Mar 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM by Political Chase
More proof, for the record, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
Recalling just one of Hillary’s fabricated experience claims in an interview with CNN last week:
I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
Not true according to high-level officials in the U. K. that, unlike Hillary the Prevaricator, were intimately involved in the activities and can attest to Hillary’s involvement and influence (or lack of).
Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”
Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: “There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president.”
So, Hillary’s celebrated peacemaking experience that eminently qualifies her to be ready on Day 1 (including passing the “Commander in Chief threshold”) lies somewhere in the range of no interaction whatsoever to cheerleader. I suppose Lord Trimble was trying to be a gentleman and avoid getting sucked into Hillary’s lies and mudslinging, because it appears his perspective may have been a wee-bit gratuitous.
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. “She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already,” he said. Mrs Clinton was “a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument”, he added.
“She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.”
Damn Obama Kool-Aid has apparently gone global. No one really expects the dignitaries across the Pond to actually know anything about their own lives, experiences, or observations.
Responding to inquiries from this newspaper, Hillary Clinton’s campaign issued a statement from Mr Hume. “I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady,” the statement said.
“I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.
“There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.”
Mar 10, 2008 at 8:52 PM by Political Chase
The Clinton camp created a kerfuffle over poaching delegates a few weeks ago and later denied there was anything to it. Well, based on Hillary’s choice of words in the Newsweek interview (discussed earlier today) it’s back on the burner. This is what Hillary said.
There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we’re going to follow the process.
When Sen. Clinton starts talking about delegates switching and their intention to “follow the process,” it merits probing. Furthermore, I’ve never heard the term “caucus delegates” used before and I know it does not appear in the DNC Delegate Selection Rules. Although Camp Hillary issued another denial today, why did Hillary parse her words so carefully in the interview?
And what’s up with the “we’re going to follow the process.” Who is “we” and on whose authority will “we” be doing what?
Did someone put Hillary in charge of everybody at the convention? Did Howard Dean resign and I missed it?
Mar 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM by Political Chase
(updated below)
Untruths, deception, and endless attempts to destroy a presidential candidate’s challenger by any means necessary are great strategies if the unscrupulous candidate wants to ensure positive and overwhelming attention from slothful, irresponsible journalists like Newsweek’s Suzanne Smalley.
Conversely, truthful candidates endeavoring to run an inspirational and positive campaign — focusing on the issues — are deemed in a slump and not newsworthy despite the candidate’s unequivocal, factually substantiated front-runner status.
It is well documented that Hillary Clinton has been anything but honest about her qualifications. It is also well-known and documented, if not enabled and exploited, that Clinton’s campaign is focused on launching ad hominem attacks against Barack Obama.
For example, last week, the Chicago Tribune provided forensic-quality documentation of Hillary Clinton’s long-standing false statements and deception. Last night John Harwood succinctly stated how Clinton is damaging the Democratic Party and on a path that, if not stopped, will ultimately ensure McCain wins the presidency. And today, the New York Times has an excellent article on Clinton’s incompetence as a manager.
Suzanne Smalley proves in her recent interview with Clinton how incredibly slack and irresponsible many journalists have become by acting as stenographers rather than skilled professional journalists. More importantly, Smalley’s interview further demonstrates Hillary Clinton’s deceptive practices, or at best her delusional state. (Both?) Being the perfect stenographer, Smalley dutifully writes down verbatim Clinton’s answers and does not consider engaging Clinton. Challenging or questioning Clinton’s absurd, inaccurate, or deceptive responses would be a violation of the high standards American journalists, like Tucker Carlson, practice and embrace.
[Clinton] spoke about her relationship with women voters, her comeback strategy—and why her candidacy is good for the Democratic Party. Excerpts:
SMALLEY: Everybody had written you off—and here you are.
CLINTON: [Laughs] Well, I really believe in what I’m doing, and I am supported and sustained by the millions of people who believe that I should be the next president.
SMALLEY: What do you say to those people who say taking this all the way to the convention will hurt the party?
CLINTON: I think this has been good for the party. I think it has brought a lot of people in. Here we are in Mississippi as we do this interview and, I mean, thousands of Democrats are turning out. That’s really exciting, so I feel strongly that what has happened has been good for the party and good for the country. I think it’s going to be win-win, however it turns out.
SMALLEY: How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?
CLINTON: It doesn’t look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we’re going to follow the process.
Smalley not only lets Clinton go unchallenged on blatant untruths, such as the “bleak” math, Smalley enables Clinton with her first question. Obviously because Clinton is “there” — living and breathing — that’s undeniable proof her campaign was never in serious trouble and is not now. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible for Clinton to be “there” and have a troubled campaign as well.
And of course there is nothing to support or even remotely consider that Clinton’s ad hominen attacks against Obama and public endorsement of John McCain would hurt the Democratic Party. Hillary said that it’s good for the Party; therefore, nothing else needs to be pursued. Smalley did her job — she wrote down exactly what Clinton said.
The media is falling all over themselves to glorify Clinton as if she is Alexander the Great, which I wrote about yesterday, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Chuck Todd, an excellent political analyst at NBC, nails it perfectly.
The Clinton campaign is now fighting the campaign out on its turf, despite being behind a nearly an insurmountable margin on the pledged delegate front, 1373-1232. Just look at how little coverage Wyoming and Mississippi are getting and how much focus is being put on Pennsylvania, even over other big states like North Carolina. And nevermind [sic] the incredible lift the Clinton campaign continues to get from the folks at “SNL.” This last opening skit might actually have been written by the Clinton campaign; it was striking in how on-message the skit was for Clinton.
Chuck clearly points out the incredulous media coverage of Hillary Clinton. She’s the loser, but they’re all over her. However, Chuck also proves the main point of my argument. It doesn’t matter what the facts are nor what the people should be told.
It was the third week in a row the comedy show has delivered for Clinton. Bottom line: the Clinton campaign appears to have wrested control of the campaign narrative, while Obama’s camp continues to be in reactive mode. The Obama folks will say it’s the media’s fault, but as we’ve said to others who blame the media for these perception swings — the media can only cover what the campaigns deliver.
Character assassinations, delusions, and lies guarantee coverage. As I said, Chuck is an excellent political analyst, but he’s also part of the broadcast media. The distinction Chuck should have made is not what the “media can only cover” but “what the media will only cover.”
The media is only concerned about ratings and refuses to challenge what they are told by certain candidates even when the media knows the facts do not support the candidate’s (viz. Clinton) statements.
Update: Hillary’s choice of words in the Newsweek interview about delegates created a kerfuffle today. See this post for more info.
Mar 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM by Political Chase
The 2008 cost of the war is now estimated at $12 billion per month or $144 billion for the entire year according to a new report. That’s three times the “burn” rate of its earliest years.
Hmm…I seem to recall Donald Rumsfeld said the entire war would cost at most $50 to $60 billion. I also seem to recall Rumsfeld fired a general for making the mistake of saying the war cost something like more than $100 billion. And then there was Einstein’s Paul Wolfowitz’s claim that post-invasion oil revenues would more than pay for cost of the war
Keep in mind the $12 billion is for 2008 only. Looking forward, the authors of the report estimate the cumulative costs of the war may be as high as $2.7 trillion.
Beyond 2008, working with “best-case” and “realistic-moderate” scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.
Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.
History teaches us today’s estimate for war costs are never equal to tomorrow’s actuals. Of course one has to consider who’s doing the estimating and personal agendas at that time, but if Rummy said in 2002 the maximum war cost would be $60 billion, just think what it might be in 2017 if today’s estimate is $2.7 trillion. And you can bet your derrière we’ll still be in Iraq five years from now if John McCain is president. Remember, he’s the “conservative” with a 100-year Iraq war plan.
It is instructional to remember Eisenhower’s prescient warning in 1961 about the dangers of the military-industrial complex:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
And persist they did indeed.
It is also important to bear in mind President Bush’s proposed $3.1 trillion budget for 2009 will leave a $400 billion deficit and does not include funding for the war. What’s another $150 billion for just one-year’s expense and a few hundred more dead soldiers to propagate Bush Democracy?
When it comes to topics such as this (excluding the loss of soldiers lives), I often think of Willie Nelson and chuckle to myself. Several years ago Willie had a pretty big problem with the IRS. They said he owed them $15 million in back taxes, but Willie was unable to pay what the IRS claimed he owed. When asked about his IRS tale of woe, Willie said, “If you owe the IRS a million dollars, you’ve got a problem. If you owe the IRS $15 million, they have a problem.”
Mar 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM by Political Chase
Just what we need - a George Bush redux.
Interviews with [Clinton] campaign aides, associates and friends suggest that Mrs. Clinton, at least until February, was a detached manager. Juggling the demands of being a candidate, she paid little attention to detail, delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions. Mrs. Clinton accepted or seemed unaware of the intense factionalism and feuding that often paralyzed her campaign and that prevented her aides from reaching consensus on basic questions like what states to fight in and how to go after Mr. Obama, of Illinois.
Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.
[snip]
For all her years on the public stage, Mrs. Clinton has never come close to assembling and running an enterprise like the 700-person, $170 million-and-counting campaign organization that she has created. At times, her aides made assumptions about tactics and voters that turned out to be wrong. They nearly ran out of money at all the wrong times, like just after Mrs. Clinton’s victory in the New Hampshire primary and right before the 22 state nominating contests on Feb. 5.
The day after her loss in the Iowa caucuses, Mrs. Clinton took command of a long meeting in New Hampshire. “I’ll do whatever you guys need me to do,” she said, a participant recalled. “I get the message.”
But a month later, she described herself as stunned to learn the campaign was nearly broke — notwithstanding financial reports sent to her every week by e-mail — and was all but conceding the 11 contests that were to come over the next month.
Sniping by Aides Hurt Clinton’s Image as Manager
Mar 10, 2008 at 12:26 AM by Political Chase
John Harwood has some very good and valid points on the damage created by a presidential campaign based entirely on the politics of personal destruction.
So far, the clash between the two history-making candidacies has appeared to be an unalloyed benefit to the party. In state after state, Democrats displayed their enthusiasm through robust primary turnouts that drew in many new voters. If Clinton and Obama supporters have fallen into consistent niches by gender, income, education and ethnicity, polls show that most Democrats would happily support either one in November.
But now the threat of stalemate, vituperation and disillusionment hangs over a contest structured to declare a verdict a month ago. Potential fallout could imperil Democratic hopes for both the presidency and larger Congressional majorities.
[snip]
For party leaders, the most worrisome variable is the tone of the campaign. Mrs. Clinton won last week after escalating her attacks on Mr. Obama’s authenticity, experience and ties to a scandal-tarred donor. In defeat, Mr. Obama responded by questioning Mrs. Clinton’s ethics.
When she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, floated the possibility of a “dream ticket,” Obama advisers dismissed it as a political tactic. “Given the current trajectory” of the race, said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “I worry about it spiraling out of control.”
The combination of discord and procedural mishaps represents a gift to Republicans, now pulling together behind Senator John McCain, their presumed nominee.
Can someone send Hillary a script for Effexor?
