The obvious question is, how can any U.S. voter, or observer of U.S. politics, ever believe anything published or uttered by the Clintons or their surrogates, especially Wolfson or McCaulif? The obvious answer to the obvious question is itself so obvious, that one more question must be asked. What is the true interest of the Clinton campaign? After all, it defies belief that even those Clintonistas who have "drunk the coolaid" could be live that continuing her campaign will result in her getting the nomination. This "anything can happen" strategy is ridiculous. If she dropped out now (or a week ago), she would be in exactly the same position to be the default candidate if "anything" happened.
So, the potential real interests are: playing for Veep; trying to destroy Obama so as to position Hillary for 2012; trying to suck more money out of contributors before throwing in the towel.
But I return to the original question, of how any moderately reasonable person could ever believe anything said by the Clintons. It's a mystery to me.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Thirty: Hillary For Veep - NOT!
Dear Senator Obama:
Although I have voted primarily Republican since I cast my first vote in 1972 (for George McGovern), I am leaning heavily towards voting for you this November. My tendency is to vote against all incumbents. I am in favor of: Term limits on all of you pirates; flat tax; and mandatory government service for all Americans. My favorte politican during my lifetime is Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which is of course one reason why I so deeply despise Mrs. Clinton, as if I needed another reason. The most destructive, self-absorbed politicans of my lifetime are the Clintons. Which brings me to my point.
As your bean-counters are no doubt telling you, you have a great chance to pick many thousands of votes from folks like me disenchanted with Bush II. About the only thing you could do to blow your chances with me is to select Clinton as your VP. Even now as she, and the media, begin the early negotiations to keep Hillary's face in the public trough, you need to understand how visceral the feelings are of us who have endured all these years of Clinton. Those of us who love this country and have served this country and have children who are serving this country, see very clearly how much damage has been done by the Clintons and their minions. Please don't allow this to continue.
Although I have voted primarily Republican since I cast my first vote in 1972 (for George McGovern), I am leaning heavily towards voting for you this November. My tendency is to vote against all incumbents. I am in favor of: Term limits on all of you pirates; flat tax; and mandatory government service for all Americans. My favorte politican during my lifetime is Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which is of course one reason why I so deeply despise Mrs. Clinton, as if I needed another reason. The most destructive, self-absorbed politicans of my lifetime are the Clintons. Which brings me to my point.
As your bean-counters are no doubt telling you, you have a great chance to pick many thousands of votes from folks like me disenchanted with Bush II. About the only thing you could do to blow your chances with me is to select Clinton as your VP. Even now as she, and the media, begin the early negotiations to keep Hillary's face in the public trough, you need to understand how visceral the feelings are of us who have endured all these years of Clinton. Those of us who love this country and have served this country and have children who are serving this country, see very clearly how much damage has been done by the Clintons and their minions. Please don't allow this to continue.
Twenty Nine: WSJ Against Obama
Well, after what all objective (that means all non-Clinton brainwashed) observers see as the last gasp of Obama's opponent, what does the WSJ have as its lead story and viusal - Hillary Clinton. Either the Journal really does hate Obama, or they figure that Clinton will be easier to beat. Whatever the case, the paper's reputation for objectivity and fairness is pretty much out the window.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Twenty Eight: Sotto Voce Racism
Obama trounces Clinton in NC. Clinton ekes out win in IN. Obama increases his delegate lead, and popular vote lead. Clinton has yet to deliver a decisive, blow-out primary victory in any state since Obama became the delegate leader in February. Every rationalization Clinton has produced for continuing her scorched-earth campaign has fallen flat.
Yet in most new stories, whether print, broadcast, or web, the headline and visual begins with Clinton. Those same stories always seem to have an underlying sympathy for Clinton. She has never been asked to explain what her "experience" advantage really is. Despite being forced to admit that she has lied about her record, the press and her supporters seem unaffected.
The press reports that Obama received 90% of the black vote in NC as almost a negative for Obama. The press reports that Clinton received 60% of the white vote in Indiana also as a negative for Obama. The press continues to play up the Reverend Wright story, even when the interviewees make no mention of it, and then the press reports that the story "just will not go away."
What reason for this is there besides an insidious, sub rosa, sotto voce, racism? Why won't people who don't want a black president simply come out and say so. I suspect that Bill and Hillary are among these people.
At this stage, it is crystal clear that Hillary is running for president in 2012. In order to do so, she will do whatever she can to destroy Obama in the general, and then say, "I told you so." And the racists will be happy too.
Yet in most new stories, whether print, broadcast, or web, the headline and visual begins with Clinton. Those same stories always seem to have an underlying sympathy for Clinton. She has never been asked to explain what her "experience" advantage really is. Despite being forced to admit that she has lied about her record, the press and her supporters seem unaffected.
The press reports that Obama received 90% of the black vote in NC as almost a negative for Obama. The press reports that Clinton received 60% of the white vote in Indiana also as a negative for Obama. The press continues to play up the Reverend Wright story, even when the interviewees make no mention of it, and then the press reports that the story "just will not go away."
What reason for this is there besides an insidious, sub rosa, sotto voce, racism? Why won't people who don't want a black president simply come out and say so. I suspect that Bill and Hillary are among these people.
At this stage, it is crystal clear that Hillary is running for president in 2012. In order to do so, she will do whatever she can to destroy Obama in the general, and then say, "I told you so." And the racists will be happy too.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Twenty Seven: MSFT/Hillary
What do MSFT and Hillary have in common? They are both chasing deals which ultimately, whether they win or lose, will be self-destructive and harmful to the general environment in which they respectively operate.
If MSFT succeeds in getting YHOO, Ballmer will have decimated employee morale at both companies. What he cannot or will not understand or admit, is that left alone, YHOO will continue in slow decline to lose its contest with GOOG. GOOG was actually doing MSFT a favor by beating the pants off of YHOO before MSFT made its stupid offer. MSFT could and would do much better to put its cash and brand to work in non-advertising sectors where it is historically strong and dominant.
Hillary, likewise, whether she succeeds or fails in her self-absorbed quest to be the leader of the world, will alienate at least a couple of generations from the Democratic party. By pursuing her scorched earth strategy against Obama, she has created huge doubts about herself and Obama which would never have existed but for her raging ego-driven quest. If she had graciously bowed out and supported Obama, she would have attained great stature within the party, and positioned herself to be the party savior when and if Obama fails (either in the general election, or as president).
Both Hillary and Ballmer are like jilted paramours. Once rejected, or failed, they cannot now back off and accept a self-perceived lesser partner, or lead a single life while searching for love in other places.
If MSFT succeeds in getting YHOO, Ballmer will have decimated employee morale at both companies. What he cannot or will not understand or admit, is that left alone, YHOO will continue in slow decline to lose its contest with GOOG. GOOG was actually doing MSFT a favor by beating the pants off of YHOO before MSFT made its stupid offer. MSFT could and would do much better to put its cash and brand to work in non-advertising sectors where it is historically strong and dominant.
Hillary, likewise, whether she succeeds or fails in her self-absorbed quest to be the leader of the world, will alienate at least a couple of generations from the Democratic party. By pursuing her scorched earth strategy against Obama, she has created huge doubts about herself and Obama which would never have existed but for her raging ego-driven quest. If she had graciously bowed out and supported Obama, she would have attained great stature within the party, and positioned herself to be the party savior when and if Obama fails (either in the general election, or as president).
Both Hillary and Ballmer are like jilted paramours. Once rejected, or failed, they cannot now back off and accept a self-perceived lesser partner, or lead a single life while searching for love in other places.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Twenty Six: Elected Judges
In general, elected state court judges are by and large, incompetent. They routinely allow parties and clients to severely abuse the discretion of the court, especially when the clients are pro se. If the pro se party appears slightly deranged, the judge allows even more leniency which leads to further abuse.
Let's face it - the U.S. jurisprudence system does not exist for the dispensation of justice, or to find remedies, or to resolve conflict, or to find basic fairness in the affairs of men and society. It exists to perpetuate itself, like any other bureaucracy. The parties are grist for the mill. The lawyers and judges do a kind of dance which they all think is solemn and dignified. Actually it is a joke at the expense of the parties it is supposed to serve.
The judges, especially at the state court level, are the bottom of the barrel amongst lawyers. When you go to law school, you can tell who the judges are going to. They're the ones with their hands constantly in the air trying to show the professors and other students how much they know. The need for recognition is obvious.
The moral to this story is plain: Stay the hell out of court unless the alternative is prohibitively expensive or otherwise unavailable. Once you're in the system, there are no winners, except of course for the judges and the sycophant lawyers.
Let's face it - the U.S. jurisprudence system does not exist for the dispensation of justice, or to find remedies, or to resolve conflict, or to find basic fairness in the affairs of men and society. It exists to perpetuate itself, like any other bureaucracy. The parties are grist for the mill. The lawyers and judges do a kind of dance which they all think is solemn and dignified. Actually it is a joke at the expense of the parties it is supposed to serve.
The judges, especially at the state court level, are the bottom of the barrel amongst lawyers. When you go to law school, you can tell who the judges are going to. They're the ones with their hands constantly in the air trying to show the professors and other students how much they know. The need for recognition is obvious.
The moral to this story is plain: Stay the hell out of court unless the alternative is prohibitively expensive or otherwise unavailable. Once you're in the system, there are no winners, except of course for the judges and the sycophant lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)