.

McCain seemed more measured Sunday night than in recent debates. Trying to appear stoic and carefully avoiding anything which would jeopardize his recent rise in the polls. However, the fake smile always reminds me of campaign finance reform, and because of that image, he could walk on water and I'd never notice. Independents however, still like the "maverick" and clearly turned to him rather than getting sucked into the Obama wave.

I never bought into the Huckster's rise, having seen many Iowa winners fade quickly once the more-liberal New Hampshire voters had their say. Once I peeled back some layers on Huckabee, it wasn't hard to find some major flaws in his campaign. Primarily, the evangelical wing of the conservative movement that Mike represents, is too single-issue-focused for my taste.

I have to admit, I underestimated Mitt's talent and focus. His broad business knowledge, his record in turning around the Olympics, and his ability to think on his feet, maintaining big-picture thinking during the heat of a debate (something Bush never possessed), all are making me reconsider his candidacy. His reference to China as a competitor to the US, shows he's tuned into the global marketplace (whether we like globalization or not) and its changing influence in our economy.

For now I remain undecided, not impressed by McCain's New Hampshire win. Hillary seems to have new life, though the crying moment seemed pathetic and weak. Romney needs to win one of the next few primaries, before Rudy's game plan starts to take hold. Obama hasn't fully captured the moment, yet. His inability to capture the independents tonight could be a sign he doesn't have broad appeal. (note: Why didn't NH independents turn his way? I thought they were moderate libs...hmmm) Huck, Fred and Edwards are afterthoughts.

The picture is starting to take shape, yet remains amazingly vague.

Looking Forward

Rather than look back at 2007, page13news wants to look forward to what may be the most intriguing, not to mention entertaining, election year in 56 years. It was 1952 when we last had neither a sitting President or Vice President running for the Oval Office. Without an heir-apparent to the throne, the race will be unlike anything this generations has ever seen.

It wasn't that long ago, when prevailing wisdom leaned heavily toward another Clinton presidency. But ever since the Philadelphia debate (irony all over the place), Mrs. Bill Clinton has shown definitive cracks in her armor. The presumed-next-president has made a series of sophomoric mistakes which have resulted in free-falling poll numbers in each of the first 4 primary states.

Rumors of in-fighting at Big Clinton Enterprises, her inability to separate herself from her husband, planted questions, and Obama's ability to seize on Hillary's gaffs, have provided the foundation for a major turn of events in the Democrat race. It is starting to look possible that Clinton may lose all four of the early primaries. If that happens, it's all-but over for the former first lady.

So then what for the Dems and their allies? After all, since Florida and the hanging chads, the left has yearned for, and failed to taste, the sweet resounding victory they need, to get over Gore's loss. They and their buddies in the news/entertainment industry have spent over 8 years mocking, insulting, and attacking Bush in ways that have made some in their own party blush (Leiberman comes to mind). They've abandoned the concept of politics ending at the waters edge, called our troops murderers and rapists, called them losers (remember Kerry?), rooted for and insisted that we were losing in Iraq.

They cheered when Social Security reform didn't happen, they accused the administration of blatantly infringing on our civil liberties, and they pointed fingers after Katrina, when the incompetence was clearly their own. Their most compelling arguments are made by late-night comics, not leaders within the Democrat party.

The GOP isn't in any better shape. Although the top few presidential candidates haven't made any glaring, race-ending mistakes, none of them (except for maybe Rudy) inspire confidence or seem to possess the ability to capture an broad audience. Romney and Huck won't sell with moderate voters; Rudy's plan not to focus on Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, finds himself slipping in his most critical state, Florida; Thompson is no Reagan.

The GOP brand is damaged and not all because of Bush. The republican-lead congress squandered opportunities and lost credibility when they were in power. They have shown a complete inability to communicate their message effectively. They've cut deals with Democrats for re-election sake, instead of understanding the long-term effects of their actions.

So what will 2008 have to offer? Actually, there are a lot of reasons to look positively at the possibilities. Think about it. There is potential to have an actual contest leading up to the convention; both of them. Not one candidate on either side is the prohibitive favorite. The new front-loaded primary schedule has so many potential outcomes, that later contests - in Pennsylvania for example - may become the great equalizers. Hillary way ahead here, so is Rudy. If they both win the Keystone State, delegates of both parties may be divided among multiple candidates.

Suddenly, the normally boring party conventions take on a new life. Interests groups of all stripes will be force to deal with people they wouldn't normally. The winner will be the candidate who finds a way to sell the message, to cut deals, to mend fences. And both parties may emerge with completely different definitions of themselves. The Democrats could emerge as a the socialist they've become or the JFK conservative party they used to be, while the GOP could fall back to the Reagan model or appear more like Ron Paul libertarians. Hopefully they abandon the Specter/Bush/McCain/Graham model they currently seemed determined to become.

Without a clear leader emerging from the 16 contenders we have at our disposal, the potential exists for surprising results to surface. An actual debate on the direction our country wants to take, based solely on issues and common sense, may be one outcome. An outcome not rooted in polarization, but reason. One can dream can't he?

Of course, we could see the entire house of cards tumble as well. 2008 could look more like 1968. Such chaos would create the potential for disastrous outcomes. The polarization could get worse; some may see or claim a constitutional crisis exists. You think we are a divided country now, wait until the dust settles from that storm and see what we have.

The point is, no one will be able to definitively tell you how 2008 race will end. However, with all the possibilities out there, it sure will be fun to watch.

Fight Like a Man Hillary

The foundation for electing a woman president, according to the left, is based on the assumption that women are capable of doing and handling anything men can. So why is Hillary (Mrs. Bill Clinton) playing the sex card when it comes to the debates?

Clinton Inc. leveled "mudslinging" charges against Tim Russert and the other wanna-be presidential candidates. What caused the boys to be targeted for such slander? It seems that the girl didn't like the fact that Russert dared to challenge Hillary on the flip-flop she uttered in last week's debate in Philadelphia. The issue revolves around Hillary's answer to a seemingly simple question.

New York's (democrat) governor, Elliot Spitzer, was pushing for ILLEGAL ALIENS to be granted driver's licenses. The question was simple, "do you support the plan?" A simple yes or no answer was called for. But somehow, America's "smartest woman" found herself saying two different things in a span of 2 minutes.

John pretty-boy Edwards at least had the jewels to point it out and Russert followed-up by pressing Clinton on her answers. The result; the girl whined about the vicious slinging of mud and compared the boys pointing out her inconsistent remarks to attacks "right out of the Republican playbook".

Mrs. Bill Clinton, if you can't be held accountable for things you say, without whining like a little girl, what makes you think the American voters should trust you are tough enough (a.k.a. the intestinal fortitude) to be President??