Victor Davis Hanson has written a clear, basic analysis of Barack Obama and his faltering campaign. Obama is a deeply flawed candidate, and the more media exposure he gets, the worse he seems to look to voters.
I may wind up being right about Hillary Clinton, after all.
Showing posts with label hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hillary. Show all posts
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Liberal Endorsement
The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races.
The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?
One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]
With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again.
The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.
A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.
The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?
One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]
With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again. The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.
A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.
Friday, December 21, 2007
As Bill is Bought, So is Hillary
Is it clear to everyone else that when money is given to Bill, Hillary also benefits?
Bill's Clinton Foundation, for example.
Or Bill's employment by the crown prince of Dubai.
Or Bill's offshore investments in the Cayman Islands. (Isn't that done to avoid paying taxes? Isn't Hillary constantly talking about how rich people like Bill and her should pay more taxes?)
Tsk, tsk.
Should the POTUS be involved in so many questionable deals?
Bill's Clinton Foundation, for example.
Or Bill's employment by the crown prince of Dubai.
Or Bill's offshore investments in the Cayman Islands. (Isn't that done to avoid paying taxes? Isn't Hillary constantly talking about how rich people like Bill and her should pay more taxes?)
Tsk, tsk.
Should the POTUS be involved in so many questionable deals?
Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part X - Hillary
"Experience counts."
Sound familiar? Remind you of Hillary Clinton's slogan when comparing herself to Barack Obama?
"Experience counts" is what Richard Nixon used in his campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1960.
In his most recent column, "Retro Campaigning," George Will examines the two primary instances of Hillary Clinton's "experience":
The first instance was the selection of her husband's Attorney General. Hillary's criteria was based on chromosomes -- the AG had to be a woman. The first choice was Zoey Baird, who was eliminated when she was found to have hired illegal immigrants as servants and had not paid Social Security taxes on them. The second choice was Kimba Wood, who had also hired an illegal immigrant. The final choice was Janet Reno, whose career as AG is remembered for 1) the botched assault on the Davidian compound in Waco, resulting in 86 deaths, 17 of which were the children the assault was supposed to save; and 2) the extraction at gunpoint of six-year-old Elian Gonzales so he could be sent back to Castro's Cuba.
To quote Will: "The second of Hillary Clinton's important experiences was the drafting, in secret, of a national health care plan. It was so dauntingly baroque and ominously statist that a Congress controlled by her party would not bring it to a vote. "
Her experiences that should matter most to primary voters reveal consistently bad judgment. Her campaign's behavior radiates bad character."
Sound familiar? Remind you of Hillary Clinton's slogan when comparing herself to Barack Obama?
"Experience counts" is what Richard Nixon used in his campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1960.
In his most recent column, "Retro Campaigning," George Will examines the two primary instances of Hillary Clinton's "experience":
The first instance was the selection of her husband's Attorney General. Hillary's criteria was based on chromosomes -- the AG had to be a woman. The first choice was Zoey Baird, who was eliminated when she was found to have hired illegal immigrants as servants and had not paid Social Security taxes on them. The second choice was Kimba Wood, who had also hired an illegal immigrant. The final choice was Janet Reno, whose career as AG is remembered for 1) the botched assault on the Davidian compound in Waco, resulting in 86 deaths, 17 of which were the children the assault was supposed to save; and 2) the extraction at gunpoint of six-year-old Elian Gonzales so he could be sent back to Castro's Cuba.
To quote Will: "The second of Hillary Clinton's important experiences was the drafting, in secret, of a national health care plan. It was so dauntingly baroque and ominously statist that a Congress controlled by her party would not bring it to a vote. "
Her experiences that should matter most to primary voters reveal consistently bad judgment. Her campaign's behavior radiates bad character."
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Hillary 1984 (For TT)
This video is a mashup of the famous "1984" commercial Apple did for the Super Bowl years ago.
I thought it pretty mild. The implied criticism is of her pedantic use of cliches, not her ideas. As another famous Conservative Critic has said, "They're after her cliches, not her substance."
It's gonna get worse for Mrs. Clinton. Much worse.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
If Hillary Were to Win
Remembering how the Clintons left the White House last time:
Source: U.S. General Accountability Office report
"Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition.
The director of the Office of Administration(OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he was "stunned" by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount of trash.
Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed:
(1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items;
(2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president;
(3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged "W" keys and broken furniture; and
(4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels.
In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration.
Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.
Most landlords wouldn't even rent these people an apartment. Why should we give them another opportunity to trash the White House (in more ways than one)?
Source: U.S. General Accountability Office report"Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition.
The director of the Office of Administration(OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he was "stunned" by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount of trash.
Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed:
(1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items;
(2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president;
(3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged "W" keys and broken furniture; and
(4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels.
In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration.
Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.
Most landlords wouldn't even rent these people an apartment. Why should we give them another opportunity to trash the White House (in more ways than one)?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Why Hillary Won't Win
Unless something catastrophic happens to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she will be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee. Currently the media are singing Barack Obama's song, and John Edwards (and possibly Al Gore) wait in the wings. But it's Hillary's game to lose.
Although she is certain to be the Democrat candidate, there are many reasons I believe she will be unable to win the Presidency.
Reason #1: "She's a girl." Yes, I realize that Hillary Clinton is not a child. Nonetheless, chauvinistic or not, many people will vote against Hillary because of her gender. Some of her supporters will vote for her for that reason alone, of course, but many more voters will decide to vote for Hillary's opponent based solely on her being a woman.
Reason #2: Her personality. Ms. Clinton will spend the next 21 months trying to soften her image. Since 1992, however, she has been depicted as a cold, calculating, hard-nosed, unlikable beeyotch. The rhetoric she will have to use to win the Democrat primaries will only accentuate this image, despite her attempts to change it.
Reason #3: Her husband. Bill Clinton polarizes Americans. Many people dislike him, and even among his admirers there are some who don't believe a family should return to the White House. "Time for some new blood" and "not again" will be the sentiments of many voters during the campaign.
Reason #4: The primaries. What Hillary Clinton did not need was a strong opponent in the Democrat primaries. Although she is certain to win the nomination, Barack Obama is currently the media darling, giving the other challengers the courage to challenge Hillary. This will entail a lot of mudslinging and the political version of a UFC fight. She's going to lose some teeth. The infighting will accentuate her negatives for the voters. Her only chance to come out clean and in good shape is if Obama's campaign disintegrates before the primaries, and the other Democrats roll over.
Reason #5: Her politics. Despite the 2006 elections (which was a reprimand vote against the Republicans' wandering from Conservative principles,) most Americans are conservative, and voters will put conservative politicians into office. Despite what she says during the presidential campaign (which will sound much more centrist and conservative than what she says during the primary campaign,) Hillary's record shows her to be very Liberal.
All of the above factors are rendered moot if Republicans field a weak candidate (ala Bob Dole, '96.) That's why it's vital that Republicans work hard to find someone who is intelligent, appealing, and Conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)