New Civilization News: What's With Hillary?    
 What's With Hillary?29 comments
picture24 Feb 2008 @ 13:25, by Richard Carlson

We must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.

---Indira Gandhi

If we knew that tonight we were going to go blind, we would take a longing, LAST real look at every blade of grass, every cloud formation, every speck of dust, every rainbow, raindrop---everything.

---Pema Chodron

An adult is one who has lost the grace, the freshness, the innocence of the child, who is no longer capable of feeling pure joy, who makes everything complicated, who spreads suffering everywhere, who is afraid of being happy, and who, because it is easier to bear, has gone back to sleep. The wise man is a happy child.

---Arnaud Desjardins

The photo of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, taken by Melanie Burford for the Dallas Morning News, held my attention this morning from the instant I saw it. I think it's a great American face there, worthy of Mt. Rushmore. I'm not kidding, and I'm not saying it's a stone cold face. I mean that's a presidential face we're looking at. There's no doubt in my mind this candidate could handle the job. Except...except...

What is wrong with that picture? This is a portrait of a person in conflict. Cover the left side of her face as you're looking at her. In the half you see there's even a flicker of a smile, an openness, a quality of friendliness that I know she has. Now cover the other half. Woe, there is a person you wouldn't want to cross. Something unforgiving there in someone who's been banged around a lot.

I attempt this crude and rather adolescent psychology on Hillary Rodham Clinton because a certain unpredictability has permeated her campaign as well. If you watched her in debate with Barack Obama Thursday night, you saw it too. I didn't know what she was going to do next. She seems genuinely to like the man when she's standing right in front of him, looking him in the face. But then she'll go back to the it-should-be-in-your-own-words thing, and draw a shudder of disappointment from Obama, and boos from the crowd. Who is this person?

Maureen Dowd goes after it this morning, and while I do some shuddering myself at the masculine/feminine behavior characteristics in the column, I think she's on to something. She thinks Clinton is calculating her different approaches to impress various voting groups. She wants to be tough and macho for some, and sensitive and understanding for others. I think I have to differ with Ms. Dowd on this, though I'm really glad she noticed the stuff and decided to write about it. I'm not sure Senator Clinton is in control of how she's coming off. I think she's reeling from blows received in the ring.

Bill Clinton will be in Athens tomorrow, and I'm afraid the announcement came too late for me to clear my calendar. I do hope to get to it before it's all over, trusting he'll be an hour late like most of these guys. Former President Clinton is the first, and I hope not the last, of the big names to get to this important corner of the state. As the rest of the Ohio continually reminds us, we're rather different here. Some people even refer to Southeast Ohio as the West Virginia part of the state. There's some truth to that, going all the way back to glacial times. But let's not get into climate change.

Or maybe we should. When ARE these candidates going to mention it? And did you see McCain's record of environment votes? [link] Check out the fascinating final part of that blog entry to see how the new legislators, who replaced NINE of the 12 so-called "dirty dozen" in the last election, are doing.

Here's the link to Maureen Dowd's column this morning. [link] Let me say in another criticism of it (and I'm grateful to my online acquaintance Elle for reminding me of this), while Shirley Chisholm's presidential run in 1972 may not have been taken seriously she definitely was a serious candidate. I supported her too, just as far as she could go. [link]

Here's the Dowd column~~~

The New York Times
February 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
¿Quién Es Less Macho?

If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.

How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?

And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.

The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.

Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.

Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.

Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.

Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.

At the University of Texas on Thursday morning, Obama proved that he was not a cowboy in overdrive like W. when he demurred at throwing a spiral because his pass might not be as good as the Longhorn stars’.

After so many years when W. and Cheney stomped on the world and the world glared back, many Americans would like to see their government focus more on those staples of female fiction: relationships and conversation.

At first in Austin, Hillary did not channel Jane Austen. She tried once more to cast Obama as a weak sister on his willingness to talk to Raúl Castro.

Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek. To cheers, he said, “I think that it’s important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.”

Hillary tried to rough up Obama on copying his pal’s language even as she copied her husband’s line from 1992: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people in this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration.”

While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side. Getting New Hampshire misty, she said she was “absolutely honored” to be there with him and that “whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” (Her campaign defended the originality of the John Edwardsian sentiment, saying it had even been expressed by the likes of Lindsay Lohan). The press hailed the moment as heartfelt, but it was simply Hillary’s calculated attempt to woo women and protect her future in the party — by seeming more collegial. She’s furious that the Chicago kid got in the picture.

Her “My sister, my daughter” flip from muscular to tremulous left everyone confused. Many characterized her emulation of empathy as elegiac and submissive.

But she dispelled that Friday morning when she told Evan Smith, the editor of Texas Monthly, that she will push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, despite her promise. Not for herself, mind you, but for them. “It’s in large measure because both the voters and the elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this,” she said.

Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.

Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.

But total domination in the snack arena does not cut the mustard.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

and David Roberts' blog entry~~~

The Nation BLOG | Posted 02/21/2008 @ 5:03pm
Conservationists Give McCain a Big Fat Zero
David Roberts

Today, the League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard, which rates legislators based on their votes on issues of environmental significance. The LCV scorecard has its critics, but it's nonetheless become something of a gold standard when measuring how "green" a lawmaker is.

A couple of big stories emerge from this year's scorecard.

The first speaks for itself:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): 67%
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): 73%
Sen. John McCain (D-Ariz.): 0%
No, that's not a typo. McCain scored a big fat zilch, mainly because missed every single vote LCV scored, including the big votes around the energy bill. (For more on that, see my post on McCain's phantom climate credibility.) McCain was the only Senator to miss every LCV vote -- he was outvoted by legislators who were out sick most of the year, even some who died this year.

If you're dead silent, is it still straight talk?

The other story is that, in LCV's words, "elections have consequences." In 2006 LCV targeted a "dirty dozen" lawmakers. Nine of those lawmakers were defeated. How do their replacements rate? This is from LCV's press release:

• Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA), who scored 90 percent in 2007, replaced Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), whose lifetime score was 7 percent.
• Sen. John Tester (D-MT), who scored 80 percent, replaced Sen. Conrad Burns, (R-MT), whose lifetime score was 5 percent.
• Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), who scored 100 percent, replaced Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), whose lifetime score was 7 percent.
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who scored 100 percent, defeated Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), whose lifetime score was 15 percent.
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who scored 73 percent, replaced Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), whose lifetime score was 15 percent.
• Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), who scored 75 percent, replaced Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC), whose lifetime score was 5 percent.
• Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who scored 100 percent, replaced Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), whose lifetime score was 10 percent.
• Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who scored 87 percent, replaced Sen. George Allen (R-VA), whose lifetime score was 1 percent.

Congrats to LCV for their tireless work on this stuff.

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



24 Feb 2008 @ 23:43 by weneedadream : Feel compassion
I feel compassion for most candidates (including Hillary) today... faced with judgment and attack from all sides... and a populace who largely wants their leaders to their saviors. I dream of a new system of participatory democracy... based on a higher level of consciousness, e.g.

In the meantime, I dream of all candidates working TOGETHER for a greater good, a higher purpose, a shared vision. Crazy? Maybe. I send them letters and energy regularly. Epiphanies HAVE happened (e.g. Saul to Paul)

Re Hillary... on one hand, I am wary of her motives and agenda. On the other hand, I sensed sincerity and softening at the close of the debate.  

25 Feb 2008 @ 10:36 by jazzolog : Thank You
weneedadream for your hopeful comment and contributions here. You own site, linked here, also is an inspiration.  

26 Feb 2008 @ 10:31 by jazzolog : A Day Of Mysteries
OK, not entirely. There was no mystery surrounding Bill Clinton's blitz of Southern Ohio yesterday. His visits to Chillicothe, Portsmouth, Athens, and Lancaster clearly were aimed at young voters. Among other things these are campus towns, with Shawnee State in Portsmouth, and OU at the others. The President had on a jaunty bright red tie, and by the time he got to Athens after 3:00 he still had plenty of energy to match. Any mystery may be how he delivered 4 long major addresses and endured the lengthy car rides without tiring out. As a couple of commentators have mentioned, it's a bit disconcerting to listen to his speech because we're so used to hear him campaigning for himself. Every once in a while he puts in "Hillary says" or "this is what she'll do," but otherwise he could be advocating his own policies. He speaks with the authority of a President, but it's peculiar to see a former president out campaigning. There were no aggressive or derogatory remarks made about Mr. Obama, but perhaps Mrs. Clinton is taking care of that now.

The address probably is best represented at the Toledo Blade, but their story describes his appearance in Bowling Green (another campus town) on Sunday. Governor Strickland seems to be escorting him throughout. Here's coverage in Athens, with a video and what CBS had to say about it .

The debate in Cleveland tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on MSNBC (9:00 - 10:30) probably will include a detour into the biggest mystery of the day. It seems the Drudge Report claimed early yesterday that Clinton aides had sent out a photo of Obama dressed in African garb, taken while he was visiting his father's homeland in Kenya a couple years ago. Apparently the Obama people believed Matt Drudge and went after the Clinton camp with hammer and tongs. Well yeah if it's true, why in the world would Clinton send out any picture of Obama at all, to say nothing of one showing him in a turban? But is it true or is Drudge mistaken? The Clintons denied knowing anything about it...and responded angrily too. The photo is here if you haven't seen it yet and this is more coverage . With this tone and tension rising anyway, the debate tonight seems to be must-see viewing.

Otherwise, a mystery to maybe only a few was the publication yesterday of Issue 2 of The Bulldog Underground. The bulldog is the mascot of the Athens public secondary school sports teams. Obviously no one connected with school administration or, presumably, faculty is involved with this and the masthead declares "Devoted to the Well-Being of the Students at Athens Middle School." What's that supposed to mean? The paper itself is full-color photocopied on 6 pages (both sides: good environmental conscience) with paid ads inside. The writing isn't bad, but seems to me done by someone older than middle school age. Most of the articles are about shootings in schools, but there doesn't seem to be any reference particularly to Athens Middle School. Astonishingly they announced they have a MySpace profile...and sure enough, there it is---with 55 friends so far. On the last page of the paper a message reads, "Remember, if you are aware of the creators of The Bulldog Underground, keep it to yourself!" Do you think there's a chance today will see all mysteries solved?  

26 Feb 2008 @ 15:33 by quinty : The Hussein Osama Obama photo....

And there may be some confusion in the Clinton camp too since at first they didn’t deny putting the photo out. For whatever it’s worth Drudge (I’m not familiar with his radio program) claimed the photo came from the Clinton camp.

And, revealing the kind of self serving flabby thinking common among those who hope to engage in overall general delusions, including themselves, the Clinton camp first claimed Obama should be proud of dressing up in that tribal manner rather than admit the clear aim for putting such a photo out. To tar Obama as a “Muslim” tied to terrorism and all its hostile anti-American implications.

The far right has also been after Obama for not wearing that jingoistic little flag pin and for not covering during the singing of the anthem. The hateful little photo is more characteristic of the far right (“you’re either with us or against us,” “love it or leave it”} but the Clintons are capable of just about anything. Even something as stupid as that if they hope it will help.

Who knows, perhaps some over zealous low echelon aid actually did put it out? Since the right engages in that sort of thing itself it’s hard to believe they would credit the Clinton camp for bringing it up. Since they may not even see it’s a smear.

If Obama gets the nominaton he better become accustomed to this. Since the Hussein Osama Obama twist will haunt him. It's hard to believe Obama's camp put the photo out because these photos tend to work. Are there pockets of deep ignorance, hate, and fear in Texas and Ohio where this kind of slander could work?  

26 Feb 2008 @ 17:46 by a-d : What's with Hillary, -and what's with us
Jazzo, I didn't even read you article. I admit!.... I know Hillary -among- several other OFFICIAL FREEDOM HARBINGERS- vote and will do their damnest to bring the American "Bringing Democracy & Freedom to Iraq"-even if it takes complete Infra- destruction of the whole Nation of Iraq; the Old Mesopotamia, and annihilation of its population. To know that is enough ".... with (&about) Hillary"!
Now, let's take a look at America, in a MILLION TIMES Lighter scenario ( = no REALLY gruesome weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, only a few semi automatic guns in the "right ( read: OBEDIENT) hands.
Here we go: "There you are, sitting fat and happy watching your favorite ball game. It's the bottom of the ninth when WHAMO! A blackout hits and off goes everything powered by AC. The first thing you do instinctively is to look outside for bad weather. But as the sun sets, it's quite clear that it's still the same blue sky you saw all day today. We'll just wait a while and it the power will come back on. It always does.

You call your friend on the other side of town using your cell phone. His power is out too. But you are alerted that your battery is running low, and decide to hang up to conserve it. You ask your family where the flashlight is and put it to work as it begins to get dark. A quick call to the power company yields a soft, melodic voice telling you "Crews are working on the problem. No estimated time of repair is given. Thank you for your patience." Your past experience tells you to forbid anyone to open the fridge, because you want it to retain all the cold you can and keep food in the freezer from melting.

It's getting near midnight and still there is no power. Six hours have passed since it went off. When you try your friend across town, your cell phone shows no signal. That's because the mandatory four hours of backup for the cell tower has long expired. You toss your cell phone down in disgust. Groping around with your flashlight you help your family get to bed. Computers, phones and everything AC powered just isn't working. Everyone might as well go to bed, and so everyone does just that. Things will be better in the morning.

In the morning, you unplug the wireless phone from the wall and plug in your old 70's old faithful telephone from the closet that doesn't need power to work. When you pick it up, there still isn't any dial tone. Then it hits you ­ you and your family are cut off from the world! Out to your vehicle you wander half-dressed, thinking about the food in the fridge starting to melt away into slop. Turning on the car radio yields something you never, ever thought you'd ever hear ­"There was an attack or something happened to the power grid, it's still unclear. Power will not be restored for at least several MONTHS. Stay tuned for more on this emergency radio station for as long as we can still transmit."

Panic starts to set in. Missing last night's ball game suddenly becomes totally irrelevant to you and your family. Your wife hears the broadcast and instinctively looks to you for answers. Her tough, modern-independent-woman persona has suddenly vanished and now she says, "Honey, I'm scared to death - what are we going to do?" The children begin to cry because they too, know this is all bad.

You quickly assess the situation. Fuel is needed to run the generator which you bought right after the last power failure. But five gallons of gas only runs it about 12 hours, so you decide to head up to the gas station with all the empty containers you have. At least you'll be able to bring home enough fuel to run it for a couple days. You begin to drive around, only to find gas stations are closed everywhere. Then you find one, which is apparently still open by the line of cars you see a half-mile long. You look down at your gas gauge as you get in line ­ you've got a half tank of gas. There's no way to tell your wife where you are and that you won't be home for hours.

As you sit in that painful line waiting for your turn, you find that at least you have enough cash to fill the cans and jugs you brought along. While you're waiting, you start seeing National Guard vehicles going by and other vehicles with Canadian flags. "What are they doing here?" you ask yourself. And then there are the super-mad people, who waited in line only to find out they cannot use their bank cards to buy gasoline because the banking networks are down. These people storm off like angry hornets. Finally, two hours later it's your turn to fill up everything you have including your car. And you realize the price has been jacked up to scalp you by more than a dollar a gallon. This simple fuel stop has cost you more than $100.00 - in fact all the cash you had except for the fifty cents left.

Driving back home you turn up the radio again. Why are they talking about condition red? What's that all about? Two hours left to get off the streets? Here and there on major highways you see soldiers starting to set up what look like road blocks, with nearby areas surrounded by Concertina wire. These look like they are for detaining people. Why would they be doing this? "Do they know something I don't?" you ask yourself. You spot a big grocery store, but the sign says "Closed ­ sold out." And there's an army vehicle nearby with two men openly brandishing machine guns and red Maple-leaf flags on their arms, staring right at you. Guess it's time to head home.

As you pull into your driveway you see military Hum-Vs driving around your neighborhood warning everyone that "Martial law has been declared and you are to stay inside your home - or you will be arrested or shot on sight." And they aren't American either! Oh God, they just MIGHT shoot if I go out again! Now it's REALLY getting scary. Your mind races with questions ­ "What about my wife's medications she must take every day to prevent stroke, and my son's Asthma medicine? They can die without these medicines! What about food?"

Suddenly, you feel a terror like you never felt before. How could this happen in America of all places?

Unfortunately, the above scenario is just the beginning of what will happen. No gasoline can be pumped out of storage tanks at gas stations without power, no bank cards will work anymore and very few gas stations have backup generators. Public water will stop working, as generators for the water supply plants, pumping stations and wells run out of fuel.

Los Angeles alone has several giant one thousand horsepower pumps that pump water from the Colorado River over a mountain to LA. This IS their main water supply, and these pumps require so much power to run the facility that it has its own high voltage substation connected to cross-country high tension lines. Food and fuel cannot be delivered to gas stations anywhere because martial law will prohibit the truckers from driving. If a fire breaks out, an entire city or neighborhood can burn to the ground because there will no way to put out the fire without water from the public water supply.

Natural gas pipelines use compressors along their routes, which are actually fueled by the very natural gas they are pumping. These require no AC power to pump natural gas. However, loss of AC power will cause instrumentation to shut down as a needed safety measure, and this could shut down the entire gas pipeline. High pressures are involved, and without instrumentation, metering and computers pipeline operators would be running blind which is too dangerous. No more natural gas for cooking, hot water or heating. And the operators will immediately return home to their families. After all, what do they have to gain by staying at their jobs? There will not be any further paychecks.

Water treatment plants require massive pumps to filter and pressurize water mains. When AC power fails so will the water supply fail, when generators run out of diesel fuel. Water company workers will also head straight home to be with their families when condition red takes place rather than have to live for years at a water treatment plant, eventually starving to death.

Sewer systems today all require massive pumps to process sewage, grind up solids, power rakes that constantly skim and scrape tanks to clear debris and filter the effluent. Gravity filtered sewage treatment plants are a thing of the past. Many neighborhoods in cities across America have pumping stations installed deep below street level. These pumps grind up and pump sewage under pressure up to a sewer line. This is required because the "lay of the land" puts people's basements below the level of the gravity-powered main sewer line. When these pumps go down from lack of power, entire neighborhoods will have toilets back up. Sinks, showers, bathtubs etc will no longer work, and will become serious health hazards. It was sewage material carried by rats that started the Plague of Europe. Cholera is yet another serious hazard, and so is Staphylococcus among others.

Though newer homes have sewer and water main check valves, there is no guaranty they will always work properly when needed. Imagine sewage backing up into your home, and you can't even go outside to get away from it without being shot or arrested. And even worse, there won't be any running water available to flush the filth out of your home. You'll either have to live with it - along with the flies and disease that go with it, or go outside and be arrested or shot.

Now, you think this is as bad as it gets? No it isn't. Without food, tens or even hundreds of millions of people will literally starve to death. Some will resort to cannibalism, as the pain of hunger is beyond comprehension to ordinary people. This is what happened when a group of people in a plane crashed high in the Andes mountains many years ago - they survived by resorting to cannibalism. That is, if you don't literally die of thirst before hand.

Though the water no longer flows from the tap in an extended power failure and toilets no longer can flush, human beings will continue to create excrement of two kinds, as well material from women who menstruate. All this waste must be put somewhere.

Is this the end of it? No, because winter will come sooner or later. That brings on an entire new set of problems if you live in cold areas of America, including the added risk of hypothermia and pneumonia. And through all this you remember some of the last words you heard on your car radio in the garage before it finally stopped working as the result of a dead car battery and no gasoline. "Those who can't deal with the stress are to go out to the curb, lay face down with their hands over their head and wait for a patrol to pick them up. They will be taken to a government camp where their needs will be taken care of."

Other final words informed you that "All bank funds and stocks have been confiscated during martial law to pay for the tremendous costs the government incurred enforcing martial law. This was necessary because revenue from all forms of taxes had ceased during martial law." You suddenly realize that you're penniless and without a job.

But then, what good would your money do you? Without the banking network operational you will have no way to access that money anyway. And even if you had all that cash with you now, what could you buy with it and where would you buy it? Finally you understand the horror ­ you and your family are prisoners in your own home.

The above scenario is an attempt to detail the implications of simply losing AC power in America. Most likely all these same horrors would happen anywhere else in the world this happens, too. Just as the people of Iraq what it's like without power.

Could this be what the future holds under our "New Freedom?" Are we to sit around and simply wait for this nightmare-from-hell scenario to unfold? I'll let the reader fill in the blanks here."

This is the scenario, in Ted Twietmeyer's article called: " The Power Failure
From Hell" // 2-26-8 // [ ]

There are only TWO so to speak "Original Factors" that makes up for the "From HEll" -situation: You were NOT notified about this coming power failure in
advance and you didn't count on it lasting forever either. The rest is all depending in these two factors!....

Now, let this Possible Power Failure (From Hell) scenario really sink in!... FEEL it, SMELL it, LIVE it in your mind. Once you got a really realistic feel for it add to this scenario, not only the military boys with their Toys, but EVERYTHING else UNPLEASANT that you by now KNOW America has bestowed the poor Iraqi peoples for what in their minds must seem an ETERNITY, a "Forever", by
now. And now, you are slowly forced to have a small idea of a true version of Reality Check.
An now; go back to thinking who of the Official Guys/Gals who think this a good way to conduct life ANYWHERE on this planet (Iraq -and possible Freedom to reach Iran as well... and Syria... and AMERICA.... you get my drift, eh? )
WHOM are YOU gonna VOTE for???? (WHAT A JOKE!!!WHO in their right mind is soo idiotic???!?!?!?) Hillary? *!* (Obama??? Mc Cain???? ) ^!^

To all Americans (- of course, this goes for ALL "Emotional Terrible Two's" and "Emotional Teen Agers" world over) : GET A GRIP of yourself and GROW UP!!! this is NOT a Soap Opera on TV, where you just can't wait to see the tomorrow's sequence to see what "solution" they dreamt up for the Drama that unfolded in yesterday's -or today's- episode!... and IF that -still- is how you FEEL deep down ...then you do deserve the Power Failure From Hell....  

27 Feb 2008 @ 10:49 by jazzolog : The Debate
Here's Maureen Dowd and what she saw~~~

The New York Times
February 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Begrudging His Bedazzling

A huge Ellen suddenly materialized behind Hillary on a giant screen, interrupting her speech Monday night at a fund-raiser at George Washington University in Washington.

What better way for a desperate Hillary to try and stop her rival from running off with all her women supporters than to have a cozy satellite chat with a famous daytime talk-show host who isn’t supporting Obama?

“Will you put a ban on glitter?” Ellen demanded.

Diplomatically, Hillary said that schoolchildren needed it for special projects, but maybe she could ban it for anyone over 12.

Certainly, Hillary understands the perils of glitter. The coda of her campaign has been a primal scream against the golden child of Chicago, a clanging and sometimes churlish warning that “all that glitters is not gold.”

David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent whose interview with Hillary aired Tuesday, said the senator seemed “dumbfounded” by the Obama sensation.

She has been so discombobulated that she has ignored some truisms of politics that her husband understands well: Sunny beats gloomy. Consistency beats flipping. Bedazzling beats begrudging. Confidence beats whining.

Experience does not beat excitement, though, or Nixon would have been president the first time around, Poppy Bush would have had a second term and President Gore would have stopped the earth from melting by now.

Voters gravitate toward the presidential candidates who seem more comfortable in their skin. J.F.K. and Reagan seemed exceptionally comfortable. So did Bill Clinton and W., who both showed that comfort can be an illusion of sorts, masking deep insecurities.

The fact that Obama is exceptionally easy in his skin has made Hillary almost jump out of hers. She can’t turn on her own charm and wit because she can’t get beyond what she sees as the deep injustice of Obama not waiting his turn. Her sunshine-colored jackets on the trail hardly disguise the fact that she’s pea-green with envy.

After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.

Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.

By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain.

Hillary and her aides urged reporters to learn from the “Saturday Night Live” skit about journalists having crushes on Obama.

“Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” she said tartly in the debate here Tuesday night. She peevishly and pointlessly complained about getting the first question too often, implying that the moderators of MSNBC — a channel her campaign has complained has been sexist — are giving Obama an easy ride.

Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.

Hillary and her top aides could not say categorically that her campaign had not been the source on the Drudge Report, as Matt Drudge claimed, for a picture of Obama in African native garb that the mean-spirited hope will conjure up a Muslim Manchurian candidate vibe.

At a rally on Sunday, she tried sarcasm about Obama, talking about how “celestial choirs” singing and magic wands waving won’t get everybody together to “do the right thing.”

With David Brody, Hillary evoked the specter of a scary Kool-Aid cult. “I think that there is a certain phenomenon associated with his candidacy, and I am really struck by that because it is very much about him and his personality and his presentation,” she said, adding that “it dangerously oversimplifies the complexity of the problems we face, the challenge of navigating our country through some difficult uncharted waters. We are a nation at war. That seems to be forgotten.”

Actually it’s not forgotten. It’s a hard sell for Hillary to say that she is the only one capable of leading this country in a war when she helped in leading the country into that war. Or to paraphrase Obama from the debate here, the one who drives the bus into the ditch can’t drive it out.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company  

27 Feb 2008 @ 15:51 by quinty : I thought
Hillary gaffed last night, but not in a way which would upset any of her supporters. Nor convince undecideds since she didn't gaff in too overt a manner. Even if she wasn't allowed much wiggle room on her vote for the war and sometime support for NAFTA.

The "pillow" comment was obviously rehearsed. She wanted to get it in there hoping this link to popular culture would help. She saw an opportunity to weaken Obama's Jewish support because he avoided scaring off blacks who like Farakin. And Hillary looked foolish when Obama disparaged the difference between those two adjectives. (Which I've already forgotten.) The attempt backfired.

If you like Obama he appeared cool and confident. If you like Hillary she fought the good fight against a scarecrow who has mesmerized many people on not much more than charm and appearances. But Barack himself admitted last night that he hopes to create a powerful progressive movement which will break through the Washington logjam. (One has to wonder how he will deal with the trogs on the far right? Can he get sixty votes in the Senate?)

Among all the writers writing about Hillary I think Dowd has the best and deepest insight. Her analysis is often excellent.

Oh, yes. PACs were raised last night, but neither of the two journalists asked Obama about the apparent contradiction of claiming to be clean while accepting PAC money. I think we need a clarification there.  

2 Mar 2008 @ 23:10 by Elle @ : Hillary
I am getting pretty sickened at how the media is attempting to manipulate viewers to vote for one candidate over another. Even today they're trying to decide for the candidates who should be their VP. Why don't they just shut up and let the people do their thing? Hillary has brought that nastiness to the forefront, and even for that she gets blasted. I hope you saw SNL last night and what a good sport Hillary was about it all.  

3 Mar 2008 @ 01:58 by Elle @ : Obama vs. Hillary vs. McCain
This is interesting....I feel this election is showing who favors which candidate more as a generational and/or racist/culural thing. For instance, younger Hispanics prefer Obama because he wants to allow undocumented Hispanics college education in the U.S. (I'm against that - let them get a student visa like everybody else!). They also are delusional, in my opinion, in thinking he is more engaging and will bring change. That's a crock. He won't change anything. In fact, he's never done anything in his own name so far. Older Hispanics favor Hillary by a huge margin because of her stance on education and health care. McCain, for Republicans, are liked by Hispanics because of the McCain-Kennedy Act - how to make Latinos legal. Frankly, I'd like to poll many young people who are all hot for Obama and ask them to point out Iraq and Saudi Arabia on a map and tell you who are their government's leaders by name, for starters. It's very scarey to me when I see a lot of young people who have no clue where London or Paris is, and think there were airplanes in the Civil War. They don't know history, nor geography, nor world cultures, not even how to read and write English, they don't know who McCain is by a photo, nor who Amidinijad is, so how can they make an intelligent decision about a presidential candidate?  

5 Mar 2008 @ 09:58 by jazzolog : It's The Math, Hillary, It's The Math
Hillary in Columbus last night, with Governor Strickland (Photo by Todd Heisler, NY Times)

I have no problems with the big wins last night. Hillary Clinton could be a fine candidate and I would support her. But what I'm reading in Newsweek and elsewhere is she cannot win---at least with the delegate system.

Jonathan Alter
Hillary’s Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

Maureen Dowd this morning sums up what it is that turns her off about Hillary. She calls it "shoulder-pad feminism."  

5 Mar 2008 @ 14:25 by Elle @ : yep
The delegate system and electoral college sucks. They've long needed changing or elimination.  

5 Mar 2008 @ 17:03 by quinty : It appears
according to the analysts, that that "3AM in the morning" ad worked.

How sad.

I was hoping what with the general collapse of Bush's palace of lies the fear card would be ineffective now. That most Americans would see they had been exploited and conned. (In truth, Hillary has no more experience with national crisis management than Obama, unless the call is from a White House intern asking to speak to Bill.) But if the ad worked then this form of fear still has a great deal of potency. And it clearly will affect the outcome of this election.

Bush exploited it to win in 2004. McCain can exploit it again to gather support for his unending war on "Islamo fascism." What does it all mean?

Could that be a continuation of the disastrous policies Bush actually, in truth, only intensified in 2002 and 3?

"Nothing prospers save folly."  

6 Mar 2008 @ 05:37 by Elle @ : come on
Quinty, respectfully I say this to you - Clinton DOES have more experience with everything. She's a lot older than Obama and been in government, law, politics a lot longer, plus living in the White House for 8 years with the president does expose a person to a lot of things - including 3am phone calls. Clinton also did a lot of travelling with her husband and met a lot of foreign leaders. She has been a part of his presidency - remember all the people bitching about that long ago that it was a co-presidency? Obama is new to all of it, only two years as a Senator and he announced he's ready for President. No way is he ready for this.  

6 Mar 2008 @ 08:31 by jazzolog : It's 3 A.M. & The Phone Rings  

6 Mar 2008 @ 15:57 by Quinty @ : Exploiting fear
isn't sad? And as the cartoon above indicates it's only going to get dirtier. I see in the news that Obama is finally sharpening his knives.

I'll grant she has more experience than Obama and that your point is well made. And I know we see the world scene considerably differently. So perhaps you may not be disturbed by Hillary's approach to Latin America. That is, if you see Hugo Chavez as a "dictator."

If what this report says is true then Hillary has an imperial cast of mind. And it will probably be business as usual in Latin America if she becomes president. Obama may or may not change US policies in Latin America and Chavez may have to continue to watch out for his back if Obama becomes president. But if Obama becomes president this report at least offers a more hopeful indication of the frame of mind of the person picking up the phone at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Let’s not forget, Nixon had 8 years as VP and LBJ was “master” of the Senate. Lincoln only had one two year term in the House. There questions of temperament, character, vision, intelligence, and, yes, practical political skills --- I’m reading a bio of FDR. Boy, was he a liar! But certainly a great president.

I’m glad Kucinich won the primary. His district I suppose is fairly progressive to begin with. It the Demos win big in November they will probably only mine out Blue Dogs since the Cambridges and Berkeleys have spewn their spawn. Or something like that. Have a good day.....  

6 Mar 2008 @ 17:20 by Elle @ : humph
I see Chavez as one of the most dangerous and insane men on the planet. How could anyone thing otherwise of him?  

6 Mar 2008 @ 18:39 by jazzolog : Teaching Little Repubs Dirty Tricks
From today's Athens (Ohio) News~~~

"A few students, who identified themselves as 'conservative' or Republican, encouraged friends and family to vote for Hillary Clinton to throw off the Democratic race. The logic, they said, was to give Clinton the nomination, or else just to extend the divisive contest as long as possible. Many Republicans think Obama would be a tougher opponent for McCain to face in the fall than Clinton."

And here one is, James Williams, OU senior and registered Republican, admitting he just did it and why, in the article entitled


Now where did they get such a clever idea? After Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners on the radio to go to their primaries and vote Democrat just for "the fun" of perverting the process, Bill O'Reilly gave him his show on Fox television to expand the idea~~~

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I am urging people — I am using a phrase — the Republicans — our nominee is chosen. It's John McCain.

Texas is open. And I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it.

As you probably know, we're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying not to be critical there. Mark MacKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama.

This is the presidency of the United States you're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses.

So yes, I'm asking to cross over and, if they can stomach it — I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton — but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need. It would be fun, too.

Rush defended his strategy on his show yesterday.  

6 Mar 2008 @ 18:55 by Elle @ : haha
Oh yeah, this is nothing new, Jazz. The Republicans have been talking about this for a while already - but because they're AFRAID of Clinton's winning is the reason they wanted Obama. Now it seems they're changing their story hahaha what else is new.  

6 Mar 2008 @ 20:09 by Quinty @ : Why do you, Elle,
see Chavez as dangeorus and insane?

Just curious.....  

6 Mar 2008 @ 21:31 by Quinty @ : Rosen makes my case
rather nicely......

Published on Thursday, March 6, 2008 by TPM Cafe
The Politics of Fear — Again
by Ruth Rosen

Although I have supported Barack Obama in the primaries, I would not be devastated if Hillary Clinton should turn out to be the Democratic nominee. What does upset me, however, is how Clinton is employing the politics of fear and how much she emphasizes national security in order to mobilize support for her campaign.

The politics of fear worked wonders for Bush and Cheney. I’m genuinely saddened that Hillary Clinton would reach out to tell us, “be afraid, very afraid.” Her ads warn us about our children’s ’safety at 3 am in the morning and do nothing more than employ the politics of fear. Her relentless assertion that only she will be a strong commander-in-chief makes my blood boil. In response, Barack Obama must rejoin her attacks and convince us that he, too, would be a fine commander who can deal with crises and war.

Excuse me, but is this what we want from Democrats? Fear mongering? Haven’t we had enough from the Bush administration?

Of course we need a strong president who can protect the American people. Of course there are terrorists who are planning attacks on the United States. But no president can prevent a surprise attack. All a president can do is to ensure that our intelligence is excellent and that we are cooperating with nations around the world to prevent terrorist attacks.

So why do need a strong Command-in-Chief? To make war? Haven’t we had enough wars in the last 7 years?

. What so disturbs me is that Hillary Clinton has created a debate that is irrelevant to our true domestic and economic security. Both Democratic candidates will be able to handle a crisis, but who among us, wants them to start and command yet more wars?

Let Senator McCain stress national security for now Let him defend the Bush military debacles. This is not the debate Democratic candidates should be having during the primaries. They should be arguing about how to end the war in Iraq and how to prevent future wars through multilateral diplomacy and negotiation. They should be talking about how the current wars are bankrupting our economy. They should be explaining how 12 billion dollars a month would support universal health care, as well as child care for working parents. They should be promising to remove the Social Security cap that allows a CEO to pay less social security taxes than his secretary. They should be promising to end the Bush tax cuts. They should be pledging to restore all our civil rights and liberties.

Instead, Hillary Clinton has set the terms of debate and is challenging Obama on the ground that she is more capable of making war and addressing national security. Well, our national security is not simply a military matter. Our national security, as any good Democrat should know, depends on the health and welfare of the nation’s families and communities.

Ruth Rosen is a journalist and historian. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute in Berkeley and a professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis. She is currently a visiting professor of public policy and history at U.C. Berkeley.  

7 Mar 2008 @ 17:35 by quinty : But Elle he's
not a “dictator.” At least not yet.

There have been eight or nine free and honest elections so far in Venezuela and Chavez has abided by the results of each one, including the recent “power grab.” Where he was narrowly voted down.

How many times does he have to be freely elected by a large majority of the Venezuelan people before he ceases to be a “dictator?”

As for free speech in Venezuela it is still quite alive and well. And huge crowds come out to demonstrate against him. (We can see them here on TV when we watch the news.) Regarding that TV station he didn’t relicense, well, maybe he should have. But that station participated in the US backed coup against him a few years ago. And there are still many radio and television stations as well as newspapers which openly attack him. I wouldn’t call that an absense of free speech.

Sure he’s cozy with Castro. They have much in common, in that they are both targets of the United States. And they can help each other out. We have a long and violent history there in Latin America as if all that land and territory were actually ours. We assassinate leaders, support rightwing coups, and deeply meddle whenever we don’t like what’s going on or who’s in charge, whether democratically elected or not. And the list of countries this has happened in since the late nineteenth century is quite long.

If we here in the US profess to like democracy we should abide by the results of free and open elections, especially in foreign countries. For how can we profess to believe in democracy if the CIA changes the results whenever we become put out? Chavez ousted the oligarchy in Venezuela in order to help the poor. We should rejoice in that. We should support and encourage him to use oil revenues to make life better for the down and out. Instead, we back rightwing coups which will put the rich, who care only about themselves, back in power.

We could be a positive influence on Chavez. Instead, well, who knows how this will all work out. So far Chavez has abided by the democratic rules. There are no political prisoners in Venezuela. They have a free and open press and the right to demonstrate against the government. They have free elections. How long will all that last? Yes, I’m afraid he may finally succumb and actually become a dictator, thanks, in part, to the United States. For, unfortunately, he and other progressive leftwing leaders in Latin America will have to struggle mightily to get out from under the ancient dominion of the United States.  

7 Mar 2008 @ 18:08 by Elle @ : the red phone thing
I think it was refreshing to see that Hillary Clinton recently mentioned the concept of a unity ticket. And yes, maybe she mentioned it because she is currently behind in the delegate count. But, she still gets accolades for offering the possibility on the morning after winning Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island.

I am dismayed that Obama would not consider a unity ticket yet -- according to him, it is too premature to contemplate. That's a shame. But it reminds me of another time when Obama spoke about being way too premature.

In November 2004, Oprah asked Obama if he would be the first black President. Obama's response:

Listen, if you're in politics at a certain point you think about where to take your career. But at this stage, it's way too premature. Politics is a marathon. So many things can change. You can't plan 12 years ahead. But what I will say is this: We can win the race we're in now. I think I have the aptitude to be a terrific U.S. Senator. And if, at the end of my first term, the people of Illinois say, "This guy's been serving us well," then I'll be in a strong position to have a lot of influence in this country for a long time to come-whether or not I'm President.
Dare I mention that 12 years from 2004 would be 2016 -- a year that dovetails nicely with the concept of a unity ticket...

[an excerpt from an article by Kristen Breitweiser, The Ringing Red Phone and the Runaway Train]  

7 Mar 2008 @ 18:56 by Elle @ : topics
Quinty, this isn't a thread about Chavez, therefore I decided to go back to the original topic in my last post. I'm not all in favor of imperialism. I know the US involvement in other places through time.  

8 Mar 2008 @ 00:14 by Quinty @ : The online super highway

I was cutting brush in that timeline as you posted yours. So yours appeared first before I finished. It does look odd, doesn't it?  

8 Mar 2008 @ 18:34 by quinty : If we didn't believe
so firmly in the religion of Capitalism here in the United States we might have more of a sense of a "public commons." Rather than tightly adhere to the unbending faith that taxes are bad we might want to pay for good public school programs, including the 'frills." Such as music.

At times I think the rightwing here in this country sees the public schools as nothing more than a means to prepare a compliant adult workforce. You know, those who will "boost, don't knock." "Smile. The boss loves idiots." All you need for that are some basic writing and math skills.

As for quality educations with all the frills? That's for the worthy rich, those who can afford lofty tuitions. Because, remember, taxes are really very, very bad.

Except, of course, for “defense.”  

8 Mar 2008 @ 21:29 by Elle @ : More and more coming out
Quote of the day:
"...the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror." ---Rep. Steve King (R-IA), on an Obama presidential victory.  

9 Mar 2008 @ 00:44 by quinty : Bob Herbert
in today's Times...

"We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!

"That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become."

Herbert left out of this piece the beautiful little vignette which appeared on Olberman last night. Hillary coldly claiming the "Monster" comment was an ad homonym attack while the Ken Starr comparison was the truth, refusing to apologize.

Obama should simply bring out into the open exactly what these people are saying and doing. He has the eloquence and wit to clearly do so and should have the courage to risk appealing to the good sense of the American people. Contrary to many Democrats, this would not make him weak or a whiner. Nor would it be impolite or filthy minded to openly expose the reality of their behavior. Though for decades it has been treated as such by liberals and Democrats.  

24 Apr 2008 @ 09:21 by jazzolog : The Attack Of The 50-Foot Hillary
The New York times
April 23, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Wilting Over Waffles

He’s never going to shake her off.

Not all by himself.

The very fact that he can’t shake her off has become her best argument against him. “Why can’t he close the deal?” Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday.

She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.

“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”

The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. With gas prices out of control, with the comically oblivious President Bush shimmying around New Orleans — the city he let drown — and Condi sneaking into Baghdad as rockets and mortars hail down on the Green Zone, beating the Republicans should be a cinch.

But the Democrats watch in horror as Hillary continues to scratch up the once silvery sheen on Obama, and as John McCain not only consolidates his own party but encroaches on theirs by boldly venturing into Selma, Ala., on Monday to woo black voters.

They also cringe as Bill continues his honey-crusted-nut-bar meltdown. With his usual exquisite timing, just as Pennsylvanians were about to vote, Hillary’s husband became the first person ever to play the Caucasian Card. First, he blurted out to a radio interviewer that the Obama camp had played the race card against him after he compared Obama’s strength in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s. And then, with a Brobdingnagian finger-wagging on the screen, he denied it to an NBC News reporter.

“You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today,” he said, accusing the reporter of looking for “another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us.”

If there’s one person who knows about crass diversions, it’s Bill. But even for him, it was an embarrassing explosion, capped with some blue language to an aide that was caught on air.

The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can’t because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door. Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.

He knew he tanked in the Philadelphia debate, but he was so irritated by the moderators — and by having to stand next to Hillary again — that he couldn’t summon a single merry dart.

Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and he’s used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?

He is frantic to get away from her because he can’t keep carbo-loading to relate to the common people.

In the final days in Pennsylvania, he dutifully logged time at diners and force-fed himself waffles, pancakes, sausage and a Philly cheese steak. He split the pancakes with Michelle, left some of the waffle and sausage behind, and gave away the French fries that came with the cheese steak.

But this is clearly a man who can’t wait to get back to his organic scrambled egg whites. That was made plain with his cri de coeur at the Glider Diner in Scranton when a reporter asked him about Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

“Why” he pleaded, sounding a bit, dare we say, bitter, “can’t I just eat my waffle?”

His subtext was obvious: Why can’t I just be president? Why do I have to keep eating these gooey waffles and answering these gotcha questions and debating this gonzo woman?

Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s “Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!” (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as “Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!”) They could sing:

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company  

29 Apr 2016 @ 05:58 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?