Hillary Sprinting Away From Hatred of Military

The epitome of fluff piece. Is this stuff even serious?

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Clinton must think the men and women in our military are as dumb as Rep. Charlie Rangel routinely makes them out to be if she honestly thinks she’ll ever win over a significant amount of military support. The military hasn’t forgotten the disdain for the armed services Bill and Hillary displayed while Bubba was Commander in Chief, nor will they forget that her husband dodged the draft during Vietnam. They also won’t forget her carefully crafted “If I knew then what I know now” position on Iraq, a position she’s taken solely for political purposes aimed at catering to the nutroots left, in spite of her trying to soften her ton on the Iraq war a few months later.

Regardless, this picture tells it all:

US men and women serving might feel compelled by their superiors or bound by a sense of duty to take a picture with an opportunistic politician, but thankfully there is no coercion involved in going to the ballot box, where the military consistently votes around 65% Republican (something Democrats know to the point of trying to suppress their votes in 2000).

So, Senator Clinton, you might think building relationships with the military is something you can do for purposes of political expediency, but - as they say - you can run from your rocky relationship with the military but you cannot hide.

Hillary's Vagina v. Grumpy/Primped/Gigolo

Tony Blankley, on the inevitability of President Hillary Rodham Clinton:

With every passing week it becomes more likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. This thought, alone, should provide the strongest possible motivation to the Bush Administration and the Washington Republicans to get their acts together so that the eventual Republican nominee for president doesn't start the general election campaign in too deep a hole.

That's probably not going to happen. When at any time in the past two years has the Bush Administration had its act together? The congress are too busy trying to run away to ever notice Clinton moving behind them within length of a telephone chord.

The polls that show half the country saying they won't vote for Hillary should be discounted. At the election, the choice will not be Hillary or not Hillary -- it will be Hillary or someone else. And that is what the campaign is about. ...

Moreover, Hillary's strengths are not yet as appreciated as they will be. Don't get me wrong, personally I find her and her candidacy detestable as the worst form of unprincipled, ruthless, nihilistic, mud-throwing demagogic politics. But for the Democratic Party electorate (and some Independents and soft Republicans) her apparent strengths will become more persuasive.

For example, the same 'strengths' that the donk congressional candidates had this year, like, uh, not being Republicans. Even more, she's the polar opposite of George W. Bush.
And, you know, Clintons always, um, pound Bushes.

Currently she suffers by the media's focus on her lack of spontaneity, charm or pleasant voice - particularly when compared with Obama and, to some extent, Edwards. But charm is not the only path to the American voter. Richard Milhouse Nixon won more national elections than any politician in our history (two vice presidents, three presidential nominations and two presidencies - three if you count the stolen 1960 election against Kennedy). He didn't have any charm - but he was smart, shrewd, highly political, hard working and ruthless. Sometimes the voters are looking for what they think is competence rather than a love affair.

Well, Tony, you should triple underline 'ruthless'. Hillary's a lot like Nixon, but the biggest difference between them is whereas Nixon's ruthlessness was incompetent, Hillary and the rest of the Clinton Workshop are, well, well oiled to say the least. That machine ran roughshod over every scandal pursuer and rings around the poor, stupid, hapless GOP for eight nearly intolerable years.

And no doubt, she's 'nowhere near as charming as her husband' and 'has all of her husband's slickness and none of the salesmanship that allowed him to get away with it,' she's got two huge advantages:

1.) A Vagina

2.) She's Not a Republican

The first will be so mind-blowingly intimidating to the second, that whoever the 'he' is that gets to face her, he won't DARE think of waging the kind of campaign she's guaranteed to. The media will do plenty to insulate her as well. It won't matter what he says or does; he's going to be gobbled up by her cult of personality, and the overwhelming power of her preemptive coronational procession. It doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter if it's jowly flavor of the week Fred Thompson. It doesn't matter if it's primped as a poodle Mitt Romney. It doesn't matter if it's Rudy Giuliani, male gigolo. Just like that Rick Lazio did in their 2000 Senate race, they'll spend months needlessly justifying or apologizing for the fact that they, too, don't have vaginas.

The Center Right will stay home because they'll just be frustrated. "Independents" will be dazzled by her 'competence', her hand-waving, and unmatched Bush hatred. Oh and like here in Massachusetts with Deval Patrick's blackness, they'll swoon for her, well the novelty of electing a woman to the presidency. The Cook-wing of the Donk party will be rustling themselves out of tequila comas and dragging themselves out of their organic gardens to exact the ultimate revenge for the 200 election.

Congressional Republicans need to stop treating the base of their party like they have AIDS. If they continue on the path they're on, the 2008 election is over. Period.

If Reagan could be resurrected or genetically cloned, he'd have a shot at the Vagina in '08, but none of the actual candidates, as of right now, really has a prayer. They don't have a vagina. Voters are that shallow and the Clintons will play right to it. They're the Washington Generals to Hillary's Harlem Globetrotters. If the movie Rocky were real, it would be like what would happen if Rocky faced Apollo creed for real. They're beaten. The media's playing coy with her for now, but give it some time and they'll prop her fallopian tubes up on a mantle an worship them. For now, These guys have all been beaten, and they don't even know it.

Well, McCain probably does....

These idiots need to wake up.

Hillary: Talk Radio is 'unfair'.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in distress at not recieving much of a favorable nod from talk radio, recently revived the specter of the Fairness Doctrine. This concept was introduced and rapidly killed in the last century. She was joined in this clamor by fellow liberals, to no one's surprise.

The essence of the Fairness Doctrine is equality in presenting points of view. The idea is that if one political candidate is criticized on a media outlet such as television or radio, he or she must be given equal time to rebut with a personal defense.

The problem with the doctrine, which was quickly discovered when the original act was implemented, is that the United States of America is not a socialist nation. That is, the airwaves are "public" in the sense that no one owns them per se, but they are very private in that one must pay money--big money--to secure the exclusive right to broadcast on a particular bandwidth. Neither you nor I could broadcast an alternate program on one of the major networks because they have a license to transmit solely their choice of programming.

Thus, to demand of Rush Limbaugh's network that Al Franken be allowed equal time to do his unfunny rant-and-rave routine, which failed miserably on Air America despite being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars in donor contributions, one would cite the Fairness Doctrine as the casus belli. (Note that that particular Latin term is deliciously appropriate: it means the rationale for going to war.)

But the Doctrine quickly ran into the problem of ownership. Having nothing of substance to say, liberals are rather boring. Once one sees past their accusations and spins, a process which requires up to five minutes for the dull-witted of us, they are worthless in terms of entertainment or interest value. Radio and TV stations make their money from renting air time to advertisers, who pay the high fees to pitch their products and services in anticipation that there is someone out there listening. If your main content is a drag, your ratings go in the tank and advertisers go where the eyes and ears are. Hence the merciful death of Air America after years of useless drivel. It was a total, utter, and dreadfully embarrassing failure for liberals because they have nothing whatsoever to say that anyone other than a moveon.org mouth-foamer would want to hear.

But Hillary says that's not fair. After all, she alleges, talk radio is almost entirely conservative. Therefore, raido listeners are presented with a daily barrage of conservative points of view and there is no surviving liberal counterpart.

This is somewhat mysterious. After all, Hillary is reasonably bright. She managed to survive the Bill years with a reputation that enabled her to buy a New York senate seat. Does she not understand that no one wants to hear liberals on the radio because there is nothing to hear? That listeners tune in to talk radio--voluntarily, with no one holding a shotgun to their head--because conservative points of view are preceived to be factual, sensible, and reasonable? That they are actually interesting?

Perhaps Hillary isn't so bright after all. She seems to think America is rather stupid not to see through her nonsense. But then, liberals are by definition afflicted by the mental disorder of trying to live in the world of their imaginations and earnest emotional desires rather than reality. More likely than not, she is sincere and just living up to her job description.

Presidential Election Musings

With the weekend being fairly slow, I figured I'd take some time to take a look at the Presidential Race thus far and try to make some sense of where all this has been and is heading in the next couple of months.

The Republican Candidates

Rudy Giuliani-- Rudy has run an extremely solid campaign thus far. His 80-20 message seemed to sit OK with Conservatives at CPAC a week or two ago and generally speaking, he seems to be the moderate candidate, as John McCain has more or less fallen on his face out of the gate. Giuliani is trying to keep this debate as much about National Security as humanly possible, which is what has more or less put him on the map to begin with. However, he's still got a lot of questions to answer, especially about some seedy female-related activity in the past, however I think concerns over this may be overstated, at least in a political sense. Yes, his promiscuity will rub Republicans the wrong way, but head to head, Hillary Clinton certainly can't hammer him with it. Yes, he's 'more liberal' on 'important' social issues, but Republicans seem to be looking for someone who can really sell and better prosecute the War in Iraq. Overall, I think he's in a good position, but again, there are some questions to be answered, but it's safe to say it's a little early yet to predict how they'll play out. Overall, he's looked strong.

Mitt Romney-- Mitt seems to be emerging as the Conservative choice, although he's still in the 'getting to know you' mode. Romney, in my view, is probably the strongest candidate at this point from a political perspective. The Mormonism won't be an issue. When candidates attack Mormon candidates, they do so implying that its creepy. What makes it creepy? The answer is polygamy. Mitt has been married longer than anyone in the field. Considering McCain and Giuliani's partners were mistresses before they were anything else gives them very little credibility in terms of being able to make those claims. I think he'll be fine.

In terms of organization, Mitt's campaign is unmatched right now, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton. He's raking in the cash and essentially stacked the rolls down at CPAC to win the straw poll and make himself a legitimate candidate amongst McCain and Giuliani. Some people are questioning his moderate views in the past, but Mitt has consistently moved to the right over the years, and doesn't LOOK like a panderer. Mitt's done the best so far because he's accomplished the most. He proved he can raise money with the best of them and flat out, out-organized the rest of the field at CPAC. He's arrived and seems to gradually be picking up more and more steam, although the arrival of a Newt Gingrich-type Conservative Candidate could seriously eat into his support.

John McCain-- I don't really get what McCain's strategy has been. He announced his candidacy in front of a largely liberal audience and his double-talk on many issues is beginning to really torpedo his poll numbers. More or less, McCain has been the most quiet of the big three Republican candidates in the media, and doesn't seem to really be able to get both feet under him. Romney's nimbleness and Rudy's marketing have forced McCain's campaign off balance and he almost seems dead on arrival to many. He has a huge uphill battle to wage and his failure to react more quickly in the past few months may have left him permanently behind. His name recognition make him a perennial threat not to be taken likely by anyone, but he has appeared to be completely out-maneuvered in the early part of this campaign.

The Rest-- There isn't much to be said about the Republican field outside of the Three Musketeers. Newt Gingrich confessing his affair this past week all but puts him on the outside for good. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, while very likable, certainly look like second tier candidates. They may liven up the debate, but don't look for these two to really go anywhere. The one dark horse with an outside shot of making a name for himself is Sam Brownback of Kansas, whose organization was commended at CPAC both for it's scope and general aggressiveness. Brownback is well to the right of even Romney and has the burden of being a legislator in the US Senate these days to keep him down, but if Brownback plays his cards right, he could make himself, ironically, the anti-establishment candidate in this election, even though his views are probably the most congruent with the current ideological bent of the Republican Party.



The Democrats


Hillary Clinton-- I'm utterly shocked at how her campaign has struggled out of the gate. While hugely popular with the base, voters don't seem to be 'buying into' her like they went for her husband. Her stump speeches have appeared forced and rather cookie cutter, and she's struggling to establish herself as a likable candidate. She's been reacting to news rather than making it and seemingly has been off-balance the entire last month or so despite not really seeing anything in the way of resistance. In sum, Hillary seems to be hurting Hillary, and if you're a supporter of hers, that's not a good sign, even this early.

Barack Obama-- Obama's been the hot candidate on the left for sure. Despite not taking so much as a single policy stance on much of anything, he seems to be inspiring a fervor on the left for an individual candidate that hasn't been seen in some time. He's got many big money celebrities in his corner and is even picking off support from the Hillary Clinton camp, which is utterly shocking. The big question still looms large though: Will the rubber meet the road with Obama the closer we get to Primary Day? Obama can't avoid taking stances on issues forever. In times like these, even the left and the right agree on the fact that this choice is going to be one of the most important ever. Will his lack of experience really come out to bite him in the backside? Again, he's avoided it thus far and is doing well. However, when he can't anymore, how will he, and most importantly Democratic voters, react?

John Edwards-- Edwards has been hopelessly quiet, save for his publicized spat with Commentator Ann Coulter, but Edwards has run a focused, bare bones campaign. Edwards has done this thing before and really never got rid of the campaign infrastructure he had in 2004. Edwards seems to have the most out-in-the-open and focused strategy of any of the candidates. He learned in 2004 that a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire can completely win this thing and in my view, he's right. Edwards is by far in the best position in the places that matter. He's incredibly popular in Iowa. He looks like an overwhelming favorite there. If he wins New Hampshire, this thing's over, but if he finishes second, Obama and Hillary need to move over in a big way, if not get out of the way entirely. Sure, Edwards has appeared whiny thus far and has even had to beat off conservative attacks regarding two insane-o bloggers who were working as campaign staffers for him, but more or less, still seems to be in a pretty solid place all things considered.

The Rest-- Something about this Democratic field makes me think we may have a dark horse emerge. My pick is going to be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. If Richardson can get some media, I think he'll win the primary. Yes, I said it. Not only is he by far the most experienced candidate in the race, it's all experience that involve critical issues to voters this election cycle. He's got 8 years worth of experience in the House of Reps and will be able to work congress well. He's got two years of experience under his belt as a Governor in New Mexico, which also makes him credible on illegal immigration, not to mention he's, uh, Hispanic too. He worked as the Sec. of Energy for the Clinton administration which makes him a credible voice on the energy crisis and then spent his final days with Bill as the US Ambassador to the UN. If he can frame the debate as one about experience, he'll cleanly run over Hillary and Obama. He's incredibly dangerous. Two tax cuts in New Mexico will also give him cross over appeal. Whether he can get media or not is a big question, but Obama and Hillary talking qualifications with Richardson would be like two little leaguers trying to prove they can hit a baseball farther than Barry Bonds. Look out.

Chris Dodd shouldn't be in this race, period. Whoever told him he had a shot at getting anything higher than 3% in this race should be fired. He's not just dead on arrival, he's been dead for the last 5 years.

Dennis Kucinich.... riiight.

The rest of the field is certainly defined by the 'who cares' category.


I'll try and do a monthly analysis of where we're at with this whole mess. It's shaping up to be a very interesting race, indeed.

And Then There Was One

Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to know who's giving to her campaign.Something about being a Clinton and not wanting people to know stuff..

While campaigns are required to report the names of individuals who contribute the maximum $2,300, they don't have to provide the really important information: Who are the well-connected fund-raisers who so happen to be helping them bring in big bundles of cash? That's why we here at the Fed and many other voters have been asking that our Presidential candidates should release voluntarily the identities of those deep pocked people and within reason, let us know how much money they raised for them. In the past few days, two candidates, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudolph W. Giulliani, agreed to provide such disclosure. They join Democrat Barack Obama and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney, who had already made that promise.