I had to laugh when I read this one:

Meigs County sheriff’s Deputy Bryan Holman met with Clinton when she visited southeast Ohio ahead of the state’s March 4 primary. He told her he had heard the story of Trina Bachtel, who died in August. Clinton took the story and made it part of her stump speech.

On the trail, Clinton says the pregnant Ohio woman was twice turned away from a hospital because she didn’t have insurance and couldn’t pay a $100 fee. She later was rushed to a hospital in an ambulance, delivered a stillborn baby and was taken by helicopter to Columbus. Clinton says two weeks later, the woman died.

Clinton says the story is evidence the health care system must be reformed. She never mentions a hospital’s name.

But the chief executive officer at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens told the Times he wants Clinton to drop the tale from her stump speech. Rick Castrop says Bachtel was never refused treatment and had insurance when she delivered the stillborn child at O’Bleness.

Seriously, either become a more compelling liar, or get a fact checker on your campaign staff. I think we should launch an investigation into the mysterious people that used to appear in her husband’s speeches on the campaign trail.

Share This

Interesting article in the London Telegraph … Apparently, some Democrats are still entertaining the idea of having Gore as the Democratic Presidential nominee. Not a bad idea if you are a Democrat. Gore is no longer perceived as the perpetually political and annoyingly partisan sidekick of Bill. He is a man in his own right. Gore has proven to be a force in business and on the world stage. And, frankly, he has proven to be right about a few things. I think he would be tough for McCain to beat.

But, how do you reconcile this as a Democrat? How do you tell all of the Obama and Hillary die-hards that their votes mean nothing? It is probably the smart move. But, is it really? Would it alienate too many voters? Or, would those same voters who cast votes for Obama and Hillary embrace such a change?

Addendum to this post….. I talked with one of my dear work friends and committed Democrats this morning… her analysis was “No way.  This would never happen.  BS.  People would revolt.”  There you go.

Share This

Funny, I came across this video, today on SlateV, comparing Hillary and Tracy Flick, of the movie “Election”.  I noticed that this video was created on January 14th… glad to know they get their ideas from me… since I posted this on January 7th.  Kudos for taking a good idea and running further with/copying it … without attributing the source of the idea.

Share This

At this point, I am disgusted with the options that the Republican Party has in this race.  John McCain is the great anathema of the conservative movement.  He “courts” conservatives.  Yet, his record speaks otherwise.  I cannot support him unless I see a radical change in his thought process… a change in which I would not be likely to trust. 

I am absolutely in disbelief that he effectively has the nomination in the bag.  This is truly a sad day for the Republican Party.

And, I “feel dirty” when I hear McCain talk about how “you should vote for me because I am the best bet for beating Democrats in the fall”… Let me translate… because I lie in bed with Ted Kennedy and Russell Feingold and I am the closest thing to being a liberal Democrat without declaring myself to be, I think you should vote for me… because, since I am so in the middle… I stand a great chance of beating the Democrats in the Fall.

Personally, I see no difference between John McCain and Barack Obama or Hillary…. except that they are in favor of pulling out of Iraq.  Other than that, what is the difference?  Please, elaborate if you have an answer. 

I really don’t know what to do.  I am starting to think that the best thing for the Republican Party would be a good ass-kicking in the Fall…and a Barack Obama or Hillary Presidency - where the Republican Party could return to its roots and rediscover its ideological origins…. as opposed to 8 years of a President who is in no way committed to conservative virtues… and effectively takes the Republican Party further away from where it should be. 

I am really wrestling with this one.  I am not disappointed with the electorate.  I am disappointed in the options that the electorate has had to choose from.  Truly a sad day.

Share This

In case you have not seen the ’90s movie, Election, it is about an annoying over-achiever running for Student Body President.  She thought her election was inevitable, since she has been President of every club.  Ergo, she was “entitled” to this honor.  Then, she met Paul Nessler, the goofy guy from American Pie.  He was the somewhat popular jock who all the kids loved.  Long story about what happened… definitely a rental.
The more I think about this race, the more Hillary reminds me of Tracey Flick.  And, Barack, well, he is the popular jock.  Hillary runs around to every rally telling people what she has done and why she SHOULD be President.  Meanwhile, Barack’s speeches focus on hope and idealism.  Very conflicting campaign styles.   I am really seeing a surging tide away from her, it appears.

Share This

I can’t even believe what I am seeing… I don’t believe this poll at all.  Would 42% of the people of Tennessee vote for Hillary Clinton over Fred Thompson?  I don’t think so.  Are you kidding me?  Has she deceived that many people?

Share This

A new poll shows Giuliani actually pulling away from Hillary 47% to 40%.  But, then again, I truly believe that this political landscape will change drastically when Fred steps in the race.  Democrats… be scared.  Be VERY scared.

Share This

I am greatly amused when I watch the Democratic candidates for President squirm on the issue of same sex marriage.  Clearly, the country does not support same sex marriage.  The polls show that.  And, since they are Democrats, it is easy to box them into a corner and call them “whack-job” liberals.  So, after Dukakis, Mondale, among others… they don’t want to go down that road.

So, to keep from going down that road, they take positions that say pretty much nothing.  Here is what they said at the most recent debate … as well as what they really meant:

Hillary…

Asked what was at the heart of her opposition to same-sex marriage, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, “I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.”

“It’s a personal position,” she said. “For me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having.”

Translated… “for political purposes and to get elected, I am opposed to same-sex marriage… though I really believe in it.  Don’t worry.  After I am elected, I will have a change of heart - if politically feasible.”

Edwards…

John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice-presidential nominee, offered an apology for a previous statement that his religious faith was at the heart of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I shouldn’t have said that,” said Edwards, who has previously said he has struggled with his position. “I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for the presidency is about equality across the board.”

“All I can tell you is where I am today,” he said. “I do not support same-sex marriage.”

Translated… “Wow, I didn’t know this was going to cause such a huge uproar.  Politically, the country does not favor same-sex marriage… look, people, my hands are tied.  I can’t and don’t have any more explanation or justification why I believe what I believe.  There is no way in hell my flegling campaign will have any shot to continue - if I support this.  Come on!!!!”

Obama…

Sen. Barack Obama said his view is that “we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word ‘marriage,’ which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given couples.”

“My job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving same-sex couples all across the country … are recognized and enforced,” he said.

Translated… “Don’t worry, people.  When I get elected, I will work around this whole “marriage” word and hope people won’t notice.  All I can tell you is that right now people are not in favor of same-sex marriage.  So, for me to admit what I really believe is death to my chances of beating this maniacal woman to my left.”

Behind each of their words lies an even greater meaning.  But, bottom line, their words are easy to decipher.  Yes, they oppose same-sex marriage… but, they really don’t want to;  they just know they have to.

Share This

It makes perfect sense.  Think about it….

No matter what some bloggers may say, Bredesen is a centrist Democrat from a conservative state who has shown that his brand of politics can win - even as Republicans dominate.

Frankly, in retrospect, Bryson had no shot at beating Bredesen because people are happy with the job he is doing.  To oust an incumbent, it takes more than a good candidate…. you have to provide the electorate with a reason NOT to vote for the guy in the office!

So, where does that leave Bredesen?… in a perfect position to be a Democratic VP candidate.  Look, if either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, Bredesen makes perfect sense.  He is perceived as being centrist; they are not.  They need a southerner to balance themselves out, geographically.

And, Bredesen will go along with it.  I seriously doubt that he has higher aspirations in the future.  Let’s face it.  He has no charisma.  He does not have the charisma that one needs to become President.  But, he is enough of a work horse… that people could back him for Vice-President.  So, it would not bother him as much to latch himself to a potentially unsuccessful effort.

Share This

There is a great article in Advertising Age, analyzing the impact of Michael Bloomberg on the Presidential race.  No doubt, his role will be substantial.  But, with Fred Thompson in this race, I believe that his role will more or less be “spoiler” for the Democrats than President.

From the get-go, let’s get this out of the way.  If he drops a billion into this race, he is a legitimate contender.  But, one thing Bloomberg lacks is a grassroots party structure that the major parties have.  It becomes difficult to build such grassroots support when he is not committed to any particular ideology.  You may be saying… well, what about Perot?

Yes, in 1992, Perot ended up with 18% of the popular vote.  However, his inability to build a strong grassroots network that reached into small towns throughout America (along with his overall insanity) was his undoing.

I do, however, believe that Bloomberg is a much stronger candidate than Perot.  And, if he blows a billion, he WILL win some states.  But, I truly believe that his candidacy will hurt Democrats more than Republicans… why?… you may ask.

Right now, Americans are (to put it mildly) disenchanted with the President.  And, no doubt, his absurdly low popularity will hurt Fred or any other Republican.  So, normally, people who wanted to vote the bums out would go to the Democrats.

But, let’s look at the other side… Hillary Clinton?  Does anyone really want to vote for her?  Barack?  Nice guy… no experience… too young…. and, that is about it for serious candidates (And, no, Edwards is not one.).  So, that leaves Bloomberg for Americans who are disenchanted with Bush.  And, of course, Fred will rally the Republican faithful.

Bloomberg in the race = a win for Fred and Republicans…. don’t you love how I am already giving this race to Fred and assuming he is the nominee?  Let’s be honest… who can hang with him in this race?

Share This