Reformed Hippie

Well he made his choice… he selected a person with a fatal foot-in-mouth disease… Senator Joe Biden:

Barack Obama named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice presidential running mate early Saturday, balancing his ticket with a seasoned congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.

Obama announced the pick on his Web site with a photo of the two men and an appeal for donations. A text message went out shortly afterward that said, “Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee.”

The National Review Online has an interesting composite of Biden’s symptoms of the foot and mouth disease.  So this should be very interesting and entertaining to watch in the upcoming weeks.

But what is more interesting is that in June Obama made the statement that Hillary “would be on anyone’s short list”. Yet we find out (and Obama campaign workers has confirmed this) that she was not even on his short list because she had not been vetted!

“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?”  The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.  And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.

Way to go O!  You have just snubbed your nose at a lot of voters…

A dark horse contender, Sen. Hillary Clinton, re-entered the conversation this week following a poll indicating that nearly half of her supporters have yet to embrace Obama.

Maybe the Bill-and-Hill show next week at the convention is a attempt to patch up things between Hill and O!  We shall see.  But will Hillary’s supporters be impressed with their one-big-lovey-dovey-happy-family show?  I doubt that Hill’s supporters are going to run and have a group hug with Obama’s supporters on the floor of the convention.

Bookmark It

It has been claimed by some that McCain ‘cheated’ at the televised forum this past Saturday at the Saddleback Church in Forest Park, California.  NBC’s Andrea Mitchell claims that McCain cheated by not being entirely in the ‘cone of silence” and overheard some of the questions posed to Obama.  According to Mitchel, that help prepare him for his upcoming hour after Obama’s turn was over…

“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama,” Mitchell said. “He seemed so well-prepared.”

Let’s face it… McCain was on the top of his game Saturday… Obama looked like a relief pitcher struggling to find the strike zone.  Obama’s people would rather throw out bits of the sore loser feeling rather than taking it like a real politician.  Obama hesitated, paused, hemmed and hawed and just looked like he had a hard time coming up with concise answers.  McCain was clearly the opposite.  Better luck next time Obama.

As for me there will not be a next time.  That one forum at Saddleback was all that I needed.  And just what I needed.  There are supposed to be a couple of debates after the convention but, unless I just feel like being entertained that night instead of informed, I will be watching and/or doing something else.  The normal debate format is too much about spin and not enough about the facts.  Too many memorized excerpts from canned speeches.  You cannot prepare for extemporaneous questions… the answers have to come from your core beliefs.  You must have thought these out in your mind many times.  And to be honest… I think some of these candidates do not like answering questions like “What is your greatest moral failing?”  You have not heard that question asked by the MSM on debate night.

Questions like that force a candidate to face up to things he would rather avoid given the chance.  So you say “What difference does it make what moral failing a person has???” “What does that have to do with being President???”.  Not much I suppose in a direct manner of speaking.  But it gives us a glimpse into the candidate’s soul.  Is his answer from the heart?  Is the answer honest?  How would his/her evaluation of the question reflect on their core beliefs and thought processes?  Questions like “What was the most agonizing decision you ever made?” helps us to dog deeper than superficial policy questions.

If we wind up knowing the answers to these tough and personal questions, then we can have an idea on how they would think on various policy decisions.  All-in-all this format should be used in future Presidential elections.  I hope it will be.

Bookmark It

This has been troubling me ever since the piece on Nightline last Friday night…

WOODRUFF: Why did you continue to deny it [publicly] and not tell the truth?

EDWARDS: Because I did not want the public to know what I had done. Fair and simple. And there’s also a lot of these you know supermarket tabloid allegations are just lies, they’re complete lies. But this, this mistake, is the truth.

Everyone knows that rags like the National Enquirer are gossip and rumor merchants.  They thrive on this stuff.  And a lot of American’s swallow it hook, line and sinker.  It is tabloid journalism.  But every once in a while they get something right.  They got this one right. But it seems like the Edwards’ are attempting to discount the truth by throwing in subliminal suggestions that this is just tabloid journalism… inconsequential… does not really mean much considering the National Enquirer published it… even Elizabeth Edwards does the same thing:

Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.

The fact remains that on this one point the National Enquirer was correct… John Edwards did have an affair.  What is wrong with reporting the facts and holding the players accountable?  Of course John did not want to get caught.  Nobody does.  But when you are caught up with don’t try and discount the truth by alluding to the veracity of the source.

What about the rest of the story?  Who is the baby’s father?  Where did the “hush” money come from?  All sorts of questions will abound and some may never be answered since, thus far, the Edwards’ and Hunter are remaining mum.  And can you blame Rielle?  If I was being paid $15K per month I would not rock the boat either.

But if the Feds will ever investigate where the money came from… follow the paper trail… Edwards may find himself temporarily relocating to different housing.

Bookmark It

Is she really dead in the water for the nomination?  Apparently not yet.  There may be life yet in them there bones.  This recent flap over Edwards has once again got Hillary’s Operation-Resurrection busily plotting away.  I previously stated my opinions about her “hell bent” attitude towards the Presidency (see “The Clinton Dynasty“ ).

Now, according to some (”Wolfson: Edwards’ Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination” and “More rumblings of a Hillary coup (updated)“) she make an attempt.

“I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee,” former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

“Our voters and Edwards’ voters were the same people,” Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. “They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama.”

Two months earlier, Edwards had vociferously, but falsely, denied a story in the National Enquirer about the alleged affair last October, and few in the mainstream media even reported the denial.

Of course Wolfson’s interpretation of what would have happened had not Edwards been in the mix is sheer speculation.  Although I believe that Hillary has Wolfson fronting the idea to test the political waters.

If she could actually pull this stunt off and steal the nomination away from Obama… or perhaps force her way into a VP slot with her “had-it-not-been” hypothetical scenarios, it would flip the DNC on its head for years to come.  No longer will it be able to say Bush stole the election in 2000 and 2004, but now could add Hill’s name to the list of swindlers.

I very seriously doubt the party will let her get away with it.  But again, she is determined to be President at any cost.  The whooing of the super delegates will commence shortly.

The plot thickens.

Bookmark It

Reille Hunter

John Edwards getting ready for...

UPDATE: Edwards Release Statement

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up – feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

Well if he lied about not having the affair then maybe he is lying about the child being his.  We will see if Edwards actually takes the paternity test.

A day after the DNC chair in North Carolina announced that if Edwards did not give a reasonable and believable explanation of the rumors flying around about his relationship with Rielle Hunter that he would not be allowed to speak at the DNC in Denver, Edwards admits to the affair with his former videographer, Rielle Hunter. However he denies being the father of her child. The confession is supposed to be broadcast on Friday night’s edition of ABC Nightline.

That should raise their Nielsen ratings.

Bookmark It

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Well I am not sure if I would call her hot… cute maybe. And definitely a spoiled brat. But at least she understands that everyone (that means Obama and McCain) must work together to solve the energy crisis. Why can’t Congress be as smart as Paris?

Bookmark It

This is a victory for those who are interested in honest and fair elections. The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a split 6-3 ruling, that Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots, did not violate the voters constitutional rights.

There should be no problem with anybody presenting a valid picture ID when voting.  None.  If someone is capable of going down to the polls to vote they are capable of producing a valid ID.  Liberals would have people believe that the law prevents the above described groups from voting.  Bull.  My wife is virtually disabled yet she manages to go every few years to renew her license.

It is clear that the benefits of cutting down voter fraud outweigh the the arguments made against the ID law.  If you want to vote, you will find a way to comply with the law.

Bookmark It

What has taken Hillary so long? Perhaps she believes that she will actually get the nomination and will be forced to deal with McCain… from the other night at the Pennsylvania debate:

“We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region … . You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup.”

And now, supposedly, she has said to Good Morning America (to be aired tomorrow):

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran…” “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

My first reaction is that she making these statements for political expediency and, if she does become President, will look for a political way to wiggle out of these remarks.  Looking to make herself seem not quite as lame as she has been in the recent past.

Some have said that she is looking to protect those countries whose repressive regimes rule the Middle East.  True.  But perhaps Hill is beginning to realize that these “dialogs”, “conversations” and “discussions” that liberals want to have with evil dictators just will not work.  Sure… go ahead and try to reason with them.  But if that does not work you cannot just sit on your lazy butt and wait for the U.N. to do something.  You have to take action.  And if we can’t stop Iraq from getting a nuke then perhaps we can cause them to rethink their using a nuke… against any country.

Bottom line is… use a nuke, get obliterated.  Iraq citizens be forewarned.  Get control of your leaders.

But what if she really does mean what she says?  In the end, I really hope that we will not have to find out.

Bookmark It

According to a dubious report from ABCNews blog site… Condoleezza Rice is courting the VP position from McCain. This blog entry is based on some interpretation by Dan Senor of Rice unexpectedly appearing at a weekly meeting of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform.

The reason I call this report dubious is (1) Senor is stretching the appearance of Rice at this conservative meeting and (2) I don’t think Rice wants anything else to do with politics once Bush leaves office… she has had enough and does not want to undergo the scrutiny of the media and special interest groups if she was to run with McCain.

McCain would not want Rice as VP since he needs make a clean break from the Bush administration. While I believe that Rice could “shift gears” as it were into the McCain presidency I don’t think Americans will buy it… she is inextricably linked with the failed policies of Bush.

Probably much ado about nothing.

Bookmark It

Has anybody wondered why both Obama and Clinton have not put forth a plan to deal with the vacuum that will probably exist when they pull our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009? The answer back then, as now, is obvious. They knew they could not do it. Even while blustering about pulling the troops out and arguing who was against the war first before they were for it amounted to nothing but spitting in the wind. They knew all along that it could not be done. Irreparable harm would come to the United States and Iraq if they did what they are saying.

So what do they do now? Start back peddling.. the N.Y. Times earlier this month had this to say:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

And now Obama is finding some rock to crawl under:

A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Now what do their left wing liberal war-hating buddies think about that? Looks to me like they were deceived. And their buddies swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Political candidates that lie and deceive their way through the political process for expediency should run out of town on a rail.

Neither of these candidates have a clue what is going on in the real world. Their understanding of foreign policy is severely lacking. And they want to be your next President. What a joke!

They are acting just as recklessly trying to get out of the war as Bush was going into the war.

Bookmark It