The Political Chase

Clinton slams Obama for youthful Presidential hopes

For as long as I can remember, any child expressing a desire to be President of the United States was considered an honorable, albeit difficult, aspiration. "Grown-ups" frequently motivated youth with expressions like, "Maybe you’ll grow up and be president one day." The same type of expression has been used countless times by many when positively commenting on a "younger" person’s intellect or talent. Hillary Clinton, ironically, considers long-term presidential aspirations a flaw.

Today, Clinton criticized Barack Obama for his presidential aspirations. The prosecution’s "Exhibit A" is a long list of horrifying and damning evidence that chronologically begins when Sen. Obama was in kindergarten.

In third grade, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled ‘I Want To Be a President’:

Sen. Obama’s third grade teacher, Fermina Katarina Sinaga, “asked her class to write an essay titled ‘My dream: What I want to be in the future.’ Obama wrote ‘I want to be a president,’ she said.” [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled ‘I Want to Become President’:

“Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama’s kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, ‘I Want To Become President,’ the teacher said.” [AP, 1/25/07]

Unconscionable and reprehensible. Obama should have been incarcerated for the heinous crime of wanting to be president when he was five years old.

Thank god Sen. Clinton only began formally planning her presidency when she made a pact with Bill Clinton during their dating years or shortly after marriage. I can’t recall her exact words or precisely when she discussed the pact publicly, but I distinctly remember her making the statement during her current campaign. My apologies for not referencing Clinton’s statements with a link, but I’m just not going to waste my time searching the Internet for it.

I’m sure Sen. Clinton attacking essays written in kindergarten and third-grade is valuable opposition research. Maybe they could answer a question I have. When did children in kindergarten begin writing essays? At most, I thought kids were being taught how to merely write. If Obama was writing essay’s in kindergarten, I submit he was a pretty smart kid.

U.S. warns Iraqi government, again

Wielding his extraordinary political power, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte delivered a powerful warning to the Iraqi government yesterday. He threw down the gauntlet. Kicked sand in their faces. Instilled fear of the Almighty. There can be no doubt the Iraqi government will comply toute de suite. The All Powerful Diplomat delivered words they’ve never heard before…well, not exactly. George Bush delivered the same warning almost a year ago. Moreover, the consequences have changed.

Yesterday:

Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte, in Baghdad after a week of meetings with Iraqi provincial leaders, said Sunday that lawmakers must take advantage of the decline in daily violence in recent months to pass crucial legislation and improve basic government services.

Mr. Negroponte, a former ambassador to Iraq, said if Iraq’s sharply divided Parliament did not reach a consensus “in the near future” on matters that would improve the lives of Iraqis, it risked losing the gains in security that had come in part because of the increased number of American combat troops.

George Bush announcing the surge on January 10, 2007:

I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people …Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

[Daily] life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

According to Negroponte, if the Iraqis don’t heed his warning, they stand to lose"the gains in security that had come in part because of the increased number of American combat troops." That is substantially different than Bush’s warning that Iraq "will lose the support of the American people."

In other words, conflict and violence may rise, but ultimately America will continue to support Iraq with blood and treasure in accordance with Operation Iraq Forever, the virtual treaty Bush signed a week ago.

So, why would anyone expect Maliki to pay attention to the Deputy Secretary of State when he dismissed the President’s warning and has a new treaty to boot?

Huckabee Gains, Clinton Drops in National Poll

As Iowa goes, so goes the nation. According to the latest national Gallop/USA Today poll Mike Huckabee moved into a statistical tie for second while support for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani “significantly eroded” over the past month.

Republican Presidential Candidates

Democratic Presidential Candidates

Margin of error: +/ 5.  No other candidates were above 4%

The Bush-Cheney Iran Hype

Dick Cheney, George Bush

After months of George Bush and Dick Cheney’s logarithmic rhetoric firmly declaring Iran’s intent to build nuclear weapons, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have debunked their claims in a recent National Intelligence Estimate. But even when they get it wrong, and are proven so, they are still right as evidenced by the imbecilic ramblings of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

There comes a time when the question of whether George Bush or Dick Cheney is telling the truth on any topic no longer applies. That time has passed. Doubt is no longer necessary or even applicable. The pertinent question is: are George Bush and Dick Cheney capable of telling the truth?

Six weeks ago, our fear-mongering president alluded to Iran causing World War III, in a manner strikingly similar to his infamous October 7, 2002 warning: “We cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom.” While many of Bush’s warnings are slightly nuanced, they are readily perceived as and intended to be declarative statements. Consider his World War III threat.

I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this — we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.

But the same does not apply for the Vice President’s bamboozlement. When threats comes forth from the lips of Dick Cheney, it is a matter of fact. And not once has the Vice President been right — not even close to accurate. Iran is not an exception.

Cheney’s statement of facts on October 21, 2007:

The Iranian regime’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran’s nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.

Pray tell, what was the basis for Cheney’s “inescapable reality” that existed only six weeks ago, when reality across the intelligence community was so vastly different?

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates….But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003.

Americans should forget about all the bamboozling the administration has done and the fact that they were wrong. Instead, according to Stephen Hadley, Numskull Extraordinaire, this is good news. And by the way, there are still plenty of reasons to continue that all-important state of fear.

Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen.

But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.

In other words, don’t dismiss the fact that Cheney is still hell-bent on attacking Iran and Paul Wolfowitz, returning as Arms Control Adviser, can be the chief architect of the catastrophic plan, again.

Ticket to Obama appearance requires vote pledge?

(Update I, Update II, and Update III below)

I received my ticket today to attend Barack Obama’s appearance in SC and was surprised to find what are easily interpreted as requirements to attend: (1) sign a pledge committing to vote for Obama, and (2) that I live in the state of the appearance.

This is an image of the ticket, however I redacted portions of the ticket that contained my ticket number, address, etc. for the obvious reasons.

I will provide an update after I’ve researched the matter.

Update I: Obviously the pledge cannot legally bind a potential voter, but it is misleading and many may perceive they are lawfully bound to vote for Obama. More later…

Update II:  I emailed Barack Obama’s campaign this afternoon (Tue 12/4) about the pledge issue. I will provide an update as soon as I hear from them.

Update III:  I will write more on this later, but wanted to provide this update. I emailed Obama’s national campaign headquarters this afternoon requesting their response since I had not received a response to my original email (sent to Obama SC headquarters). In both emails I posed several questions, but this was my primary question/issue:

Of course, signing a pledge to vote for a specific candidate does not legally bind a voter in any way; however, many people may not understand the laws governing elections and may perceive they are legally obligated to vote for Sen. Obama if they sign the pledge. Do you have plans or procedures in place to properly inform ticket-holders they are not legally required to vote for Sen. Obama even if they sign the pledge?

Moments ago, I received a change of venue notice ("due to overwhelming demand") from the SC office, which was obviously sent to current ticket holder rather than a direct response to my email. However, the campaign has changed the "pledge to vote." To RSVP, a response to the vote pledge is not required, but they provide two options on voting for Obama. The first being the same as the original pledge (above), and the second option: "I am currently undecided about who I am voting for in the South Carolina Primary on January 26."

Hillary’s mudslinging flip-flop

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is getting desperate. The glittery “inevitable candidate ” crown she has worn with all the demeanor of a 16th-century European monarch is rapidly tarnishing, if not about to fall off as she seemingly is in a mad dash for the guillotine. Trying to mitigate losing her lead in the polls and getting booed at campaign appearances, yesterday Clinton resorted to attacking her Democratic opponents character and integrity.

Less than three weeks ago, confronted with substantial criticism for her evasiveness and potential influence by lobbyists, a self-righteous Clinton arrogantly declared, “What I believe is important is that we put forth what we stand for… I think, [mudslinging] detracts from what we’re trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America.”

Flip-flop. Yesterday Clinton no longer found those principles important.

[I]n a dramatic shift [yesterday], she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.

“There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.”

Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama’s character, she replied: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”

As if that was not bad enough, the Clinton campaign is using Karl Rove as a deterrent and “credible” source to attack Barack Obama. According to recent statements by her campaign, Rove wants Obama to win the nomination. How ironic. Invoking Karl Rove raises the ire of the Democratic base that can only be matched by the hatred raised by Republicans when Hillary Clinton is invoked. Furthermore, it is well known Karl Rove has no credibility and nothing he says can be taken at face value. Rove’s lack of credibiltiy was proven again recently by his outlandish lies that Congress started the war in Iraq rather than the Bush administration. Republicans, such as Andrew Card, overwhelming denounced his Iraq statements as outright falsehoods.

In the November 15 Democratic debate, Clinton harshly and wrongly accused John Edwards of resorting to tactics of “throwing mud…right out of the Republican playbook.” Given Hillary’s new strategy of incredulous personal attacks and evasiveness, it is quite clear what playbook she is relying on.

Huckabee’s Surge

I was out of town most of the day yesterday and did not get a chance to post the Republican Party side of the Iowa poll conducted by the Des Moines Register.

Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (AR) ranking increased 17 points, allowing him to pass former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to take the lead among likely GOP caucus participants.

Huckabee’s surge is significant, especially considering the amount of time and money Mitt Romney has spent in Iowa. Romney has campaigned extensively in Iowa — TV ads and personal appearances, whereas Huckabee’s campaigning has been limited, largely due to availability of funding. I don’t have the exact figures, but if I recall correctly, Romney’s expenditures in Iowa exceeded Huckabee about 10 to 1, or approximately $1.5 million for Romney and approximately $150,000 for Huckabee.

Nationally, according to the latest FEC filings (9/30), Romney’s campaign had received $62.8 million, versus $2.3 million for Huckabee.

Notable also is Fred Thompson’s performance in the poll. Thompson, the touted savior of the Republican Party before actually entering the race, dropped nine points and is statistically tied with John McCain and Ron Paul.

Furthermore, the GOP race in Iowa is fluid, to say the least. “Roughly six in 10 likely Republican caucus participants say they could still be persuaded to support another candidate,” the Des Moines Register reports.