To save Johnny the trouble of navigating the perilous waters (no pun intended) of embedding a YouTube Video.

This is very disturbing, but illustrates volumes. Watch it to the very end and see President Clinton admit the obvious:

Hopefully, as Johnny put it, this will mean the beginning of the end of Barack Obama, given that Frank Raines is one of his top financial advisors.

These are a couple of excellent articles (here and here, registration required and recommended) from Clive Crook at the Financial Times.  He points out how obviously the Liberal Elite and the Democratic party hold in low regard the very people they purportedly are so ardently representing.  A couple of excerpts:

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

And…

Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess would be that there are now more journalists on assignment in Alaska than bothered to turn up for the Republican convention in St Paul, sifting through dustbins, interrogating Palin family acquaintances (extra credit for those with a grievance) and subjecting Ms Palin’s expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not withstand.

Of course, they will find things. They may even find something important. But the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and family embarrassments is rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I think that many voters – and not just committed Republicans – find this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of everything else Ms Palin is now getting a sympathy vote.

I, like the author, can’t help but laugh at the trap that the Democrats have walked into here.  It’s very simply a microcosm and expose on their attitudes in general.  It’s particularly amazing to me when I have conversations with supporters of Obama (you know who you are) who accuse McCain and Palin (and all their EVIL minions) of deliberately and consistently manipulating and fooling the American people into following them.  As if their beliefs have absolutely no value in and of themselves, it’s simply the Republican machine grabbing power.  You can’t simply disagree with the Liberal viewpoint, you simply must be too dense and stupid to grasp it.  There’s an astounding sense of intellectual snobbery matched by a decided lack of intellectual depth that continually boggles the mind.

The further irony (as Mr. Crook adeptly points out) is that Obama himself would never abide by this nonsense.  If his latest book is any indication, he seeths at the concept of insulting an entire group of people based on their beliefs.  And even though his campaign has eventually made its way into a predictable and depressing class warfare stump speech, I believe as the author does that his initial reaction to Palin was the right one, and it was a sincere one.  Unfortunately, the undeniable support he receives from the media is not matched by a solid control of it, and he couldn’t stop them from descending on Wasila like a pack of wild Banshees trying to find crazy preachers and 2nd grade classmates of Palin who would talk bad about her.

This doesn’t really surprise me, because I read “Audacity of Hope.”  In the book it is very evident that Obama has made his Christian affiliation based on convenience and politics (he essentially says it).  It didn’t really disturb me too much, but I’ve made it evident before (can’t find the post–but I’m sure I did…really) that it wasn’t my favorite thing about him.

But to be a member of this Church goes a little beyond the pail.

As someone who has recently (admittedly cautiously–and so far unsuccessfully) confronted the racist tendencies of his own Church back home, it disturbs me that someone with as good of a chance to be President as Senator Obama would be a member of a Church with so much racist dogma that it would give Lewis Farrakhan an award for “Person of the Year.”

My good friend, Jimmy, constantly tells me:  Satan is a divider.  Anyone who not only visits, talks to, acknowledges, but is a member of such a divisive and racist congregation is going to have a hard time convincing me that he’s really a uniter.

You see, I’m beginning to think that Senator Obama thought that if he wrote this cool book, that people would just stop paying attention and trust him.  The problem I suppose is that the book made many START to pay attention to him.  And that hasn’t been good for him.

There’s only one question for me really:

If a high-profile Presidential Candidate belonged to or closely affiliated with a WHITE racialist Church, would we hear about in the press?

And the corollary: And what if they were a pro-choice, Universal Health Care-supporting, anti-war, Democrat that belonged to a WHITE racialist Church?

In other words:  Is Obama getting a free pass on this relationship because he’s a Democrat or because he’s Black?  Or both?

WooHooooo!!!

I’m surprised he didn’t stick it through to the convention and cut a deal, but it’ll all depend on who he chooses to support, and when.  One would think, given his message of “Change, change, change, for the sake of change,” that he would support Obama, but that would assume a modicum of intellectual honesty that I would not credit the populist son of a factory worker.

According to the article below, BILL Clinton seems to define voter intimidation today in Nevada.

Huffington Post article

Does anyone get this feeling that the Clintons had a lot at stake here? Seems the intimidation worked better for the Clintons, because she won:

Mouth of the Potomac

Does anyone but me find the whole Caucusing concept the opposite of Democratic?

WSJ article and a The Nation article (fair and balanced as usual) which talk about the Clinton camp’s efforts to suppress the casino workers’ votes in Nevada, after their unions endorsed Obama.

Of course Clinton doesn’t miss a beat and accuses Obama’s camp of orchestrating Voter Intimidation (via union bosses staring down employees if they dare to go Clinton).

Suppressing the vote by disenfranchisement and voter intimidation is never taboo if it fits the right interests. If Republican candidates every did anything resembling suppressing an inner city vote…or having church leaders intimidate members into caucusing the right way, we would all NEVER hear the end of it.

“…It seems my hypocrisy knows…no bounds.”

I thought I’d post this for you guys since I’m sure you’ll get a huge laugh out of it

Happy New Year!

I’m so tired, I’m just going to give you my play-by-play and then summarize my impressions on each candidate. Most of the questions were from YouTubers and those questions (abbreviated) are in Italics:

Dodd vs Obama: Experience vs. Change

What does the word Liberal mean?

• Hillary makes a great point about the term, it doesn’t mean what it used to mean: limited government. “Modern Progressive” is what she prefers to call herself, {meaning…um…not-limited government.}

Gravel: Takes on Obama as taking “bundlers.” Obama gets huge applause. “the reason you know is that I passed a law saying I had to disclose it.” {Didn’t really answer the question.}

What Republicans would you work with?

• Joe Biden: Chuck Hagel as his VP, and Dick Luger at Sec of State.
• Edwards: How do we bring about change? Take power away from political opponents instead of compromising with them. FIGHT!

Reparations?:

• Edwards: African Americans pay more for mortgages in South Carolina? {It apparently never occurs to him that your African American in South Carolina would have worse credit than an average White American (for a plethora of reasons). But hey…let’s FIGHT the Mortgage Lenders. Take them on. It’s a war.}
• Obama: invest in Education. That’s a better form of reparations.
• Kucinich supports Reparations? Or does he? It was unclear whether he was actually supporting it. Could have been rhetoric. But it sounded like he really supported it.

Katrina?

• Dodd: shame, shame, shame…{Gulf States…white people were wiped out, too.}
• Richardson: (bad sound quality). Eliminate any red tape? Predatory lending of insurance companies? {I think he’s drunk.}

Authentically black? Authentically female?

• Obama: Catching a cab in Manhattan. I believe in core decency of American people.

Who would be better advocate for women? Edwards or Clinton?

• Hillary running not because she’s a woman
• Edwards I don’t want racists’ and sexists’ votes. 9+ minimum wage. Fight Fight Fight.
• Hillary I’ve advocated for Women all my life.

Gay Marriage?

• Kucinich: Tough answer: “All are created equal.”
• Dodd distinguishes marriages and civil unions.
• Richardson same distinction; don’t ask don’t tell should go. No discrimination.

Gay Marriage and Religion, put by a Reverend:

• Edwards: Do not believe in opposing civil rights. Distinguishes Civil Rights and marriage. YouTube viewer is there. Fair Housing connection. Using faith as a basis is bad.
• Difference between interracial and same-sex? Obama makes distinction even better. It’s up to the denominations to determine marriage. Rights granted by States should be equal. {Best case for Civil Unions vs. Marriage redefinition.}

Darfur: What action do you commit to?

• Richardson: UN troops. EU sanctions. No fly zone. Humanitarian workers. Caring about Africa.
• Biden: Where we can, we should send. Troops on the ground.
• Clinton: Divestment sanctions on Sudan. No fly zone. Will not commit to troops in Darfur.

How do we pull out now?

• Obama: send a clear message to Iraqi government that they need to stop going off on vacation.
• Biden: It would take a year to get them out. Separate jurisdictions. Begin to draw out now, get majority of . {He seems agitated.}
• Hillary: There is no military solution. Not getting answers from the Administration.
• Kucinich: No more funds.
• Dodd: Need dipolomacy. Noone listens to us when it comes to foreign policy.
• Richardson: Bring them home, now! 6 months!
• Gravel: Soldiers died in vain in Vietnam. Dying in vain, now. Major close up on Gravel. He’s mad.
• Obama: Soldiers doing everything asked of them. Not dying in vain because serving their country.
• Edwards: Never die in vain. put the heat on Bush.

Women register for draft?

• Dodd: sure. Recommends required selective service.
• Obama: Tuskegee Airmen. equates Women with African American soldiers.

Arab states do not respect women. How is Clinton to be taken seriously. (Stupid softball questions for Hillary).

• Clinton: First Lady laundry list. No doubt in anyone’s mind. Germany, Chile, Liberia. Very appropriate for woman to represent U.S.

Meet with Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea?

• Obama: Yes. Not meeting with them doesn’t hurt them.
• Hillary: back to diplomacy. High level Presidential envoys. Why meet with them until we know what the way forward is?
• Edwards: Restore American confidence.

By what date out of Iraq? How many family members do you have in Iraq (relevance?) ?

• Dodd: April of next year. January of 2009 all out.
• Richardson: 6 months and no residual forces. {This guy was ambassador to the UN?}
• Biden: lambasts Senators who voted against funding of equipment to prevent deaths from IEDs. As long as they’re in the field, they need the right equipment. {Thank you, Joe}.
• Clinton: same realistic view. Maybe 1 or 2 brigades a month. That’s a lot of months.
• Kucinich: {completely ignoring reality.} Text him and they’ll magically be able to bring them home…like immediately.

Education: Who was your favorite teacher?

• Gravel: teacher who recognized his learning disabilities.
• Obama: someone who had also been to kenya and made him feel proud of his International experience.
• Biden: (Unintelligible–sound quality).
• Edwards: teacher that believed boy from mill could make something of himself

NO child left behind–Scrap or Salvage?:

• Richardson: takes funds away that aren’t doing well. 40,000 a year minimum pay, art, dance, etc.
• Biden: voted for it because of Ted Kennedy, but now feels it needs to me scrapped. Smaller classrooms, better teachers.

Would you send your kids to private school?

Edwards: two kids in public school.
HIllary: tough decision to send Chelsea. {WHAT? Her dad was the fricking President. Why was it a tough decision?}
Gravel: need a little competition in public schools. Not sure whether he’s talking about vouchers or what.
Dodd: accountability in schools is important.

Planned Parenthood. Sex Education.

• Edwards: “inappropriate touching”
• Obama: echoes Edwards. Some parents don’t take responsibility, though (so of course schools should)

Does the Al Gore question hurt your feelings?

Global Warming?

• Kucinich: Away from reliance on oil. Connects foreign policy and energy.

Alternative energies?

• Gravel: Change our tax structure. Tax spending.
• Dodd: 50 mile/gallon by 2017…Corporate carbon tax?
• Cooper asks who flew Private jets to the debate. Almost everyone raises their hand. Kucinich and Gravel did not.

Global Warming? Nuclear power?

• Edwards: very costly.
• Obama: no silver bullet. national interests ahead of special interests.
• Clinton: taking money away from oil companies and setting up a special fund.

Standardizing voting policies?

• Richardson: paper trails…50% turnout unacceptable. Get the Republican party to stop suppressing minority vote.

Will you work for Minimum wage?

• Clinton: sure.
• Everyone else: Raise minimum wage.
• Obama: we all have money. Of course we could do it. (A little stab at Romney).

Social Security–raise contributing salary above 90,000?:

• Dodd: no privatization
• Richardson: 401k universal pension. Bipartisan.

Taxes?

• Biden: Change the tax structure. More progresive of course. “We need more revenue.” (Shivers go down my spine.)
• Kucinich: no wars, no NAFTA. No more taxes.

Alzheimers? Diabetes? Preventative medicine? Health Insurance?

• Obama: not mandating coverage, but giving all opportunities. Obama says he’s gonna fight drug and insurance companies.
• Edwards: must be mandated. Cleft pallate story. When are we gonna DO something about it. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.
• Clinton: Universal Health Care is an American value.

Health Care coverage for undocumented workers?

• Dodd: Yes
• Richardson: yes, and prevention is crucial.

Bush Clinton, Bush….Clinton?

• Clinton: sure
• Gravel: Wall Street money
• Obama: uniting, changing, fighting.

In God we trust?

• Biden: deep religious beliefs and ability to use reason are not mutually exclusive (great point).
• Edwards: Never will I impose my religious beliefs on the American people.

Atheist…concerns over pandering to evangelical vote.

• Obama: faith informs what I do.

Guns:

• Richardson: mental imbalanced and criminal
• Biden: Assault weapons ban.

Overall impressions of each candidate:

Clinton: very on key. Very studied. Very polished. Looked, acted, and spoke the part.
Obama: thoughtful, usually very “audaciously hopeful”, but managed to pick up a little too much of Edwards’ vibe.
Dodd: Nothing really stands out.
Gravel–just mad.
Kucinich–very happy. Very proud of his “text for peace” deal. Acted like a kid.
Biden–Seems like the Ron Paul, just looking around trying to figure out why everyone has gone so crazy.
Edwards–Fight. I’m a fighter. I’ve fought Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Grape. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Richardson–Seemed to ramble. Incomprehensible on Iraq. Definitely didn’t come across as a former UN Rep.

Conclusions: Look everyone knows that I disagree with 90% of everything all these chumps say, so I’ll do the best I can. In my opinion, there are only three people on the stage that really make any sense: Obama, Hillary, and Biden. The others (in my right-wing-nut-job view) are just clowns. Edwards is the most disturbing to me, not because he’s the most nutty, but because he’s nutty and has such a broad-based appeal.

Hillary, as much as I’d love to simply look at her ideas and not who she is, it becomes really hard to do when I hate all of her ideas. Obama, I really want to believe is what he’d like us to believe he is–new blood, reasonable, empathetic to the conservative view, hopeful. It’s hard to believe that, though, when most of his recent speeches are very familiar boiler-plate liberal rhetoric.

Biden is my favorite on the stage. When he talks about foreign policy, he knows what he’s talking about. If I had to vote for one of them, it would be him. I think he’s wrong on a lot of things, but I wouldn’t be scared at night knowing he was Commander-in-Chief. His domestic politics is predictably not in line with mine (”tax cuts to the top 1%”, “need more revenue”, etc.), but I could live with that if I knew he would not just start throwing our troops around. I’m aware he’s not always on this target, and guilty of petty party politics and grandstanding to Pentagon interviewees he most definitely is. But at least he speaks English.

But he doesn’t have much of a shot…I know. But can you imagine a Hunter/Biden runoff? Or a Huckabee/Obama?

Sadly, at this point, I’d put my money (if not necessarily my vote) on a Hillary/Rudy runoff.

Back to the debate, it was very disappointing that very little attention went to:

• Immigration
• War on Terror (or whatever it’s supposed to be called)
• Iran
• Taxes
• National Debt

Truthfully, even the issues that were discussed were not discussed substantively. It’s not hard to figure out why, though…

Number one: very few serious questions were asked from the conservative point of view. The tax question was asked with a song, and the gun question was asked by someone who called his assault rifle his “baby.” The liberal position did not need to be defended, argued, or questioned. Many things were taken as gospel truth from the get-go: A military victory in Iraq is impossible; Universal Health Care is obviously to answer to the Health Care; Global Warming was so obvious it was barely discussed.

Number two: it’s the challenging party, so a lot of time can be spent bashing the incumbent without requiring too much bashing each other, or arguing your point.

I made it through it, though…the whole gruelling 120 minutes. Give me a fricking medal.

In an attempt to remember to watch the Democratic Presidential debates tonight, I wanted to point to this article about Dodd’s dissatisfaction with the debate format.

Tonight is the first Democratic National Committee-sanctioned debate in Charleston, SC. After watching a few of these debates, I have to agree with Mr. Dodd wholeheartedly on this:

“They’re not even debates. You get 30 seconds to answer a question. It’s insulting to the audience,” Dodd said to a Des Moines Register reporter following a stop Saturday night at Ritual Cafe in downtown Des Moines. “If you have a 30 second answer on these issue, you have no business running for the presidency, or ever being elected.”
…
“It’s not terribly enlightening. It’s like throwing bumper stickers out – who gets an applause line. As if somehow that’s an informative discussion for the American people to draw better conclusions for who these people are,” Dodd said. “It demeans the office of the presidency, it minimizes the office – you look like a bunch of third graders.”

Of course the interesting thing about the debate is the fact that YouTube (a Google company, of course) is helping sponsor the debate by letting YouTube users submit questions over video. The L.A. Times talks about this question posed by one of these said users:

Sen. Clinton, I think you would make a great president. But there’s a question that deserves to be answered before the end of the primaries, because it could affect your ability to run against a strong Republican: Has your husband, Bill Clinton, engaged in adulterous behavior since he’s left office?

Wow…I’m sure that one will make the cut. Although, I’m not an Anderson Cooper fan (by a LONG-shot) I promise I will do my best to make it all the way through the debate and offer commentary.

DesMoinesRegister.com

Caught the GOP debate on politico.com tonight. Not going to go into the candidates here, but something I saw that relates to Loudoun politics.

I think the politico.com submitted questions are a great example of why a convention is the right choice for the Loudoun GOP. Admittedly I have no proof, but still it was blatantly obvious to me that a number of those questions were written by liberals/Democrats for the candidates… “What’s one thing you hate about America?” “What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” Or the question to Giuliani about his regrets and blacks in NYC.

This is the kind of nonsense you get from libs trying to interfere with the GOP’s debate, and it’s no different than having a nomination process that is open to Democrats.

Jim