Archive for July, 2007
July 31st, 2007
While still toying with the idea of running for the Republican presidential nomination, former majority leader Newt Gingrich has gone on record as predicting who the Democratic standard bearers will be in 2008. He thinks Hillary Clinton will be the presidential nominee, with Barack Obama her running mate. Other pundits have made the same prediction.
While Gingrich’s forecast may come to pass, my best guess is that he is only half right. Hillary Clinton at this point looks set to be the presidential pick of the Democrats. But I see little possibility that she will pick Obama to be on her ticket.
Getting beyond the bad blood that has now defined the competitive relationship between the two senators, Hillary Clinton and her principal political advisor, Bill Clinton, make political decisions based purely on cold-blooded calculation. From their perspective, I don’t see how Obama adds value to their ticket.
The Clintons will want a running mate that adds new strength to the ticket, rather than duplicate what’s already there. Among African-Americans Obama certainly is popular, but so are the Clintons. In some polling, Hillary actually does better among Black Democrats than Obama. In the general election, she is unlikely to attract stronger Black support with Barack Obama as the vice presidential candidate. Among other important constituencies such as labor, Hispanics and women, Obama does not add anything tangible.
In all probability, Hillary Clinton will select a running mate that draws support in key Red states that voted for Bush in 2004 but are vulnerable to the Democrats in 2008. If only one state switches from the Red to the Blue column, such as Ohio, Hillary gains the electoral votes needed to win the election. It therefore stands to reason that Senator Clinton will make a calculation based on which possible vice presidential candidate provides the greatest opportunity for winning in one of those pivotal Red states.
My guess is that it’s likely to be someone like former Iowa governor Vilsack, or a senator from a mid-western state, with Bill Richardson as a lesser possibility. If Vilsack delivers Iowa to Hillary in the first voting to be held in the 2008 campaign year, that Iowa Caucus win would probably mean that his chances of being picked to run on Hillary’s ticket are better than 50%. Vilsack not only makes a potentially ideal running mate for Hillary Clinton; he is less likely to be as vunerable as Obama to Republican attacks that claim that he is too liberal or inexperienced.
It may be that Gingrich’s prediction that Obama will be Hillary’s pick for vice president is nothing more than Republican wishful thinking. Come to think about, it seems so far that the Republican belief that they can more easily defeat Hillary Clinton than any of her Democratic Party rivals is entiely based on wishful thinking. Until the Republicans can substitute cogent political analysis for this “wing and a prayer” approach towards the 2008 presidential election, they risk enduring the mother of all electoral defeats.
July 30th, 2007
With the odds in favor of Hillary Clinton being elected America’s 44th president continuing to grow in her favor, we all need to assess what a second Clinton presidency will mean for America. Those who have read my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” will be familiar with my critique of her presidential qualifications.
George W. Bush, in my view, has been nowhere near as competent as his father, President George H. Bush, who had the wisdom to avoid occupying Baghdad after expelling the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Some may look at the differences between Bush father and son, and use that as an argument to avoid looking at Bill Clinton’s administration as an insight into what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like. However, there are radical differences betweeen the Bush and Clinton political phenomena.
George W. Bush was never an important player in the presidential administration led by his father. If anything, he has sought to create a distinct presidential identity. There is every indication that Bush senior and his key advisors were not thrilled with Bush junior invading and occupying Iraq. In summary, Bush father and son are very different political animals.
With the Clintons, the exact opposite is the case. Bill Clinton boasted that Hillary was his co-president, and without question she was a key and decisive actor in the first Clinton administration. This was the same administration that was asleep while Osama bin Laden plotted, that was mired in a scandal of pornographic character, and that presided over the contraction of America’s military and the dotcom economic deflation. Unlike the situation with Bush junior and senior, Hillary and Bill Clinton were joined at the hip politically during his administration. Accordingly, Bill Clinton’s 8 years in office are a valid preview of Hillary Clinton as president.
If Hillary Clinton would be a replication of Bill Clinton, what does that mean for America? In the face of the Iraq war, looming fiscal imbalance and the threat of global terrorism acquiring hideous weapons of nighmarish destructive potential, it’s not a pretty picture of what we will all be in for. Hillary Clinton as president will likely be no different from how Bill Clinton conducted his presidency. Those who will vote for Hillary Clinton in November 2008 should do so with full realization of the implications of repeating the perfidious and scandalous epic of the first Clinton administration.
July 29th, 2007
Presidential qualifications. That’s what Decision 2008 should be all about, right? Well, what happens when all the leading candidates lack convincing qualifications? They go negative, with one candidate hoping voters will be convinced by the demolition ads attacking another, while ignoring his or her own deficits. That is one reason why the Clinton political machine is as happy as fish in the sea at the opportunity to get into a fierce skirmish with Barack Obama and his supposed politics of hope.
The street warfare now raging between the Obama and Clinton camps has not only tarnished Barack’s “above the fray” image; it has made Hillary Clinton appear to be the one who looks presidential. Even Obama’s legitimate (and correct) attack on Hillary’s pro-war vote has been delivered with such a lack of subtlety and finesse, it has proven to be an impotent blow.
Getting beyong her PR image, however, is Hillary Clinton ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One, as her campaign and website banners claim? Well, she is as ready as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were on their first day in office. In reality, as detailed in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” Senator Clinton lacks all the core competencies that are critical for America’s revival and sustainability as a great power. Let’s just consider one competency, and it has nothing to do with the Iraq war or foreign policy.
Many learned experts, includng senior congressional staff responsible for budget projections, have warned that the United States will risk devastating bankruptcy unless there are radical changes in American fiscal policy. Hillary Rodham Clinton has thus far remained silent on this critical and dire matter that will affect the future lives of all Americans. Now, why would the most qualified person in the nation be silent on such a matter, while devoting countless hours to planing a campaign song contest or taping a Sopranos-style video? The reason should be clear to anyone looking into the factual record of Hillary Clinton. She lacks any basic experience that would equip her intellectually to provide national economic leadership. Except for her brief but highly profitable (and suspect) involvement in commodities trading while her husband served as Arkansas governor, Hillary has had no significant business experience. In her capacity as a senator, she manages her office budget, but has never had responsibility for meeting a large government payroll. Her record reflects no profound understanding of economics at either the micro or macro level. Beyond cliches, she has never uttered any serious, unscripted words of wisdom that would convey an impression that she fully understands the nature of America’s looming economic challenges.
If Hillary lacks the basic understanding of the economic forces that threaten America, does she at least comprehend foreign and defense policy? Her vote in favor of the Iraq war, which she made without reading the National Intelligence Estimate that questioned Bush’s rationale for the war, answers that question.
Other than the deficits detailed above, Hillary Clinton is thoroughly qualified for the presidency, and I want ever American to know that.
July 28th, 2007
The Washington Post’s story about the cleavage of Hillary Clinton being exposed in Congress is having a ripple effect on the 2008 presidential contest. A senior campaign official with the Clinton political machine has sent out a fundraising letter to Hillary’s supporters, denouncing the Washington Post for doing a story focusing on the body parts of the senator, as opposed to the substance of her mind. I actually agree with this criticism, as noted in my previous blog comment on this issue. However, I suspect that behind the facade of puffed-up anger, Hillary and Bill Clinton are delighted at this display of idiocy by the Washington Post. A superficial diversion by journalists, rather than critical introspection, serves Hillary Clinton’s interests. It also gives her ammunition for firming up her support amongst the single most important demographic of the 2008 presidential election, women voters. As with Obama’s ill-advised attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Washington Post’s insult to serious journalism gives the Clinton political machine more arrows in their campaign quiver.
At a time when intelligence warnings are ominously in synchronicity with the harbingers heard in the summer of 2001 of a pending Al-Qaeda attack on America, journalists should be asking all the candidiates, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, what they would propose should be done to protect the American homeland. Instead, we find what passes for serious journalism in America writing a story consisting of hundreds of words about the bosom seperation of Hillary Clinton. This just shows who the real boobs are, while the Clintons stand laughing at them, and the American people who actually consume such “journalistic” nonsense.
July 27th, 2007
As noted in recent comments on this blog, Barack Obama fell for a Hillary Clinton trap during the debate in South Carolina. I have noticed that some media pundits think Hillary has overdone it. While generally conceding that Obama fell into a sink-hole with his hospitality for dictators comment in the debate, Hillary’s follow-up attacks on Obama’s naivite have left her vulnerable to counter-strokes from Obama about her being like Bush-Cheney and how her original pro-Iraq war vote demonstrates her level of inexperience, according to these commentators. I would suggest that these pundits miss the point.
Of course, Hillary’s pro-war vote in 2002 was based purely on politics, rather than a cogent analysis of national security strategy. But that is what Hillary does-political calculation and not geopolitical analysis. Everyone knows about Hillary’s pro-war vote, and yet she has managed to convice most Left-leaning Democrats that she is the best anti-war presidential candidate. The fact is, Hillaryland wants Obama to attack their candidate, the more the better. Obama is not only inexperienced in foreign policy and national politics. Compared to veterans Bill and Hillary Clinton (and he is runnning against the two of them), when it comes to old-fashioned mud-slinging politics, Obama is a babe in the woods. He is actually undermining the only important distinction he has in the presidential race, the perception that he is a new politician representing, as stated in his recent book’s title, “the audacity of hope.” By forcing Obama to attack her, Hillary is beginning to demolish Barack’s fresh face and image of being above negativity.
In reality, Barack’s advisors have made a terrific strategic blunder, one which will undermine their star candidate’s value proposition. They have played right into the Clintonian master-plan for the upcoming primary campaign. One early example is that the Clinton camp have just sent out their first mass mailing pitch for funds based solely on Obama, and not the Republicans. Obama foolishly compared Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. He might as well have drafted Hillary’s fundraising pitch. The Clinton political machine wasted no time in letting their supporters know that Obama is now the enemy. This is going to get hot and nasty, as Obama receives a dose of reality therapy in the art of the Clintonian politics of destruction.
July 25th, 2007
Maybe a Harvard man doesn’t stack up to a Yale alumna. The CNN/YouTube debate marked what appears to be the beginning of open-warfare between Hillaryland and Obama. Hillary laid a trap for Barack, who obligingly swallowed the bait. Historians looking back on the 2008 election may mark that moment as a seminal turning point, though that is probably less obvious to the average viewer.
Barack Obama’s whole case for being selected as the Democratic presidential nominee over Hillary Clinton is that he’s a “fresh face,” a break with the Clinton-Bush dominance of the White House, representing the old style of politics. Obama has claimed his fresh politics will be less partisan and angry, and more idealistic and consensus building. The appeal of this case explains why Senator Obama has raised a ton of money from liberal Democrats, even exceeding the impressive fundraising results of the Clinton political machine. However, he has always been vulnerable on the issue of “experience,” which he could only mitigate in his favor by displaying unassailable competence and leadership mastery in the public debates. Until the CNN/YouTube show, he was failing to do that. So, when asked a question about his willingness to meet with a rogue’s gallery of America-hating dictators, he reverted to type. Sure he would meet with them, absolutely. Obama, without realizing it, just handed Hillary the pin to rupture his own balloon.
With ruthless discipline, Hillary Clinton ripped Obama to shreds in her response. She stated the obvious; it would be granting America’s enemies a propaganda victory to agree to such meetings without careful preparation and goundwork. It was so obvious and correct a response, it left Obama looking irretrievably ridiculous. After the debate, no doubt prompted by his campaign advisors, Obama attempted quick damage control. In phone calls to the media, he offered legalistic explanations of what he really meant, while Hillaryland gleefully followed up by pouncing on this example of Obama naivite. Obama meekly castigated Hillary Clinton for playing unfair, claiming she knew what he “really meant.” However, all this frothing at the mouth only demonstrates that Barack Obama, however noble his intentions are or may be, has decided to enter the lion’s den by challenging the Clinton political machine for control of the Democratic Party in 2008. Hillary has done her homework, her political instincts are honed to a sharp edge, and she will ruthlessly but predictably pounce on any weakness or opening an opponent offers her. During that debate, Barack unwittingly opened the door for Hillary, and laid out a red carpet.
What will happen next? The Obama camp is in a difficult spot. They can continue to proclaim Obama as the fresh face practicing a different style of politics. However, this only leaves him open to the Clinton label of being dangerously inexperienced. The stagnation in Barack’s poll numbers prove that this approach is getting Barack Obama nowhere fast. The alternative is to go negative on Hillary. That is exactly what Hillaryland is hoping and praying for. Once he does that, the Clintons will tear apart his claim to be a “new Demcorat” practicing a “new” form of politics.
There is a message in all this for the Republicans. Hillary Clinton may well be the most formidable opponent their party has ever faced in a presidential contest. If the GOP thinks they can stop Hillary by defending George W.Bush’s record, or offering cliches about “family values” (while another Republican senator has recently confessed his carnal and adulterous sins), they should expect an utterly ruthless counter-attack that will take down many Republican congressmen and senators in November 2008, along with their presidential nominee. If Hillary can beat Obama, even though he has thus far raised more money, how can the Republicans beat her when they are likely to be inferior in fundraising performance? The GOP has some serious reflection to undertake as Hillary Clinton proceeds, according to plan, in the debilitation of all her Democratic competitiors, including the junior senator from Illinois.
July 23rd, 2007
The CNN/YouTube debate was the convergence of new media and very old-fashioned Machiavellian politics. And, as with previous debates, none of the other Democratic contenders came close to matching the manipulative dexterity of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The stuffed spontaneity of the CNN selected questions was actually highly predictable to most practiced politicians in this vaccuous debate. They all had canned lines and responses. Hillary, however, continues to show that she is the most skillful of the Democrats in playing the political game.
The most relevant question directed at Hillary inquired how she could represent fundamental change when her election and relection would mean uninterupted rule at the White House by two families for 28 years. This is, of course, a critical issue, as it touches at the very sustainability of American democracy. However, Hillary had anticipated this question long ago, and no doubt her highly-paid political and image consultants had prepped her on the fine art of evasion. She blamed, in essence, George W. Bush for being elected in 2000, for if Al Gore had won, that question would not even arise. Hillary went on to say that she should be judged on her merits, while adding a comment that made it very clear that she would milk her status as the wife of President Bill Clinton for all it is worth. Contradictory, but in a manner so subtle, most viewers of the debate probably were not attuned to how they just had their pockets picked by Clintonian obfuscation.
These debates clearly serve the interests of the Clinton political machine. However, concerning the interests of informing the American electorate, that is what is truly debatable.
July 22nd, 2007
Among Republican Party leadership circles, it is accepted as gospel that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 2008. Despite the public talk by some in the GOP that Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to run against, those in the know are in a state of depression, realizing that virtually all of the announced (and soon to announce) Republican presidential candidates face a hopeless challenge in 2008.
Karl Rove, “Bush’s Brain” according to one documentary film, predicts that the Iraq war will not be a campaign issue in 2008. That is wishful thinking in the extreme. Iraq, both as a strategic blunder and an example of Bush incompetence, will be the dominating issue in the presidential campaign. The Clinton political machine and the media will see to it. That leaves the Republican nominee, whoever it is, with two very bad choices. He can either defend the Bush presidency, which is nothing more than a certain prescription for defeat. Or, he can distance himself from President Bush, even running against his record. Many pundits speculate that this is the most likely course for the Republican nominee to follow. The problem with that strategy is that it plays directly into the hands of Hillary Clinton. It will keep the American electorate fixated on the perception of a bungling Republican administration. In that scenario, how does the Republican challenger make the case that the GOP should be trusted to fix the mistakes engineered by a two-term Republican presidency?
The bottom line is that many savvy Republican partisans are already quietly conceding that Hillary Clinton will be elected president in 2008, and are begining to think of candidates who can restore Republican presidential rule in 2012. And the name most frequently mentioned? It’s Jeb Bush, former Florida governor and brother of the current President Bush. With thinking like that, it looks like the country is headed towards another 8 years of Clinton rule.
July 21st, 2007
Hillary Clinton has been campaigning aggressively for president for about six months. She is clearly the front-runner, according to months of polling data, both in terms of her party’s nomination and the general election. She has raised a ton of money, being slightly behind Barack Obama but vastly ahead of everyone else. And despite Obama’s fundraising success, it has yet to translate in terms of poll numbers. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and all other Democratic challengers in hiring the most skilled campaign staff, establishing effective political machines on the ground, and collecting critical political endoresements that are bound to convert into votes in the upcoming state primaries. She has also deflected the criticism of her original pro-Iraq war vote from the Left of the Democratic Party, while transmuting into the ultimate anti-war candidate. She has also built a powerful machine focusing on women voters, the single most important demographic in the upcoming 2008 presidential race. She has also made highly effective use of husband and philaderer ex-president Bill Clinton, which has further neutralized the Obama challenge. Hillary Clinton has clearly been very busy these past six months. There is only one thing she has not done. Can you guess?
Believe it or not, Hillary Clinton is not yet an official candidate for president. Look at her website, and you will notice that it is sponsored by her presidential “exploratory committee.”
Does anyone think Hillary is still “exploring” the possibility of running for president? Not on your life! Rest assured,however, that this is no oversight. Like everything else in Hillaryland, this is deliberate, methodical calculation. Here is what I think is going on.
While the media has been obssessed by the so-called Obama challenge, Hillary Clinton has been quietly but effectively building her campaign infrastructure. Unlike Barack Obama, who announced his official intentions only a few weeks after his own “exploration” phase, Hillary knows that the PR and media bounce an official announcement will bring her will be far more useful after Labor Day. This also explains her being absent from national media appearances. While allowing her competitors a free run with the national TV and radio talk shows, she has focused on organizational priorities while Obama, Biden, Richardson and Edwards have bored the audiences to tears. Sometime after Labor Day, in a well-planned blitz, she will make her presidential campaign “official” with a massive media blitz. That is when she will appear on the national TV and radio circuit, building on her front-runner status already institutionalized during this quiet phase of her campaign. Very calculating, very clever, this is politician Hillary at her own game, showing she is as much a master as Professor Bill Clinton.
The American people seem primed for what is likely to unfold. Recent polls show that even a majority of Republican voters expect Hillary Clinton to win the 2008 presidential contest.
Frankly, I think the only hope of defeating Hillary Clinton lies with a credible Third Party ticket with an exceptional presidential candidate, able to attract bipartisan support. Since the odds of that occuring are currently very low, when Hillary does make her official announcement, it is likely to signal a campaign blitzkrieg, smothering Democratic and Republican opponents alike as the Clintons gather momentum in their tsunami drive to reclaim the White House.
July 20th, 2007
Cynic that I am, I was still somewhat surprised at the major story about Hillary Clinton that the Washington Post chose to run. After all, was it not the Washington Post that was the “hero” of Watergate, being one of the pillars of American Journalism. For a moment, I thought I was glancing at the webpage of a supermarket gossip tabloid. But nope, it was the grand old lady herself, the Washington Post. And here is what the Post thought was of earth-shattering significance. You see, while Hillary Rodham Clinton was delivering a speech during a recent session of the Senate, it appears that a tiny bit of her cleavage was visible. A very tiny bit. For only the briefest moment. There it was. That mysterious airspace that lies between the breasts of the former First Lady.
If the cleavage of Hillary Clinton is of such journalistic import, I can suggest that the reporters at the Post have a peek at the cover of my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise.” Drawn by the hand of a skilled artist is a vivid depiction of Hillaryland cleavage, for all to see.
Now, it might just seem strange that Hillary Clinton’s position (or lack of) on the danger of nuclear terrorism, a topic addressed in my blog of the previous day, might be deemed of less importance to the editors at the Washington Post than the visibility of her cleavage. My only take on this is that American journalism is plunging new depths, as it becomes a co-collaborator with the image consultants of major politicians, especially with regards to Hillary Clinton. First they want you to think she is cool in her Sopranos YouTube debut. Now they want us all to think of Hillary Clinton as sexy. Sexy Hillary, it does have a ring to it. So sexy Hillary, the lady with the cleavage, is what we should focus on. As to her ideas, global vision and strategy, if the Washington Post tells us that is less important than being sexy, than I guess we all must accept that Decision 2008 will be about the most inane and superficial presidential election contest in American history.
Previous Posts
