President Obama and the Democrats have responded [to the economic crisis] by steering the US radically to the left. Since World War II, the federal government has most years spent less than one dollar in five of national income. Once the stimulus gets underway, the federal government will spend more than one dollar in four. The cost of everything the Democrats want to do comes closer to one dollar in three.
We’re facing more regulation of everything from high finance to the ordinary workplace. The Democrats are expanding Medicaid to crowd out private insurance. The federal government wants a huge new role in redirecting private investment in transportation and energy in the name of “green jobs.”
In 1996, Bill Clinton asserted, "We will meet these challenges, but not through big government. The era of big government is over."
Would President Billary have been as intent on sinking so many hundreds of billions of dollars into the black hole that is the porkulus package?
I, for one, think that the damage would have been marginally smaller.
Oh, Bill. If only you had been right about the era of big government being over.
So what do you think? Intentional? Just an itchy face?
Here's a slew of opinions in case you (a) have time to kill (b) enjoy exceptionally frivolous political scandals, or (c) have always wanted to give Hillary the finger and so you can't rest until you know he meant it.
Hip-hop star Snoop Dogg has launched a scathing attack on U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, accusing him of gleaning support from the Ku Klux Klan.
The rapper, real name Calvin Broadus Jr., insists the Democratic candidate has received funding from the KKK.
He tells the Guardian, "The KKK gave Obama money. They was (sic) one of his biggest supporters ... Why wouldn't they be? The media won't tell you that. They don't want you to know that. They just want you to know that this [bleep] befriended this other [bleep] who be (sic) threatening your values.
"But we all know all presidents lie to get into [bleep] office. That's they (sic) job."
But Snoop insists Obama will still emerge victorious in the upcoming presidential elections. He adds, "In America's eyes, that mutha[bleep]'s gonna be president 'cos (John) McCain can't [bleep] with him. Hillary (Clinton) can't [bleep] with him. He's winning over white people, white ladies."
That's about as enlightening as any political commentary gets nowadays. Let's get this Snoopy Dre fellow a show on CNN. I'd rather get my news from the dee-oh-double-gee than from that punk Anderson Cooper. Nobody's hair looks like that naturally. I'm not fooled, Anderson.
No, I mean real pain. Not "ouch, I just stubbed my toe" or "my arm has been detached by a bear" pain. I mean true, honest-to-goodness, down to your soul, torment and agony.
Steel yourselves, friends. I guarantee this will be the most unpleasant experience of your lives.
I made it all the way to 37 seconds. That definitely gives me bragging rights. Anybody get further than that?
So much for gracefully withdrawing her nomination for the good of the party. A protracted and ugly final chapter of the Democratic nomination process would definitely play in McCain favour, allowing him time to get conservatives on side, name a veep, and start sniping at Obama before the latter has a chance to focus on the general campaign. McCain is no doubt hoping to swiftboat Obama before the campaign even begins. If the Republicans can manage to define the Messiah before he gets a chance to define himself, we'll have a John Kerry redux on our hands. McCain better start mending some of those fences soon or it'll be an opportunity squandered.
... Assuming it's her line and not some speech writer's. Which would be pretty ironic after the talkin' to she had just given Barack, wouldn't you say?
Now I'm not too interested in playing into the whole plagiarism meme that's been running around the blogosphere lately about Barack Obama but this clip was funny enough and pretty interesting:
Patrick was the source of Obama's allegedly lifted words, and he laughed off the accusation of plagiarism, calling it "elaborate" and "extravagant."
"I think it's a sad comment on the state of the race and the state of our politics that the Clinton campaign is taking this particular tack," he told Diane Sawyer.
The Democratic governor also said it was not necessary for Obama to credit Patrick for drawing from his words.
"It's not like he's writing a law review article or a book or something like that," he argued.
I mean, obviously the words aren't his. The question is whether it was wrong not to attribute the words to him. I think Governor Patrick covers it here:
Hillary has finally picked up on the fact that experience is her rival's only real kryptonite and that she needs to be going on the attack over the next few weeks mainly on that issue. This inexperience has never been driven home quite as ruthlessly as it was on MSNBC's 'Decision '08 with Chris Matthews' last night when the host completely humiliated Texas State Senator Kirk Watson who worships at the alter of the Obamessiah. I think Hill's got the message now though since she's already referenced this clip in a campaign speech today:
I hate Hillary's politics. A lot. But like Jack Nicholson said, "She's the right man for the job." I don't mean for President; I just mean for the Democratic nomination. Obama's record is tabula rasa. And I think that is the line of attack we'll be hearing from the Clinton camp over the last weeks of the primary.
Barack's going to start feeling a lot of resistance. Hillary's going to have to go negative, I imagine, and John McCain has already turned his guns on the man. His "eloquent but empty call for change" line got about 30 seconds of cheering when he delivered it last night and it's getting a lot of attention today.
Also: Nicola was asking in the comments about why Michelle Obama's gaffe about not being proud of America didn't cost Obama any support in Wisconsin and I responded it was probably because people hear what they want to hear. This is Obama's official spin on the comment:
Barack Obama, interviewed on WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, expressed frustration that his wife’s comments became political fodder.
“Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn’t at all what she meant,” Obama said.
“What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said. “Because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”
As the Wisconsin exit poll numbers roll in, it's finally hitting home for me that the Clinton Election Machine has been thoroughly trounced. There is no Comeback Kid part deux, no finding her voice and winning over America. She has been politically bested by a man with no accomplishments or a single substantial policy.
In the most recent installment of Shire Network News - the one with the Ezra interview - the host and an interviewee analyze the charismatic Democrat's vacuity. The interviewer reminds us of a part in the new Family Guy Star Wars spoof when the Emperor figures out the perfect formula for great Star Wars dialogue: "Something, something, something, dark side; something, something, something, complete." He went on that Obama has stumbled upon a similarly perfect formula for Democratic speech-writing: "Something, something, something, hope; something, something, something, change." And it's true. Listening to Obama speak is like playing a policy version of Where's Waldo.
"Is that a policy? No, no. That's just emotional demagoguery. Is that a policy? No. Hmm."
It's impossible to detect a single tangible policy behind his undoubtedly stirring words. And, consulting the delegate count, current poll numbers, and the momentum of the race, Democrats are buying right into it.
On a sadder note, how about Clinton's latest hair-brained scheme? Talk about desperation. Apparently, her campaign is prepared to win over a few of Obama's delegates - the one's he's already won - if Hillary thinks she needs them for the convention. That's right. She plans on somehow persuading pledged delegates who currently back Obama to switch sides in large enough numbers to secure the nomination. Apparently, it's legally possible and is kind of an open secret of the Democratic nomination process.
“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
So let the wooing begin, I guess. But can anybody actually see this plot panning out? Firstly, this rule is fairly obscure and violates some pretty entrenched conventions of the process. Secondly, the pledged delegates have been elected by the people to back a certain candidate so it would be seen as a betrayal to the voters if they switched sides at the last minute. And, finally, even if they manage to convince a few of Obama's people, how could they possibly hope to gain enough delegates to snag the nomination, especially if one assumes Obama will be fighting fire with fire and wooing her own delegates? Good luck with that, Hill.
So, despite a few moments over the past few months in which I was absolutely certain she couldn't be stopped no matter how charismatic the Obamessiah was, the American people seem to be eating his vacuous rhetoric like it was a delicious steak dinner, marinated in the sauce of hope and grilled on the barbecue of change. The polling numbers are spiraling out of Hillary's control. Her winning the nomination may still be possible mathematically, but here's one man's opinion: stick a fork in her, she's done.
PLUS: I wish I could call it a 'palate cleanser' but in reality it's more of a 'suicide inducer':
I'm so, so sorry. But, to be fair, Huckabee's fans suck too.
Pretty much exactly what you would expect from the Huckabee camp. A lot of empty criticisms of his opponents and passive-aggressive swipes at their credentials but, when it comes to explaining Huck's policies, the focus conspicuously shifts to his Chuck Norris endorsement.
Oops, there goes another wannabe? I think Allah puts it best:
It wasn’t ol’ Fred who waited until the Iowa caucuses to discover the virtues of border enforcement, kiddo.
My money is still on a Clinton/Obama ticket but an Obama/Gore combo isn't beyond the realm of possibility either. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. Most people I've talked to who thought a Clinton/Obama ticket would never happen cited their egos and the acrimony the campaign has stirred up between the two Democratic frontrunners. If the problems between them are as deep as they are said to be, could this save the Democrats from a bitter and divisive second ballot, if it comes to that?
Theoretically, Gore would help mitigate some of the concerns voters have about the Obamessiah's lack of experience and, for his part, Obama's inspiring oratory would certainly lend some charisma points to Gore's campaign. So, what are we thinking? Could it happen?
The last time a political convention went to a second ballot was 1952, but this is a year with so many twists and turns that nothing is impossible. Gore would be tempted on so many levels. He would only have to endure two months of campaigning, not long enough for voters to remember what they didn't like about him eight years ago. Gore has sat out the primary process, refusing to offer even so much as a hint of where his sentiments lie. Years of playing second-fiddle to Hillary in the White House no doubt precluded his endorsement for her. Surely he would happily take Obama as his running mate, ending the Clinton dynasty and positioning the Democrats for a potential 16-year reign at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unstoppable, the thinking goes, matching the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain, on national security and experience, while embodying a powerful message of change.
The Gore second-ballot scenario isn't being seriously considered by Democratic Party leaders (as far as we know). But a number of individual high-profile Democrats are talking about it, along with any number of other ideas to end the seemingly intractable stalemate.
How could this unfold? Superdelegates are not bound to any candidate. They can do what they want, including changing their mind or withholding an endorsement until the balloting begins. Delegates won in the primaries go to the party's convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular candidate, but one of the biggest myths of the delegate selection process, according to a Democratic National Committee document, is that delegates are bound to follow that pledge on the first ballot. A delegate is asked to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," a provision designed in part to make the convention a deliberative body. If Hillary's attempts to secure the nomination are seen as illegitimate, and they fail, yet Obama is not seen as a clear victor, Gore's name could be introduced. All it would take is a delegate perhaps from Tennessee, his home state, to raise a point of order, and with backing from five other state delegations, Gore's name could be put in play as a prospective nominee.
Gore's global warming agenda has been one of biggest and most transparent power grabs in the history of Western politics and it was only a matter of time before he felt the time was right to throw his hat back in the race.
Allah has some good insight, as always:
Solomonic broker between the Glacier and Messiah — or consensus second-ballot nominee himself? He’s the worst of both worlds: As left-wing as Obama but without the likeability, as establishment as Hillary but without the organization. Or is it the best of both worlds: As messianic as Obama and as experienced as Hillary? Whatevs. “Gore 2008: Another white man after all.”
Exit question: Tougher to beat than Hill or Barry O? McCain’s maverickiness on global warming would neutralize the Goracle on his signature issue so he’d run mainly on his personal credentials, likely with Obama as VP to leverage his personnel and fundraising. Supplementary exit question: Why would Obama go for it?
This is just a short follow-up to a post of mine a few weeks ago when I discussed the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket and what that would mean for the Republican party. The National Post picked up on the idea today and this is what they came up with:
Rosie O'Donnell thinks Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should unite and "save the world together." Wolf Blitzer, the avuncular CNN political anchor, is practically obsessed with the possibility.
And grassroots Democrats, well, they burst into spontaneous applause whenever the matter is broached in public.
The idea that Clinton and Obama might team up to form a ‘dream ticket' in the 2008 election has captivated pundits and party activists in recent weeks, with the din of speculation about a political partnership growing louder the longer the two candidates battle each other to a draw in presidential primaries.
But what's the actual chance that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama -- with egos and ambition to match the size of their political talents -- would actually accept an offer to be the other's running mate?
...
Its proponents argue Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama complement each other in ways that go beyond the compelling aspects of race and gender. Democrats see in Mr. Obama a powerful orator who can inspire a divided nation. In Ms. Clinton, they see an extremely smart candidate with experience and policy depth.
"I think America would benefit from the strengths of either individual," Ms. O'Donnell, the liberal and comedienne, gushed last week in a column on The Huffington Post Web site.
"If those strengths were combined, we might just have the Democratic powerhouse the country needs to turn itself around."
The U.S. media has also been "drooling," in the words of CBS anchor Harry Smith, over the prospect of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ballot.
The ‘dream ticket' question has become an interview staple for CNN's Mr. Blitzer, who put the candidates on the spot during a nationally televised debate in California.
Both candidates have been scrupulously noncommittal.
"I'm sure Hillary would be on anybody's short list," Mr. Obama said.
"I will consider every qualified person, and that certainly covers him," said Ms. Clinton, in turn.
The possibility of an Obama-Clinton alliance increases the longer the race continues, especially if there is no clear winner before the party's August convention in Denver.
A Time magazine polls last week found 62% of Democrats want Ms. Clinton to put Mr. Obama on the ticket, while just 51% believed Mr. Obama would need to reciprocate if he were the nominee.
"If Hillary Clinton were to receive the nomination, there would be the expectation that she would at least extend the offer to Barack Obama," says Mr. Walch.
An interviewee describes the chances as about 50-50. While there are compelling reasons to think neither of them would be capable of swallowing their pride and extending the offer, a Clinton/Obama ticket is pretty much a slam dunk, especially with McCain and his divided conservative base. And now the word is that Maverick is thinking about a centrist veep. I guess he figures that he's already pissed of enough of the social conservatives that his best bet is to take a chunk out of the independent crowd. Ace outlines why that strategy is never going to pan out here.
The best reason not to support Hillary? It would make you one of these losers. What a train wreck. I should mention, of course, that this is not an official ad. I hope you watched it all the way through though because Heaven and Earth know no greater relief than that felt when the singing finally stops.
Ace has the wrap up of the Super Tuesday primaries here.
I'm afraid it isn't good news for Republicans. McCain is still going strong, Clinton and Obama are drawing voters by the bushel, and Huckabee has surged in the South.
Unless you're only a Republican in the vaguest possible sense - that is to say, a John McCain supporter - you must be beginning to get that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. You know, the same one you got in 2004 when you realized that Paul Martin was actually going to become Prime Minister of Canada. A lot depends on today's Super Tuesday results, of course, but it's looking more and more likely that McCain's going to be the candidate and, worse yet, that the veepee could be Huckabee. It's a disheartening prospect.
Through it all, there has been one great comfort felt on the right: the Democratic candidate is probably going to be Hillary Clinton. No matter what problems we have with the current direction of the GOP, a glance at the Democratic primaries gave us hope. Hillary Clinton is a socialist-cum-moderate who says things like "I have a million ideas; America can't afford them all" on the campaign trail. She's a figure of the institution in an election where the buzz word is change. She's as divisive as any Republican and her popularity is probably about equal to John Kerry's in 2004 but no greater. Whether it's McCain or Romney who gets the nod, chances are they'd have a good shot at beating her.
Although the momentum seems to favour Clinton, I don't mean to completely count out Obama. He has made - and is still making - an impressive run at it. Clinton has a large support base and the advantage of name recognition but the adulation thrown at Obama has proven time and again to be a force to be reckoned with. It's true that his experience is non-existent. And it's also true that his power is mostly as a symbol of that great and nebulous concept of change. "Change into what? Um. Who cares? Just change, okay!" But the power of what he represents has now become impossible to deny and, for Clinton, too dangerous to ignore.
So, for all these reasons, I wasn't all that surprised to hear that Clinton strategists are beginning to say that Obama would "absolutely" be considered as a running mate if Hillary gets the nomination. The animosity between these two had put me at ease heretofore but the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket, something I consider to be increasingly likely now that they're beginning to make nice, cannot be dismissed out of hand. Against John McCain and the inevitably divided conservative base that would accompany his nomination, it's hard to find an angle that doesn't point to a Democratic landslide. When even Ann Coulter says she'll vote for Hillary over McCain, you know the Republicans are going to have trouble satisfying the base.
With Clinton and Obama on the same ticket, we're beginning to enter nightmare scenario territory; 16 years of Democrats in the White House. Consider it. In the general election, Hillary would likely match Kerry's performance in 2004 and pick up the usual blue states but Obama's name on the ballot would almost certainly be enough to keep and gain most of the swing states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Iowa. His popularity among independents and the power of his "change" message has already proven effective in most of these states.
There's that sinking feeling again.
The more I mull it over, the more sense it seems to make for the Democrats. Is the Clinton/Obama ticket as likely as I think it is? Roland Martin offers some pretty persuasive reasons to think it'll never happen, but I'm still not convinced.
We've all had fun watching Obama and Clinton snipe at each other. There's clearly no love lost between these two. But how far are they willing to go to keep a Republican out of the White House?
I can't be the only one who thinks the answer is "as far as necessary".
Good timing, strong message, tough but accurate. It should definitely be effective. Unfortunately, it's only circulating on the internet at the moment.
A bit of a snoozer, according to Bryan at Hot Air. All in all, I think the night goes to Mitt Romney. He had a couple particularly strong moments, the most memorable of which came in response to a question about the war in Iraq.
Here's the clip:
And another good moment for Romney:
You have to like the man's chances going into the next few states. Now that many if not most Fred Heads have made the less-than-smooth transition to the Mitt camp, Romney heads into Florida polling strongly and with momentum on his side. Unless Giuliani has something spectacular up his sleeve - and I mean spectacular - then I just can't see him rallying in time to make a real run at winning the state. The so-called "late state" strategy turned out to be a stinker.
Ladies and gentleman, the winner of the Republican New Hampshire Primary, John McCain:
I can't argue with his words. These are just excepts from his acceptance speech, of course, but the entire address has been getting a lot of attention, and with good reason. In particular, this line turned some heads:
"The history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe [the jihadists], but by the courage of free peoples. In this historic task, we will never surrender. They will."
Jim Geraghty goes so far as to call this line "Churchillian," which I think is extraordinarily generous. He said all the right things but his monotony still grates on me. If Obama had delivered those lines I may have broke into tears. McCain's comfortable margin of victory - by 6,000 votes or so - was surprising given the expected turnout on the Republican side, as The Confederate Yankee points out. With most independents voting in the Democratic primary, many were calling for a Romney upset since McCain was counting on those independent votes to boost his numbers. Clearly, he didn't need them.
As for the Democrats, the race was close for awhile but Hillary pulled it off. Could this mark the end of Obamania? The hype around this man since Iowa was unbelievable and I couldn't help but be drawn into the messianic narrative myself. Let this be a reality check for us all. The Clinton Election Machine is a frighteningly powerful engine.
Her acceptance speech was, well, it was Hillary Clinton. "Over the last week I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice." She certainly knows how to play to the female demographic. Her speech reads like a Virginia Woolf novel. Listen to the cheers that line got her though:
Posts
