Bubba explains why Obama is the better candidate

by lestro

In defending his wife’s lies about her experiences in Bosnia, Bill Clinton this week not only perpetuated new lies and added a few more half-truths and all-out falsehoods, but also, amazingly, gave the A-No. 1 reason for not electing his wife.

But first, the lies:

“But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995.”

First, it is not a “misstatement,” because the Bosnia lie came from prepared remarks.

Second, the “late at night” characterization of the Bosnia lie is incorrect, because the most famous version of the Bosnia lie was told by Hillary in the morning.

However, it is possible that the Bosnia lie was repeated at some point late at night, because it was the third or fourth time she’d told it.

Bill, you’re not helping. And even worse, you are hurting your own legacy by doing everything the opposition ever said about you and your wife, like saying anything to get elected.

But what is even more amazing is that Clinton’s explanation of why she “misspoke” late at night (even though she really “misread” in the morning during an event she scheduled) highlights the exact reason one should not vote for Hillary (or McCain):

Read more of this post

Hillary gets it wrong again

by lestro

So the big headline yesterday was “Clinton says Obama wants to stop votes” or something to that effect. According to the AP, Sen. Clinton in a series of interviews today told primary voters that Sen. Obama doesn’t want their votes to count:

“My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama‘s supporters want to end this race because they don’t want people to keep voting,” she told CBS affiliate KTVQ in Billings, Mont. “That’s just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don’t you?”

Montana holds its primary June 3. The New York senator made similar comments in interviews with stations in Indiana and North Carolina, which hold primaries May 6.

Funny thing is, just two days before, he said almost exactly the opposite and it was all over the damn place:

“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”

While it is true many of his supporters have recently reminded Hillary that math is certainly not in her favor and have recently urged her to stop her attacks on the likely Democratic candidate and give up her Quixotic Candidacy for the good of the party, Sen. Obama has not been one of them. Others have also urged the superdelegates to get real (despite threats from the Clinton mafia) and coalesce behind Obama since he will almost undoubtedly finish the primaries with more elected delegates.

Clinton, on the other hand, is getting her advice elsewhere.

Officially, however the campaign has not said such a thing and publicly supported Clinton’s right to continue running. Why should they? They have three times the money, all the momentum and he’s ahead by a comfortable enough margin that he was able to vacation in the Virgin Islands last week.

The AP story also offers this:

“I don’t even keep track of it, I can’t even tell you that figure,” Clinton said when asked by Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA how many superdelegates had endorsed her in recent weeks.

Which is total bullshit, as the next sentence points out:

As she spoke, her husband, former President Clinton, was in Oregon, lobbying uncommitted superdelegates.

But, just to recap, Clinton is not doing well in that race, even losing a longtime friend who owes his entire political career to the Clintons. In thast respect, James Carville’s metaphor was apt, Richardson’s endorsement of Obama really is a Judas-like move if you’re a Clinton disciple.

But really, i suppose some Democrats could say the same thing about a candidate who continues to not only campaign but attack – sometimes viciously – the party’s best hope in nearly a decade to reclaim the White House. (***UPDATE BELOW!***)

Read more of this post

Hillary Clinton has no soul

by twit

is that too harsh? This is a story from February 1999, when Hillary was working on her first Senate campaign, one that we might imagine would require a fair amount of faking a “real” marriage with Bill.

You know, like one where you might be there with your spouse while their political fate is decided? Or maybe just a quick congratulatory call to say, see, I told you not to worry?

The article is pitching the anecdote as an illustration of her ‘iron focus’ on her political campaigns. I was struck by how inhuman it makes her appear, like she may understand how regular people go about their caring and sharing lives, but she’s not having any of it:

Both the loyalty and the focus were on display in February 1999, when the Senate voted not to remove Bill Clinton from office.

In the White House residence, Ickes and the first lady were poring over New York state maps in preparation for her Senate bid.

A call came in informing the first lady that her husband had been acquitted, Ickes recalled. “She puts down the phone and says, ‘Harold, we were talking about Buffalo.’ ”

With that, they went back to work.

the other icy frosting to the story is this snapshot from inside her current campaign for President:

Read more of this post

you go, girls

by twit

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. has attributed part of his recent endorsement of Obama for the Democratic Party nomination to his four daughters, who have apparently taken their earlier campaign message on behalf of their dad to heart:

From the Associated Press on March 28, 2008:

“I really believe that in a time of danger around the world and in division here at home, Barack Obama can lead us, he can heal us, he can help rebuild America,” Casey told the crowd in Pittsburgh.

Wait, you mean Hillary Clinton might be an ineffective leader for this country?

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

Read more of this post

Hillary Clinton has no shame

by lestro

So apparently Hillary Clinton “misspoke” about the whole running-from-snipers thing in Bosnia. Which I suppose is Clintonspeak for “lied through her ass”:

https://i1.wp.com/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/03/20/PH2008032002697.jpgDuring a speech last Monday, she said of the trip: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

According to an AP story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

But wait, there’s more. The statements she made last week also contradict what she said in her book:

Clinton wrote: “Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find.”

So, caught in this obvious lie, the Clinton campaign did what they do best and tried to obfuscate and distract:

“That is what she wrote in her book,” Wolfson said. “That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke.”

yeah, just this once.

except it wasn’t.

Read more of this post

Feb 28, 1997 will forever be “Stained Blue Dress Day”

by twit

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:5SuwW93ZrToJ:www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskydress.jpgthank you, ABC News.

Some news outlets are complaining that the recent release of Hillary Clinton’s public schedules as First Lady don’t offer much information due to all of the redactions and “heavy deletions” in the documents that have been produced. Perhaps they just weren’t looking hard enough…

ABC News reports: “Hillary Was In White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day

Read more of this post

Has anyone ever said this about a Clinton?

by lestro

For all the talk about the media being easy on Barack Obama, there is one paper that is not in awe of his celebrity because they knew him back in the day: The Chicago Tribune.

One of the big issues the Chicago Tribune has been all over is Obama’s history with Tony Rezko, a businessman who has been indicted on a number of charges. The Tribune, which did endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton despite their discomfort with the Rezko thing, has repeatedly asked for further explanation and clarification on their relationship.

On Friday, Obama sat down with a whole heaping gaggle o’ reporters and spent an hour and a half explaining the whole situation. Here’s what the Tribune had to say:

The most remarkable facet of Obama’s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.

Three dozen journalists, all focused on a single issue for 92 minutes. My lord. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton hosting something like this and making a similar pledge?

Neither could the Tribune, finishing the piece with this:

Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

A new type of politics indeed. But what was the outcome of the discussion?  In a word, they seem satisfied:

Read more of this post