Blog @ MoreWhat.com

It would be fair to say that Barack Obama has stage presence. He is stronger at making prepared statements and speeches than he is at competing in public debates. While Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably the leader on closet skeletons, it is likely that Obama and Edwards have some as well. Don’t we all? But we all don’t have Hillary Rodham Clinton claiming she has a career ender for us in her arsenal. Obama does. The question is does she really have something on him or not? But that’s another matter for another time.

Frequently the voting base subset of ‘women’ is touted to be owned by Clinton. That may be more true for her husband than her. It is also reported from time to time that HRC’s campaign has focused on shoring up the women’s vote. Just by virtue of gender you might think that shouldn’t be necessary. But one report today indicates another voter subset, ‘blue collar’ women are for Hillary Clinton. Yet another features this:

Michelle Obama urges black women to support her husband

Does that mean Michelle does not want other women to vote for her husband or that other women will but she is concerned about black women voting for her husband? If you would think that women voters would vote for Hillary Clinton on a gender match, would you think that black voters would vote for Barack Obama on a racial match? It is interesting that politically motivated rhetoric renders support of amnesty for illegal aliens as an American ideal and not supporting the troops in pursuit of victory as an equally pro-American position. For liberal candidates who often speak of America with patriotic overtones and the need to ‘come together’ like a rerun of a Beatle’s song, slicing up the electorate may be good campaign strategy but what does it really tell you about the candidates?

`It would be logical for a white voter to expect that Barack Obama may spend more time pursuing legislation and policy that favors black Americans than other racial or ethnic groups. It may not be true and it may not even be fair. But when you see a report that Michelle Obama is urging black women to vote for her husband it has to make you wonder about what candidates are doing. Maybe this is the true equalizer about race and ethnicity in our nation. The fact that when it comes to politics all men (and women) are created equal. They are all equally the target of candidates and after the vote the concerns about voters are returned to the back burner. A fate executed by all candidates after election whether they be Democrat, Republican or any other.

Specifically for Obama, while the criticism from Clinton that he is naive and irresponsible in foreign affairs or elsewhere, his headline below does no better than to play into Clinton’s earlier criticism.

Obama foreign policy views based on family experience

Just living somewhere and experiencing culture and the daily life among locals in another country does not qualify as foreign affairs experience any more than Clinton residing in the White House as First Lady. It can be argued that one person who has foreign affairs experience has the last name Rice or Powell. And even the relatively brief time that both people have held the Office of Secretary of State, their experience could be viewed as far exceeding that of either Clinton or Obama. Foreign affairs experience is gathered in few places outside the White House or the State Department. Perhaps all Presidential candidates should concede they are extremely limited in that capacity and move on to matters they can speak to.

McCain and Thompson dwarf the experience of Clinton, Obama and Edwards as Senators. Romney and Giuliani dwarf the three Dems on leadership and administrative experience. The three leading Democratic contenders for the 2008 race have something in common. Essentially they are all rookies doing well in the early stages of a Presidential campaign. Perhaps the only reason they are doing that well is that within the Democratic party ranks they are the best they had to offer and no others are available with adequate experience.

Sometimes a candidate’s failed attempt to get elected serves as the seed to combine with more experience years later and a subsequent successful run for the same office. We should be viewing the Democratic candidates in that light. But then, that is all the Democratic party has to offer and one of them will be their nominee. Predicting the outcome whether you lean left or right is probably a fool’s mission. Sure, one of the candidates in the 2008 race, barring some unlikely turn of events, will be our next President. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, one of them will win.

Obama’s recent advance on Clinton’s lead and Huckabee’s mirrored experience in Iowa within the GOP ranks tell you one thing. This race is a long way from over. We are nearing the first real votes and the polling trends are shifting. That may only indicate that more people are starting to pay attention. If the first, second and third among both Dems and the GOP are close together after Iowa and New Hampshire this will get interesting. Here are two possible outcomes in Iowa you may want to consider. Either Edwards and Romney or Obama and Huckabee would really stir things up.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook } Conservative Blog

Maybe a little trip through the news and commentary offered around the net will provide some illumination on the likely fate of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her continued pursuit of political power. The first offering is from NJ Voices, Murray Sabrin at NJ.com.

Hillary Clinton’s downfall?
Posted by Murray Sabrin
November 23, 2007 10:13AM

Senator Hillary Clinton has been leading in the national polls as well as in Iowa and in New Hampshire against her two main rivals, Senator Obama and former senator John Edwards, for the Democrat presidential nomination. However, in the latest ABC/ Washington Post poll Obama leads in Iowa with 30%, Clinton follows with 26% and Edwards comes in at 22%. In other words, Clinton could finish third in Iowa.

And, if an Obama win in Iowa turns into the Big Mo going into the New Hampshire primary a week later, where Clinton now has a huge lead over Obama, 36% to 22%, the “invincibility” of a Clinton presidential nomination, let alone a Clinton nomination, will be in serious jeopardy.

There are many comparisons to relative positions of candidates in the polls between the current campaign and past events. While all the pundits, polling, predictions and forecasts are of limited usefulness, Robert Novak who broke the story that the Clinton campaign has campaign ending dirt on Obama indicated on Hannity and Colmes his belief that the Clinton campaign is worried about their chances with Obama coming up in the polls and Iowa not looking like the done deal they had expected. Similarly, Sabrin above suggests Clinton is essentially running two campaigns with one about the caucus/primary elections and the other about the general. That fits with earlier assessments that Clinton’s lead in the national polls and supporters touting her as the default nominee had her campaigning like a nominee by her carefully scripted, choreographed appearances right through the softball CNN debate and planted questions in Iowa. Even with all the help from the media, Clinton still managed to stumble on a simple debate question about supplying illegals with driver’s licenses and lying about something as simple as tipping a waitress.

But one must still keep in mind the notions surrounding stories earlier in the year suggesting the possible outcomes of the election with the various Dem candidates facing off against the GOP field. Some said while the GOP makes a lot of noise about Hillary Rodham Clinton they truly prefer to face her in the general. The reason given was with her history, mounting an opposition campaign would be much more effective. With Obama and Edwards having less history and less to attack the outcome favored the GOP with HRC as the Dems nominee.

Since the party elite of the Democrats anointed Senator John Kerry even though Senator Edwards was showing real strength at the time, perhaps the Dems will play into the GOP strategy by anointing HRC as their 2008 choice and hand the Republicans another Presidential victory like the last time.

Stay tuned, more news and commentary in the next post.

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. It happens on Tuesday and Saturday. Each linkfest is open until the next one starts. Trackbacks will be on the frontpage in a post called MoreWhat Matters. The Secure the Borders theme is intended as a reminder to all for obvious reasons. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or post it in the comments. If you want to be added to Z’ Blogroll, register and/or inquire to make arrangements. The Honor Roll is reserved for blogs viewed as special by this blog’s owner.
JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.

This linkfest is dedicated to the guest worker who never left.There are plenty of illegal immigration posts on this blog.

If you’re here legally and behavin’ yo self, welcome aboard.
.
.

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

If this is not your first time here you are aware that this blog absolutely opposes Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. To borrow a phrase she is not fit to be dog catcher. But whether you support or reject HRC, you may find the following excerpt useful for reviewing your position on the Presidential aspirations of Bill Clinton’s wife.

Hillary’s No Moral Conservative
Wed Nov 21, 3:00 AM ET

For decades now, the national media have insisted in each presidential election cycle that voters should ignore the liberal wizards hiding behind the curtain of the Democratic Party. Each plausible Democratic presidential contender is a “moderate” or “centrist,” be he Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. But now to describe Hillary Clinton as a “moral conservative” is so upside down and backward it sounds like … “This is your brain on drugs.”

If you have any problems with the policies or agendas of Hillary Rodham Clinton as described in the piece referenced above, then you likely oppose Clinton already. If you favor abortion and agree with everything demanded by the homosexual lobby and special interest groups you also favor Clinton. For those opposed to Clinton you must worry that she would push for pro-abortion law and policy as well as catering to every whim of the gay marriage advocates. If you favor Hillary Rodham Clinton’s positions on these issues you have to worry that it is just one more promise that will be forgotten if elected. Either way, pro or anti-Clinton, you have much to worry about if she is elected.

She and her husband had a flagship campaign promise to reform healthcare in 1992 and we all know how that worked out. She voted for the war in Iraq but now distances herself from that position not because of the war but because of her need to attract the far left for votes. One of her latest gaffes in the debates was the inability to take a coherent stand on whether or not illegals should be allowed to receive a driver’s license. Probably due to her inability to calculate which position would render the most votes.

Her current donor scandals continue to mount and combined with all the other scandal GATES on her record as well as covering up her White House docs as First Lady should be enough red flags and alarms to awaken the entire planet to her continued attempt to scam the public. So what is keeping you from understanding this woman is bad for America? Are you that blind or do you refuse to accept the facts?

Just today there is a report that HRC cherry-picked another issue to use for bashing the White House and President Bush. She picked a safe story of the rape victim in Saudi Arabia who is being further victimized by the society in which she lives. Why is HRC ragging at President Bush about it? What is he supposed to do, boycott Saudi oil? Ya, that’ll happen. Oil hovering around $100 a barrel, which is obscene, and the current addiction of the US for oil. Sure, the public will accept the President boycotting Saudi, or anyone’s oil to make a point. Not unless he wants civil unrest like we’ve never seen before. But the criticism works well for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She can score points with the weak-minded that somehow the US should make one individual’s unfortunate condition a matter of foreign policy.

Don’t you suspect that in most matters like these quiet channels are used to communicate expectations or wishes of the US to the ‘offending’ nation? But then with all HRC’s experience, she would know these things. Right.

How many crooked donors have to be paraded in the press before the American public takes the hint? The current set of lies, distortions, evasion and dirty tricks Hillary Rodham Clinton has chosen feature claiming she has dirt on Obama, has experience where none has been demonstrated, withholding documents of her claimed experience, denying planting questions with students in the audience, lying about something as simple as tipping a waitress and the list goes on ad nauseum.

As an insight to some of her legislative and policy agenda her strategist, Mark Penn, suggested their strategy was to market her as a centrist because that was what he saw as the winning strategy with most Americans. And yet reports in the press as recent as today indicate she is distancing herself from her husband’s initiatives and policy that are defined as centrist. As an example she wants to abandon his policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as well as weaken the marriage defense act to allow more same sex marriages. It is believed that what is obvious is true. Hillary wants her husband’s popularity among Dems and possibly others to help her succeed but will distance herself from much of his political philosophy in an attempt to prove she is her own person.

This aspiring Bill Clinton clone does not have the political talent of her husband and owes her current celebrity to his career. She relies on everything he has done or been given credit for as her claim to experience from being with him in the White House. Recently she claimed meeting heads of state while in the White House was an important part of her Presidential qualifications. Does that mean everyone present when these foreign visitors were here are equally qualified to be President? And how about just thinking that demonstrates her lack of any grasp of the situation?

For now, this addition to the long and growing list of donors to the Clinton campaign who have some explaining to do.

SEC EYE ON HILL $$ MAN

By DAPHNE RETTER
November 22, 2007 — WASHINGTON -

Federal investigators are probing a company run by a wheeler-dealer pal of Hillary and Bill Clinton that has already been accused by stockholders of wasting millions on the former first couple, it was revealed yesterday.

InfoUSA, a database marketing company founded and headed by Clinton friend and megadonor Vin Gupta…

S.E.C. Investigates Company Founded by Clinton Donor

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 22, 2007

OMAHA,(AP) — The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into spending by a database marketer in Omaha that already faces a lawsuit contending that the company misspent millions, some of it on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Woman Honor Thyself, and Right Truth, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Compared with polls not dealing with guess who’s coming to dinner, Edwards was the leading Dem in Iowa for a long time while Romney has been the leader for the GOP from the beginning. Lately, Huckabee has an almost unexplained rocket surge to a statistical tie with Romney. Obama has gained ground on Clinton in early states and on it goes. Point being, with Romney and Huckabee scoring near the bottom of the ‘turkey guest’ poll and at the top of the ‘real’ polls for Iowa, it appears voters do not wish to eat dinner with the candidates they want for President but are willing to schmooze with those not fit for office like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This Thanksgiving Day, among all the things I have to be thankful for, the trend of campaign gaffes by HRC as well as more questionable donors to her campaign, her reluctance to be honest with the public e.g., locking her docs, the dirt she claims to be holding on Obama, not knowing whether or not to give illegals a driver’s license and all of her ‘gates’, like PardonGate.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only candidate I would not want to meet. While there is no Democratic party candidate I would accept as President, I would like to talk to Obama and Edwards and Richardson to hear a candid explanation of why they think they’re Presidential material. And meeting Dennis Kucinich would be like a trip to SNL. And then I could ask his wife what she likes about him most.

I would like meeting all the GOP candidates. But I have no interest in meeting HRC and would not share a meal with her. But I wouldn’t mind meeting her ‘body girl’, Huma Abedin. As far as other Clinton staffers, Mark Penn would not be someone I would like to meet. But if the DOJ will investigate him I wouldn’t mind being in the same room with him as a juror at his trial.

It is Thanksgiving Day and aside from the common and requisite thank you notes on health, family, friends and everything that has been bestowed, my final thankful expression for this post is ABSOLUTELY serious. I give thanks that this country still has an abundance of character within its borders as displayed by the men and women of the United States Armed Services. To all who serve or served in the United States Military I wish to extend a Happy Thanksgiving and express to you all that your service does not go unnoticed and genuine Americans truly appreciate your dedication, commitment, courage and self-sacrifice.

Clinton emerges as leading guest for turkey in poll

By Jane Norman • REGISTER WASHINGTON BUREAU • November 21, 2007

Washington, D.C. - Who’s the top turkey? Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, according to a national poll out Tuesday.

Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn., conducted a poll of 1,636 U.S. voters and asked whom among the presidential contenders they’d most like to sit down with for Thanksgiving dinner.

Clinton gets her choice of white or dark meat, landing in first place with 27 percent of all voters surveyed, including 42 percent of Democrats.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

By Ruth Reader
Washington, D.C.
21 November 2007

watch Thanksgiving report / Windows broadband - download
watch Thanksgiving report / Windows broadband
watch Thanksgiving report / Windows dialup - download
watch Thanksgiving report / Windows dialup

The traditional American holiday, Thanksgiving, originated as a day to celebrate and give thanks for the season’s bountiful harvest. And for many Americans, Thanksgiving means eating roasted turkey and mashed potatoes, spending time with family and prepping for the holiday shopping season. VOA’s Ruth Reader has more.

President Bush this week kicked off the holiday by pardoning two turkeys from becoming someone’s Thanksgiving dinner. President Harry Truman started the tradition in 1947.

“So now I have a task and that is to grant a full presidential pardon to May and Flower that will shortly be flown off to Disney World, where they will serve as honorary grand marshals for the Thanksgiving Day parade,” said the president to a gathering at the White House. “I hope that honor doesn’t go to their heads.”

The turkeys’ names, May and Flower, are a reference to the ship [Mayflower] that sailed nearly 400 years ago from Plymouth, England to America. And in the fall of 1621, these Plymouth pilgrims celebrated a bountiful harvest with local American Indians. This is considered one of the earliest Thanksgivings.

Since the 1600s, Thanksgiving has morphed into a holiday in the United States marked by extravagant parades, feasts and the opening of the Christmas shopping season. The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City is one of the major festivities to mark Thanksgiving each year. Approximately 2.5 million people are expected to attend the parade this year, while 44 million will watch it on television at home.

The parade serves as a reminder that the holiday season is in full swing. This Friday, many Americans will rise early the day after Thanksgiving to take advantage of discounts at retail shops around the country. Last year roughly 140 million Americans hit stores and spent an average of $360.

Many Americans Traveling for Thanksgiving Holiday
By VOA News
21 November 2007

Millions of Americans are on the roads or at the airports Wednesday, traveling to be with family and friends for Thursday’s Thanksgiving holiday.

This year is expected to mark the largest Thanksgiving travel period ever - despite rising gas prices and fears of air delays.

The American Automobile Association estimates a record 38.7 million Americans will travel at least 80 kilometers for Thanksgiving, compared with the prior record of 38.1 million during last year’s holiday travel period.

Most of the travelers are likely to go by car, while the rest will fly or take trains or buses. Thanksgiving is traditionally the busiest travel day of the year in the United States.

President Bush issued a holiday proclamation, saying Thanksgiving is a time for Americans to gather in a spirit of gratitude with family, friends and neighbors. He said Thanksgiving is also a chance to serve others and to share blessings with those in need.

Thanksgiving is a North American holiday to give thanks at the end of the harvest season, with family gatherings and holiday meals that include turkey, stuffing and pumpkin pie. It is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November in the United States and on the second Monday of October in Canada.

The earliest Thanksgiving events were held in former British colonies in what are now U.S. states - in present-day Virginia in 1619 and present-day Massachusetts in 1621.

Bush Pardons Thanksgiving Turkeys
By Scott Stearns
Washington
20 November 2007

Stearns report - Download (mp3) 338k
Listen to Stearns report

Thursday is the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. So it is time for the American president to take part in the annual ritual of sparing the life of the National Thanksgiving Turkey. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns has the story.

Turkey is the traditional meal at Thanksgiving. And yet every holiday for the last 60 years, at least one bird has escaped the butcher’s axe with a ceremonial White House pardon.

This year, two National Thanksgiving Turkeys traveled from the Midwest state of Indiana for President Bush to spare their lives in the Rose Garden. “May they live the rest of their lives in blissful gobbling and may all Americans enjoy a holiday full of love and peace.”

After their pardon, the two turkeys flew first class to Disney World where they will be the honorary grand marshals of the Florida amusement park’s Thanksgiving Day parade. The birds, named May and Flower, will retire to a petting zoo at the park.

In his remarks, President Bush gave thanks for a good harvest, a strong economy, and the courage of the men and women of the U.S. military.

“They have worn proudly the uniform of our country. They have offered their lives in our defense. And each year, thousands more volunteer to join their noble ranks to keep us safe. And so on this Thanksgiving we keep their families and their loved ones in our prayers and in our thoughts.”

The president and Mrs. Bush will spend the Thanksgiving holiday at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

from MoreWhat.com:
God Bless Our Troops

Bush Ushers In Thanksgiving Holiday Week
By Paula Wolfson
White House
19 November 2007

Wolfson report - Download MP3 (612k)
Listen to Wolfson report

As Americans prepare to gather for their Thanksgiving Holiday, President Bush is reminding them to remember their blessings and help those in need. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports from the White House, the president traveled to the nearby state of Virginia to make his point.

But this year, President Bush opted to add on a series of public events, including his first Thanksgiving holiday speech.

Aides say during his travels around the country, the president has met many people who have given of their time and talents to help others. They say he wanted to highlight their contributions this week, and urge others to follow in their footsteps.

So Monday he traveled to the site of one of America’s first settlements - historic Berkeley Plantation in central Virginia. In remarks to a crowd of 500 guests, Mr. Bush spoke of the evolution of America since the day when its earliest settlers paused to give thanks centuries ago.

“In the four centuries since the founders of Berkeley first knelt on these grounds, our nation has changed in many ways,” the president said. “Our people have prospered, our nation has grown, our Thanksgiving traditions have evolved.”

But he said one thing that has not changed is the compassion and generosity of the American people. He spoke of the troops who serve in harm’s way and the volunteers who serve the needy. But he told personal stories as well, including a salute to a school principal in one of the poorest neighborhoods in flood-ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana, a woman named Doris Hicks.

“After Katrina many said her school could not return to its building in the lower ninth ward. Principal Hicks had a different point of view. She had a different attitude. She has a uniquely American attitude. She had a vision for a resurgent community with a vibrant school at its heart,” he said. “This summer, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School for Science and Technology became the first public school to re-open in the lower ninth ward.”

Before the speech, the president helped out at a center that distributes donated food to needy families.

On Tuesday, he will carry out one of the more unusual Thanksgiving Day traditions in the United States when he officially pardons a live turkey at the White House. Instead of gracing someone’s holiday table, the bird will be part of a holiday parade at Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

US Congress Begins Break Amid Funding Battles
By Dan Robinson
Washington
17 November 2007

The U.S., Congress has begun a two week holiday break with major government funding legislation left unfinished, and amid continuing battles between Democrats and Republicans, and between Democrats and President Bush, over spending on everything from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to important domestic programs. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.

There is nothing new about fierce debate in Congress over how to pay for government programs and military needs, especially as a congressional session begins to draw to a close around the Thanksgiving holiday.

But in this first full year since the 2006 mid-term election in which Democrats have controlled the House and Senate, partisan conflicts and divisions, amid increasing alarm over the billions of dollars required for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been particularly sharp.

As they left town for Thanksgiving, at which point both the House and Senate have usually tried but failed to finish all legislative work for the year, some things were clear.

First, the government continues to run on what is called a continuing resolution, with programs funded at 2007 fiscal year levels. Only one of 12 major appropriations measures, a $470 billion measure for the Pentagon, has been signed by President Bush.

But the standoff between the White House and majority Democrats over paying for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is sure to continue and likely worsen through 2008.

The president did not get another $196 billion, nor any portion of it, to pay for military operations. Democrats vow there will be no more votes this year.

Following the president’s veto of a major domestic spending bill, the White House rejected a last minute compromise proposal from Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid aimed at resolving a standoff over government appropriations bills.

In both areas, Reid asserts the president needs to reconsider his positions, and he challenges Republicans to move away from what he considers to be intransigence at the White House:

“The president just got $470 billion that is good [to sustain the military] if we do nothing else until the end of February or the middle of March. We offered him some more money [but] he refused that. So, if they [Republicans] want to follow the president over the cliff, then they are welcome to do that. We are not going to shut the government down.”

On Friday, deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto, responding to reporter’s questions, argued that any delay in getting emergency supplemental funding to the military is unacceptable and harmful, and accused Democrats of being controlled by far left anti-war groups.

“In terms of the bigger picture of what our dispute [with Democrats] is, what we see is a core constituency of the Democratic party that is driving them toward sending the president legislation to appease the views of [anti-war] groups like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, the ones who want us to simply leave and to walk out of Iraq,” he said.

As lawmakers left town, it was also apparent that there will be no change for the better in the level of partisan disagreement that marked the last few months.

Democrats who assumed control of Congress last January condemning former majority Republicans for failing to pass budget bills on time, were condemned for the same thing by the new Republican minority.

Each side accused the other of doing everything possible to avoid compromise. , and :

“What I don’t know is whether Democrats want to get serious about working with us to resolve our differences, or whether they want to continue to play political games,” said Republican House leader John Boehner.

“President Kennedy once said to govern is to choose. And the president, both with his request for $196 billion for Iraq, and his veto of children’s health care, has chosen,” said Congressman Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic caucus.

The U.S. Senate and House return on December 3 and 4 respectively, facing the challenge of constructing what is likely to be one large bill combining all unfinished funding work.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans say they would like to see federal government operations shut down due to a failure to approve appropriations, but that prospect remains a possibility with a mid-December deadline for the end of temporary funding.

AP’s analysis does not really critique the ad or Clinton’s claims as much as it is almost sympathetic to the Queen of Cringe as she is criticized by her opponents. Funny how Clinton refers to her opponents criticism as an attack machine. Does she expect get through a political campaign without facing opposition? The GOP is no more critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton than either John Edwards or Barack Obama. And she certainly doesn’t characterize her own criticism of her opponents as attacks. How does Hillary Rodham Clinton define her acknowledged possession of ‘dirt’ on Obama that she will unleash if his campaign becomes too competitive?

ANALYSIS: The ad airs as Republicans increasingly have been using Clinton as a political foil. Republican Rudy Giuliani joked at her expense Friday in a speech before the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. In a speech in New Hampshire on Sunday, McCain cast himself as the Republican best able to defeat Clinton in a general election.

Romney has run ads in New Hampshire saying Clinton has no experience as an executive and compares her White House years as first lady to that of an intern. McCain has run ads in New Hampshire criticizing Clinton’s attempt as New York senator to get $1 million in federal money for a Woodstock museum in Bethel, N.Y., to commemorate the 1969 rock festival.

Even a search result featuring the take of the NYT on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ad claiming to take on an attack machine of the GOP does not give a glowing report on the ad or Clinton’s attempt to convince viewers she has experience to lead the country. The only high level task she ever had was her failed health care initiative as First Lady. And she wants you to believe her time in the White House qualifies her to be President.

ACCURACY Mrs. Clinton promises to lead the country out of Iraq, but she does not mention that in 2002, she voted to grant President Bush the authority to take military action against Iraq. Both John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have made similar promises to support middle-class voters and cut the federal deficit, though some budget analysts question the ability of Mrs. Clinton to balance the budget while increasing spending on health care and other programs. And on the experience front, Mrs. Clinton has frequently exchanged barbs with Mr. Obama over that issue — beyond their shared time in the Senate, Mr. Obama points to his time as a community organizer in Chicago, and she counts her tenure as first lady as time “in the White House.”

The Boston Globe’s take on the Clinton ad may accidentally point to the real problem with Hillary, her campaign and the notion that she is qualified to be President. The first line below quotes an announcer’s claim of HRC. Who does not have the strength to fight? What the hell is that supposed to accomplish other than the usual say nothing? And the claim she has the ‘experience to lead’ is again not followed by anything supporting that claim. That is no different than claims on her campaign website that she has been active as a Senator and involved in all kinds of legislative initiatives. Nothing but vague phrases selected to imply she has done things with absolutely no supporting evidence.

Any personnel manager, human resources manager for the politically correct crowd, would have a resume’ like the one Hillary is trying to sell on its way to the circular file before you could yell ‘bogus’.

“The strength to fight, the experience to lead,” the announcer concludes.

The ad appears designed to both elicit some sympathy for Clinton, by far the most popular target for the Republican candidates, and to press one of her candidacy’s core arguments — that she is the most electable Democrat who has taken on and defeated Republican attacks before.

To review, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s experience for the Office of President of the United States contains two items. Being married to a President and as First Lady failing at the only related task she attempted. And the second is cherry picking a favorable Democratic district in which to run for the Senate where she bragged about unnecessarily wasting $29 million in campaign contributions to defeat a Republican sacrificial lamb for re-election. Any Democrat would have won as the GOP conceded the seat to the Dems. That must be her idea of defeating what she claims are attacks by her opponents. They are not attacks, they are part of a political competition known as a campaign. Further evidence that HRC does not take criticism well. Another shortcoming that would not serve a President well.

Well isn’t this special? Or maybe like a phrase from Rob Lowe as Sam Seaborn in the West Wing, aka the Left Wing, as he met Leo’s daughter while explaining he slept with a prostitute, ‘this is bad on so many levels’. But more like the Church Lady, isn’t this special includes not only a non-ending procession of potentially campaign ending donors, but the author of a piece from The New York Sun, Nicholas Wapshott, may have coined another ‘gate’ word for the Clintons. Pardongate is just a special term. With TravelGate, ChinaGate and the others, Pardongate is either new or was missed earlier. Another gate that may appear in a subsequent edition of the series ‘A Little Clinton History’ offered here rather frequently.

But for now the topic is the piece from the New York Sun. Three more donors for the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign should pose more difficulty for Senator Clinton. They are recipients of last minute pardons by then President William Jefferson Clinton. As the NYP points out, technically, two are criminals and one was let off the hook by Slick Willie before the DOJ indicted him. Good company to keep if you want to be President. Oddly enough, the one who is not technically a criminal probably did the worst offense of all three. Keeping classified docs on his home computer. He is now a professor at MIT. Does that cause you to lower your opinion of the institution of higher learning? How about the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Here are some excerpts of interest.

As Mr. Clinton argued in a spirited defense of his actions in the New York Times just a month after he left office, presidents are free to pardon whom they wish. “There is only one prohibition: there can be no quid pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and commutations I granted,” he wrote.

That’s the whole point former Mr President. The quid pro quo is sort of difficult to deny with the donations. If for no other reason than the appearance of impropriety. Something that honorable people effectively avoid so as not to violate the public trust. Not something you or your associates would ever be accused of. Or more accurately, the only thing you and your associates would never be accused of.

Then there is the most salient point of the report.

It revives a deeply damaging controversy about the ethics of the Clintons at a time when Mrs. Clinton is already fending off accusations that a member of her campaign has been smearing her principal rival, Senator Obama, by suggesting to a top Democrat, according to the columnist Robert Novak, that they are sitting on scandalous information about the Illinois lawmaker that is so damaging, it would stop his campaign in its tracks.

It throws into doubt whether Mr. Clinton is a clear political asset to his wife’s campaign, or whether the prospect of his return to the White House in an as yet unspecified senior capacity might not bring with it a return of the procession of scurrilous accusations that severely hampered his ability to govern.

Between the history of the Clinton clan and the current lack of control the Clintons have for following honorable practices no shortage of reasons for rejecting their pursuit of public office has presented itself. The sheer abundance or quantity of examples of bad behavior displayed by Hillary Rodham and William Jefferson Clinton and their long list of associates is sufficient for the public to withdraw their support. One can only guess that those who support HRC or her husband are either uninformed or of similar character to that of the Clintons. Perhaps they will see the error of their ways before November 2008.

A bit of an update related to a post on this blog and a report from NRO that suggested or asked the question if Mitt Romney or his campaign had push-polled himself as a campaign tactic. Without going over the previous information, a report from the Boston Herald indicates both Romney and McCain, who was also a suspect of the blogosphere, had filed complaints with the NH AG. By the sounds of the Herald report the AG in NH is not going to let this one go. This should mean that it is only a matter of time before the real source of the push-poll calls are known.

That’s right, this blog supports Mitt Romney for President. But it would be better to find out bad news early than ignore the possibility that something may be wrong. Currently, the support here includes the belief that Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the push-polls. No reason to really think McCain was either. While the conclusions drawn as to why or how that could have happened are well constructed, it is the belief here that on its own, the push poll tactic is not worth the downside of slamming a torpedo into one’s campaign. In other words, minus the honor thing, there is no practical upside to the push-poll strategy that outweighs the downside of potential damage to a campaign.

Since Romney still leads in early states and lately HRC is losing ground combined with the fact she claims to have campaign ending dirt on Obama who leads her in Iowa, it is a surprise no one seems to have suggested the Clinton campaign as a culprit. With their track record on personal ethics or lack of same, its an unethical match made in hell. Not to mention news of that being the case would make this blog very happy.

Romney camp denies role in anti-Mitt push polls
By Jessica Van Sack

Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign furiously denied rumors yesterday that his own supporters were involved in calls placed to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that spread anti-Romney smears under the guise of conducting a poll.

Political strategists and bloggers slung accusations at Romney’s camp yesterday after a scathing article appeared in the National Review titled “Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?” which identified several Romney supporters at Western Wats, a Utah-based firm believed to have made the calls. The practice of using phony polls to plant a negative message is commonly known as push-polling.

William Jefferson Clinton is the second US President to be impeached. It is fair to say that Richard Milhous Nixon came within an eyelash of the same fate and perhaps for more egregious violations of law. However, it is splitting hairs to measure unlawful activity from the Oval Office in degrees of disgraceful or harmful conduct. No President should violate the law. The highest office in the land demands no exceptions on this point. While the rest of us mere mortals may stray from time to time we expect more from the leader of this country. In the case of the first President to be impeached, actually twice, the shoe seems to have been on the other foot. Some historians view Andres Johnson’s impeachment as a miscarriage of justice or a violation of law itself.

The Clinton mystique or incredible ability to perpetrate fraud may even carry to the materials with which we teach our children. While practical matters or those of taste may have guided treatment of the Clinton Impeachment in high school textbooks, it would be proper not to alter the facts in addition to protecting our innocent children from the ‘bawdy details’ of President Clinton’s actions with a White House intern. Like the kids don’t get enough of that on TV or in the classroom. That’s right, that is a reference to the unforgivable number of teachers having affairs with students.

The report discussing this curious manipulation of high school textbook content was published in December 2005 in USA Today by AP.

Today’s textbooks labor to be careful with Clinton scandal

WASHINGTON (AP) — The impeachment of former President Clinton is in a gray area of history, too long ago to be a current event, too recent to be judged in perspective.

Yet history is already judging Clinton in the place where millions of students get their information about him — textbooks.

Seven years after he was impeached in a scandal of sex, perjury and bitter politics, Clinton has become a fixture in major high school texts.

Without reviewing full text examples of how publishers are portraying the Clinton impeachment there is reason to be optimistic if the following is representative of important facts included.

The House impeached Clinton on charges of lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice to conceal his affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern. Although he was acquitted in a Senate trial, Clinton was branded as the second president impeached for conduct in office.

“Although there was general agreement that the president had lied, Congress was divided over whether his actions justified impeachment,” the book says.

Is it any wonder why many are angry that the Clintons are withholding documents from the public during a Presidential campaign where the former First Lady is a candidate, the former President a spouse, technically, and another effort by two with questionable histories to shield their records from public scrutiny. If someone is trying that hard to cover up their collective pasts, the intelligent thing to do is reject them as candidates.

Here is Article One from the Articles of Impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton:

Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and
in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a
Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath,
William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false
and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or
more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his
relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior
perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and
misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a
Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt
efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede
the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted
in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.

And it is claimed that the Senate was sure he lied but unsure if his actions warranted impeachment. Let’s see. There is evidence the President lied to a grand jury, had sex with an intern in the Oval Office but they don’t know if that is enough for impeachment. Would they please explain where the line is? The one you cross to get impeached or is that largely a political decision like nearly every other thing the Senate does.