Friday, February 22, 2008
I didn't get to watch the debate between Hillary and Obama last night because I was at a McCain event, but First Read has a pretty good review. It looks like Hillary did well, but didn't score the homerun she needed to.
Texas will be the test. She loses here, it's over imo.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:13 AM
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Captain has the video of Chris Matthews interviewing Texas state senator and Barack Obama supporter Kirk Watson and asking Watson to name any significant legislative accomplishment by Obama. He couldn't come up with anything.
As the Captain points out:
Obama simply doesn't have any record to show. He has been in the Senate a grand total of three years, one of which he's spent running for President. He has no record of even attempting to bring any of the themes on which he's running now to the Senate for consideration as actual legislative product. Why didn't he act when he had the chance?
That will be John McCain's argument. He has a long record of taking risks in the Senate and pushing bipartisan solutions to problems. He hasn't just sat around talking about change; he's actually accomplished it, sometimes in directions that angered Republicans then and now. McCain can cast himself as the real agent of change and bipartisanship, while Obama just poses as such for an election without once taking any real risks.
Then the WaPo has this:
The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative -- to become the first African American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery -- can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient goodwill, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.
But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national
All the above is true but.....Shhhhh.... Good grief! The HillaryMachine is not done yet!! I say we keep our sweet conservative mouths shut until Obama has the nomination in the bag. There will be plenty of time to point out the VAST differences of leadership and experience between Obama and McCain.
Enough for now, my friends. Enough.
Update: Geeze. Even an Obama supporter over at the Boston Herald gets it.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:18 AM
John at RightwingNews has all the details on the NYT smear story of McCain regarding a "relationship" with a former female lobbyist and reaction to it.
This story is old and was vetted in 2000 as well, and even in the NYT's article there is no evidence of any kind of romantic relationship. I'm wondering if the NYT covered the big rumor a few months back about John Edwards having an affair and that woman being pregnant? I didn't pay much attention to it. But there was a lot more "evidence" than anything in this story.
Frankly, I think the American people are sick of affair stories. Bill Clinton's long drawn out affair and lying just depleted us. We figure that anyone's indescretions could never be as bad as that whole thing was.
If reporters think that bringing up a sexual past for either candidate in the general election is going to do anything but disgust people, then they are fooling themselves. People are just sick of that kind of gossip.
Update: It looks like the NYT is doing no press to defend this story.
*note: I changed the time when the story came out. Not 20 yrs ago.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:54 AM
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
On a conference call, top strategist Mark Penn just told reporters that in the next two weeks Hillary Clinton will go after Barack Obama on the issue of who is better qualified to be commander-in-chief — and Penn suggested that Clinton would be a better commander of the nation's armed forces than both Obama and John McCain. "She is the only person in this race who is both ready to be commander-in-chief and would end the Iraq war and start to bring troops home within 60 days, compared to both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain," Penn told reporters.Later, Penn made it clear that Clinton will push the commander-in-chief issue in coming days. "The Republican nominee has extensive credibility in this area, and the Democrat is going to need to be commander-in-chief," Penn said. Obama has "relatively no experience in national security," Penn continued, an issue that "is going to be reflected in the debates that we have over the next couple of weeks."
UPDATE: Later in the call, the Clinton team was asked whether the not-qualified-to-be-commander-in-chief criticism of Obama was going too far, given that it would be used by Republicans against Obama if Obama is the Democratic nominee against John McCain. "We don't believe that he is the one who will face John McCain," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "This is a legitimate question that Sen. Obama would face if he were the nominee, and it is a question that he is facing as a result of criticism from Sen. McCain now, so I think it's perfectly appropriate."
It will be sweet if Hillary points out Obama's lack of experience in every area to be Commander In Chief and then pounds that home day after day. And then she loses, but the impression (and fact) that Obama is not ready to lead will have been made without a Republican or McCain opening his mouth to say so.
Related: "Well, that is a problem, isn't it?"
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:33 PM
From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
An Obama campaign source tells NBC News that after the two speeches, Clinton called Obama to congratulate him. The conversation was described as "brief."
It was duly noted by the Obama campaign that Clinton once again neither congratulated nor conceded in her speech.
I won't believe that Hillary can lose until the fat lady at the convention sings.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:12 AM
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Here is a video of a protest that happens every Saturday in Spring Texas outside a small convience store at the entrance of a neighborhood where a friend of mine lives.
I think it illustrates the extreme on both sides of this debate. My friend tells me that the border watch guys bring their concealed weapons to the protest. Two of the pro-illegal immigrant protestors proudly admit to being Marxist.
I would like to ask both sides some questions. First to the pro-illegal immigrant side. Does it not concern you that companies exploit and take advantage of Illegal immigrants? You fight for the right of the illegal to stand there in the mornings for jobs, but you have no concern that they are practically slave labor? They work the hours the company says at the pay the company says, and if these people are abused even further, who do they turn to?
To the border watch people I would ask, why do you need guns? To intimidate? To show your power? Do you not think illegal immigrants feel powerless enough?
These people "representing" illegals, do not represent them at all. They have some sort of political agenda and they use the immigrants as much as the companies who employ them do.
Maybe the person who called illegals "cockroches" doesn't represent the border watch view, but you should throw out anyone who says such a horrible thing. Who are you angry with over this? The illegal? Who only comes here because he needs to make a living and he leaves poverty behind that we in the U.S. cannot even imagine.
Who you should be angry with is our government who cannot control our border, who cannot enforce our laws, and who entice illegal behavior with handouts and free services. Go protest the government where the only real change can happen.
To the pro-illegal protestors, especially the professor who was so indignant. I hope you are spending as much time helping those who stand there every morning get the paper work done to become citizens as you do yelling at police officers.
Who are these kinds of people? On both sides. Shouting like a 2 yr old on a temper trantrum. It makes me sick. All of you should be ashamed.
Do any of you think you are on the side of right? Right is how we treat each other. Angry protests in front of neighborhoods will only breed more anger and hate. Perhap I expect ugly behavior from Marxists, but are any of you Christians? If so, then maybe you should remember that we are taught to even love our enemies. We are taught to treat others as we would like to be treated.
Our government is at the root of this problem and this is where the problem should be attacked.
Stay home this Saturday. No one wins here.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:54 PM
Cindy McCain slams Michelle Obama:
Brookfield, WI — During her introduction of Sen. John McCain at a rally Tuesday, his wife Cindy interjected herself into the controversy surrounding comments another 2008 spouse made yesterday.
“I am proud of my country. I don’t know about you? If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country,” Mrs. McCain said while revving up the crowd and introducing her husband.
When asked at a media availability afterward if they were responding to Michelle Obama’s comments that this election was the “first time” she was “really proud” of the U.S., Sen. McCain deferred to his wife–who reiterated her previous words.
“I just wanted to make the statement that I have and always will be proud of my country,” McCain said.
Who knew Cindy had it in her? Go Cindy!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:58 PM
Monday, February 18, 2008
Here is clip from "Morning Joe" on MSNBC where they show video of Bill Clinton getting into a heated argument with an Obama supporter in the crowd. Later the guy says Clinton popped him in the mouth a bit.
God knows I feel no need to defend Bill Clinton, but I doubt seriously he would have even accidently popped someone in the mouth, although there is no doubt Clinton is angry in the video.
It's crazy how angry Clinton is getting out on the road. But one has to admit that the media is making a big deal out it too.
Also in the video is Obama repeating the words of Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts governor, used at a campaign rally when he was running for that office in 2006. Deval Patrick naturally defended Obama saying they were friends and shared many things about "politics, policy and language." Not a big deal really. Just embarassing for Obama.
But more than embarassing is Michelle Obama saying that for the FIRST time in her adult life "I am really proud of my country." Now, considering she would say that about the Bush years is understandable since she is a partisan Democrat, but the entire Clinton Presidency is included in there as well. Is this just a slam at Clinton or is Michelle not proud of the following things that a reader at NRO pointed out:
She's found nothing in all that time to make her proud of her country? Not the fact that it won the Cold War and liberated tens of millions from totalitarian rule? What about sending billions to ease the plight of millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa? What about the nation's selflessness in stopping genocide in the Balkans when it had no immediate security interest in the region? What about our ability to produce hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will risk life and limb to liberate two countries from despotic regimes right out of the Dark Ages? Doesn't the Herculean Tsunami Relief effort generate a flicker of national pride?
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:27 PM
It's convoluted and complicated and the Clinton's didn't expect to get here and still be in a fight for the nomintion:
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.
What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:36 PM