Hanging American presidents in effigy has been a time honored tradition for decades, if not centuries. George W. Bush probably holds the record for most executions in effigy, but maybe LBJ could give him a run for his money considering the volume of Viet Nam protests. Certainly nobody ever got too worked up about it. Usually, if it was domestic and particularly threatening, the Secret Service would make a perfunctory house call to make sure people understood that this could be seen as a threat and they needed to tread carefully.
But the candidacy of Barrack Obama has put this practice in an uncomfortable spotlight. A fellow from West Hollywood put up a Halloween display that featured Sarah Palin hanging from a noose. It made the wire services and a few people complained. Notably, the guy who was quoted in the story as saying he thought is was in bad taste, refused to give his last name, while the guy who put the display up gave first, middle and last. The display stayed up for a few days, with the owner defiantly claiming free speech rights. But on the third day, a not-so-funny thing happened. Some college students in Kentucky hung an effigy of Barrack Obama from a tree. Suddenly, this was serious. The president of the University declared that the perpetrators would be caught and prosecuted, and then made good on it. Two twenty year olds were arrested for disorderly conduct and burglary (they apparently lifted the mannequin from a frat house) and bond was set at $7,600 for each of them. I’ve heard of lower bail for manslaughter charges. This was essentially a prank. Of course there were no arrests in West Hollywood.
What will be interesting to see is what will happen after the election. After the euphoria of having elected Obama wears off, the rest of the world will go back to despising the United States. Barrack Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, will become the face of American hegemony. And the third world doesn’t relate to the racist lynchings that took place in the American south. So they will very likely hang Obama when they rally in Tehran or Islamabad. I just wonder how the American left will react and how far they’ll go to try and straighten out these folks. I can’t see them ignoring it.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Bipartisanship
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made the following statement in response to a suggestion that Democrats would run roughshod over Republicans should they control both congress and the White House:
"But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
Now at first you might be tempted to think she has plainly stated an oxymoron. But that would only be because you don't know the Democrat definition of "bipartisan." To Democrats, bipartisan means you abandon your position and adopt the liberal one. Then we are all happy, and that's bipartisanship.
"But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."
Now at first you might be tempted to think she has plainly stated an oxymoron. But that would only be because you don't know the Democrat definition of "bipartisan." To Democrats, bipartisan means you abandon your position and adopt the liberal one. Then we are all happy, and that's bipartisanship.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Predictions
I wanted to put these on the record with a time stamp:
Obama goes with Sebelius, fuck the Clintons! McCain goes with Lieberman.
McCain wins in November. Democrats form circular firing squads and drink kool aid.
Brett Favre has a better year than Aaron Rodgers.
Ted Thompson is eventually bought out of his contract. The better Favre does, the sooner.
UPDATE Aug 25th: OK, I'm 0 for 1 as Obama picks Biden. But I take some satisfaction that Dick Morris came out this morning and said how it was a big mistake that he didn't take Kathleen Sebelius because he really needs a woman on the ticket. And I also agree with his assessment that this now prersents an opportunity for John McCain to pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The opportunity would not have been there had he taken Sebelius. I now say it's even 50-50 on Lieberman vs. Hutchinson.
UPDATE Aug 29th: Well I might be 0 for two, but he did pick a woman, which is great. Furthermore, when they vote in November, both halves of the ticket will have sons serving in Iraq. But you should hear the nervous "laughter" over at the Huffington Post. She is being trashed and ridiculed as short on experience and being clearly seen as a cynical pick to get support from the disaffected Clinton supporters. They are putting out wild predictions of the pick being a disaster, but they are obviously whistling past the graveyard. Lots of bluster with a deep undercurrent of concern. This is a great pick. The Dems are predicting that Biden will "have her for lunch." I'd just love to see that. Really. Like Rick Lazio looked, he will come across as bullying a woman and that won't help.
UPDATE Oct. 3rd
My politcal predictions are not faring well, but Favre had six touchdowns and lead the Jets to victory, while Aaron Rodgers left the game with 3 interceptions and may not start this weekend.
Obama goes with Sebelius, fuck the Clintons! McCain goes with Lieberman.
McCain wins in November. Democrats form circular firing squads and drink kool aid.
Brett Favre has a better year than Aaron Rodgers.
Ted Thompson is eventually bought out of his contract. The better Favre does, the sooner.
UPDATE Aug 25th: OK, I'm 0 for 1 as Obama picks Biden. But I take some satisfaction that Dick Morris came out this morning and said how it was a big mistake that he didn't take Kathleen Sebelius because he really needs a woman on the ticket. And I also agree with his assessment that this now prersents an opportunity for John McCain to pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson. The opportunity would not have been there had he taken Sebelius. I now say it's even 50-50 on Lieberman vs. Hutchinson.
UPDATE Aug 29th: Well I might be 0 for two, but he did pick a woman, which is great. Furthermore, when they vote in November, both halves of the ticket will have sons serving in Iraq. But you should hear the nervous "laughter" over at the Huffington Post. She is being trashed and ridiculed as short on experience and being clearly seen as a cynical pick to get support from the disaffected Clinton supporters. They are putting out wild predictions of the pick being a disaster, but they are obviously whistling past the graveyard. Lots of bluster with a deep undercurrent of concern. This is a great pick. The Dems are predicting that Biden will "have her for lunch." I'd just love to see that. Really. Like Rick Lazio looked, he will come across as bullying a woman and that won't help.
UPDATE Oct. 3rd
My politcal predictions are not faring well, but Favre had six touchdowns and lead the Jets to victory, while Aaron Rodgers left the game with 3 interceptions and may not start this weekend.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Bizzaro World
The incredible lack of knowledge about basic economics in this country has lead us directly into Bizzaro World. You remember Bizzarro World don't you. That was the parallel universe in the Superman comic books where everything was reversed. Ugly was beautiful, people collected trash instead of throwing it out and doctors made you sick instead of curing you. Well, we're there.
Obama the Redeemer was in Florida flip-flopping on off shore drilling. Now, he might be for it, but only if it will help break the gridlock and get meaningful energy reform passed.
Yeah, that and the fact that polls overwhelming show voters favor drilling. But in the middle of his speech a black man interrupted and demanded that Obama answer about "the attacks against the African-American community" by the "same U.S. government that you aspire to lead." He pointed to sub-prime mortgages aimed at black and Latino communities, instances of police profiling, the Jena Six and the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.
Sub-prime mortgages were “aimed” at blacks and Latinos. Just like a gun. You see those bastards at Country Wide were just lying in wait. They spotted those juicy credit risks and just pounced. They cleverly induced their targets into this hopeless situation by giving them money that they clearly knew they couldn’t pay back. But they gave them the loans anyway, the bastards. They knew it was only a matter of time before the adjustable rates would rise, the exploited blacks and Latinos would default and fulfill their master plan to corner the market on bad debts and abandoned homes. Of course this was all just a side benefit. Their real objective was to financially ruin as many black and Latino families as they possibly could. Well heck, it was even worth ruining a few white families as long as they nailed the minorities. And it worked beautifully. Just look at the riches they reaped in the last quarter alone! Thornburg Mortgage took a $3 billion loss and Merril managed a $2.24 billion loss. J.P. Morgan was a little less successful. They only managed a $1.1 billion loss.
If this weren’t bad enough, Obama defended himself by agreeing. In fact he had always been against “predatory lending.”
I’d like for everybody to take a minute or two to say that term, “predatory lending” out loud and reflect on it.
OK, first I’d like to point out that when Obama was being a “community organizer” in Chicago, he was heavily involved with the liberal activist group ACORN. They did a lot of fraudulent voter registration, but they also issued many tirades aimed at banks and mortgage companies. They did “studies” where they “determined” that since blacks were getting turned down for mortgages at a higher rate than whites, this was clear evidence of racial discrimination. Of course a mortgage application isn’t allowed to ask a person’s race, but they figured that info got through somehow (nod, nod, wink, wink.) And furthermore, it wasn’t just race, it was location too. This, they called “redlining.” Here the banks were simply saying that’s not a part of town where we want to loan. And they were saying that because those parts were predominately black.
It was pointed out to ACORN that Asians were approved at a higher rate than whites, but they really didn’t have an explanation for that. Likewise, when this “sophisticated point” was made: If blacks were being held to a higher credit standard than whites, then it would follow that the backs who did receive mortgages would likely have a lower default rate, correct? Yes, that would seem to be correct. Unfortunately for ACORN the blacks who did receive mortgages actually had higher default rates.
Despite those facts, great pressure was exerted on the banks to make these loans to people they had deemed uncreditworthy in places that they did not want to lend. Laws were passed to make it easier to loan that money, and the banks complied. It was either that or get sued. But that was then and now they are "predators."
But what really struck me as perverse this week was the reaction to the news that ExxonMobil had a quarterly profit of $11.68 billion. People were outraged. They were offended and angry. Obama spoke of taking that money and using it to send checks of $1,000 to $500 to middle and lower class families (Hillary threatened to take their profits in the previous quarter.) Greed, which was identified as the reason behind these “obscene” profits, was denounced. Everyone seemed to agree, these profits were “excessive,” I mean, they were just too much.
And on the other side of the newspaper page was a different profit story. It was about how General Motors was posting a $15.5 billion loss. I could only assume such news would add a little cheer to a liberal’s day. Certainly this was something of a counter weight to the bad news that ExxonMobil had posted the largest corporate profit in history. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Aside from the fact that virtually every 401k and IRA in America has some oil stock, when did profits become bad? Do these people understand how big a part of our economy ExxonMobil represents? Do they know how many people they employ at very good wages? Do they understand the amount of assets they control? Do they know that oil companies are the ones researching and investing in those alternative energy sources they all like to hype, like wind and solar? Do they understand that those profits are exactly the source of funding for that research and investing? I’d have to say the answer to all those questions is no, they don’t understand.
Obama the Redeemer was in Florida flip-flopping on off shore drilling. Now, he might be for it, but only if it will help break the gridlock and get meaningful energy reform passed.
Yeah, that and the fact that polls overwhelming show voters favor drilling. But in the middle of his speech a black man interrupted and demanded that Obama answer about "the attacks against the African-American community" by the "same U.S. government that you aspire to lead." He pointed to sub-prime mortgages aimed at black and Latino communities, instances of police profiling, the Jena Six and the slow response to Hurricane Katrina.
Sub-prime mortgages were “aimed” at blacks and Latinos. Just like a gun. You see those bastards at Country Wide were just lying in wait. They spotted those juicy credit risks and just pounced. They cleverly induced their targets into this hopeless situation by giving them money that they clearly knew they couldn’t pay back. But they gave them the loans anyway, the bastards. They knew it was only a matter of time before the adjustable rates would rise, the exploited blacks and Latinos would default and fulfill their master plan to corner the market on bad debts and abandoned homes. Of course this was all just a side benefit. Their real objective was to financially ruin as many black and Latino families as they possibly could. Well heck, it was even worth ruining a few white families as long as they nailed the minorities. And it worked beautifully. Just look at the riches they reaped in the last quarter alone! Thornburg Mortgage took a $3 billion loss and Merril managed a $2.24 billion loss. J.P. Morgan was a little less successful. They only managed a $1.1 billion loss.
If this weren’t bad enough, Obama defended himself by agreeing. In fact he had always been against “predatory lending.”
I’d like for everybody to take a minute or two to say that term, “predatory lending” out loud and reflect on it.
OK, first I’d like to point out that when Obama was being a “community organizer” in Chicago, he was heavily involved with the liberal activist group ACORN. They did a lot of fraudulent voter registration, but they also issued many tirades aimed at banks and mortgage companies. They did “studies” where they “determined” that since blacks were getting turned down for mortgages at a higher rate than whites, this was clear evidence of racial discrimination. Of course a mortgage application isn’t allowed to ask a person’s race, but they figured that info got through somehow (nod, nod, wink, wink.) And furthermore, it wasn’t just race, it was location too. This, they called “redlining.” Here the banks were simply saying that’s not a part of town where we want to loan. And they were saying that because those parts were predominately black.
It was pointed out to ACORN that Asians were approved at a higher rate than whites, but they really didn’t have an explanation for that. Likewise, when this “sophisticated point” was made: If blacks were being held to a higher credit standard than whites, then it would follow that the backs who did receive mortgages would likely have a lower default rate, correct? Yes, that would seem to be correct. Unfortunately for ACORN the blacks who did receive mortgages actually had higher default rates.
Despite those facts, great pressure was exerted on the banks to make these loans to people they had deemed uncreditworthy in places that they did not want to lend. Laws were passed to make it easier to loan that money, and the banks complied. It was either that or get sued. But that was then and now they are "predators."
But what really struck me as perverse this week was the reaction to the news that ExxonMobil had a quarterly profit of $11.68 billion. People were outraged. They were offended and angry. Obama spoke of taking that money and using it to send checks of $1,000 to $500 to middle and lower class families (Hillary threatened to take their profits in the previous quarter.) Greed, which was identified as the reason behind these “obscene” profits, was denounced. Everyone seemed to agree, these profits were “excessive,” I mean, they were just too much.
And on the other side of the newspaper page was a different profit story. It was about how General Motors was posting a $15.5 billion loss. I could only assume such news would add a little cheer to a liberal’s day. Certainly this was something of a counter weight to the bad news that ExxonMobil had posted the largest corporate profit in history. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Aside from the fact that virtually every 401k and IRA in America has some oil stock, when did profits become bad? Do these people understand how big a part of our economy ExxonMobil represents? Do they know how many people they employ at very good wages? Do they understand the amount of assets they control? Do they know that oil companies are the ones researching and investing in those alternative energy sources they all like to hype, like wind and solar? Do they understand that those profits are exactly the source of funding for that research and investing? I’d have to say the answer to all those questions is no, they don’t understand.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Energy Obstructionists
There is just no pleasing the tree huggers.
When it comes to formulating a national energy policy, there is nothing that can please them. Oil is downright evil in their book. Coal isn't far behind. Ethanol? It will make food more expensive. Wind power? The turbines kill lots of birds and they spoil the view. Nuclear power? Are you kidding? What do we do with the waste? We can't be absolutely certain that the waste will be handled in a safe manner. So what energy sources does a good environmentalist prefer? Why wave technology and cold fusion of course. And for those who are smugly pointing out that neither of those technologies are currently available, I just want to say you must be one of those global warming deniers.
There are problems with every kind of energy. If the liberals would recognize that one simple fact, we might be able to move forward and make some choices. And, yes, that means trade offs, something that makes those of the liberal persuasion go crazy. They just don't seem to understand that we are not going to come up with a fuel that produces oxygen as it burns and is in abundant supply.
I don't know if I believe that man made global warming is taking place or not, but if I did believe that I'd certainly be looking hard at the one type of energy that produces zero greenhouse gasses, nuclear. But it turns out that Jane Fonda made a movie 25 years ago about a fictional nuclear disaster and we haven't gotten over it yet. But here is something to ponder if you are concerned about how we would reassure ourselves that nuclear waste in the United States was being handled properly: China has recently opened 8 new nuclear plants, and has another 45 on the drawing board. It appears that nobody in China has ever seen The China Syndrome. So while you can sleep better knowing that Americans will not have to face the question of how to safely handle our nuclear waste, I'm hoping you will now lose a lot of sleep wondering if China, where they just had a devastating earthquake, has built those new plants up to code.
My point is the nuclear plants are going to be built. It's just a matter of who will build them where and who is capable of doing so safely. So from what I see, it looks like we are convinced that the Chinese can do it better than us.
When it comes to formulating a national energy policy, there is nothing that can please them. Oil is downright evil in their book. Coal isn't far behind. Ethanol? It will make food more expensive. Wind power? The turbines kill lots of birds and they spoil the view. Nuclear power? Are you kidding? What do we do with the waste? We can't be absolutely certain that the waste will be handled in a safe manner. So what energy sources does a good environmentalist prefer? Why wave technology and cold fusion of course. And for those who are smugly pointing out that neither of those technologies are currently available, I just want to say you must be one of those global warming deniers.
There are problems with every kind of energy. If the liberals would recognize that one simple fact, we might be able to move forward and make some choices. And, yes, that means trade offs, something that makes those of the liberal persuasion go crazy. They just don't seem to understand that we are not going to come up with a fuel that produces oxygen as it burns and is in abundant supply.
I don't know if I believe that man made global warming is taking place or not, but if I did believe that I'd certainly be looking hard at the one type of energy that produces zero greenhouse gasses, nuclear. But it turns out that Jane Fonda made a movie 25 years ago about a fictional nuclear disaster and we haven't gotten over it yet. But here is something to ponder if you are concerned about how we would reassure ourselves that nuclear waste in the United States was being handled properly: China has recently opened 8 new nuclear plants, and has another 45 on the drawing board. It appears that nobody in China has ever seen The China Syndrome. So while you can sleep better knowing that Americans will not have to face the question of how to safely handle our nuclear waste, I'm hoping you will now lose a lot of sleep wondering if China, where they just had a devastating earthquake, has built those new plants up to code.
My point is the nuclear plants are going to be built. It's just a matter of who will build them where and who is capable of doing so safely. So from what I see, it looks like we are convinced that the Chinese can do it better than us.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Recession, To Be, or Not To Be
On the way into work this morning, I heard the radio news lady tease the upcoming newscast on the hour. I can't recall all the exact words, but the gist of it was that we're certainly in the midst of an economic downturn, "which the administration STILL refuses to call a recession." The tone was of course that this administration is just denying what is obvious to every right thinking Madisonian. It was said as if this is another example of Bush not being in touch with reality.
Since economics is so universally misunderstood, I feel compelled to start with a definition. A recession is defined as having had two straight quarters of negative growth in our economy. Now I know this part requires some lateral thinking, but just hang with me and I'll get you through it. If you read that definition closely, you'll notice that it is in the past tense. That is, the two quarters must have already ended. And I'm hoping you'll agree that in order to accurately record the results from a particular quarter, you must wait for that quarter to end and then collect all the necessary data. So, BY DEFINITION, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A RECESSION UNTIL WE ARE SIX MONTHS INTO IT.
So, you may say, "But that's just a technical point, we all can see what's going on, we can pretty much guess that a recession is under way, can't we?"
And you'd be right. But you'd still be guessing. But there is an even bigger point as to why it is not a good idea for public officials to speculate thusly. That would be the phenomenon that occurs regularly in economics, the self fullfilling prophecy. It is a fact that the "prevailing wisdom" has a real and immediate effect on the economy. If I can convince a majority of people that the cost of gasoline is going to rise $1 a gallon by next week, you can bet that the price will rise. Commodity speculators would buy up futures contracts and regular folks would simply go top off their tanks. And prices would rise as a result. If I convince them the price will drop, speculators will bet on a price decline and consumers will ride the bus and wait for the lower prices to arrive, which will drive prices down.
I don't have the ability to convince enough people. But public figures such as the President or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve certainly do, and that's why they tend to be very careful about what they say. If the President starts talking about how awful the economy is, he will absolutely make it worse. If the Fed Chairman mentions that he is now buying Euros, you can bet that the dollar will soon be in a freefall.
So just understand, that when ANY President is faced with an economy that is likely in recession, you should never expect for him to offer confirmation or a prediction.It can only make things worse.
Since economics is so universally misunderstood, I feel compelled to start with a definition. A recession is defined as having had two straight quarters of negative growth in our economy. Now I know this part requires some lateral thinking, but just hang with me and I'll get you through it. If you read that definition closely, you'll notice that it is in the past tense. That is, the two quarters must have already ended. And I'm hoping you'll agree that in order to accurately record the results from a particular quarter, you must wait for that quarter to end and then collect all the necessary data. So, BY DEFINITION, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A RECESSION UNTIL WE ARE SIX MONTHS INTO IT.
So, you may say, "But that's just a technical point, we all can see what's going on, we can pretty much guess that a recession is under way, can't we?"
And you'd be right. But you'd still be guessing. But there is an even bigger point as to why it is not a good idea for public officials to speculate thusly. That would be the phenomenon that occurs regularly in economics, the self fullfilling prophecy. It is a fact that the "prevailing wisdom" has a real and immediate effect on the economy. If I can convince a majority of people that the cost of gasoline is going to rise $1 a gallon by next week, you can bet that the price will rise. Commodity speculators would buy up futures contracts and regular folks would simply go top off their tanks. And prices would rise as a result. If I convince them the price will drop, speculators will bet on a price decline and consumers will ride the bus and wait for the lower prices to arrive, which will drive prices down.
I don't have the ability to convince enough people. But public figures such as the President or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve certainly do, and that's why they tend to be very careful about what they say. If the President starts talking about how awful the economy is, he will absolutely make it worse. If the Fed Chairman mentions that he is now buying Euros, you can bet that the dollar will soon be in a freefall.
So just understand, that when ANY President is faced with an economy that is likely in recession, you should never expect for him to offer confirmation or a prediction.It can only make things worse.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Wooden Stake in Hand
Yes, once again we are poised over the sleeping vampire with a stake in one hand and a mallet in the other. Will she awaken at the last minute and once again cheat death? Well it is Hillary and I won’t make the same mistake and count her out before I see the body. I need to see her feet curl up under the house. I am writing this today (2/13/2008) so that I can be on record as predicting the nastiness that I believe is coming.
Last night Barack Obama spoke here in Madison in front of a packed Kohl Center crowd with the overflow watching from the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion next door. He took the stage a little late, because, I believe, they were waiting for the official results from the Maryland primary. He was then able to lead off with an announcement that they had just captured their eighth primary/caucus in a row. The experts have been putting the pencil to the scenarios unfolding and their judgment is that she is toast. She is apparently going to concede Wisconsin and Hawaii to Obama and try to make her last stand in Ohio and Texas. The problem with that strategy, they say, is that she is already in a position that says she has to win the remaining contests with at least a 55% to 45% margin. But with each additional primary she loses, that percentage goes up. After she loses in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage goes to 57%. If she then loses the next group (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota) it goes to 60%. Considering that she lost Virginia 63% to 37%, that’s looks pretty much impossible. He’s got all the momentum, which is even more important in politics than it is in football. He’s got, and is raising more money, and he is having a whirlwind romance with the media. And all of those are good reasons that he’d better double the size of his secret service protection detail.
I’m only half joking when I suggest she’d try to take him out physically. Her preferred method will likely be a sudden revelation about something shady in Obama’s past. They hinted a long time ago that they had a real juicy bit on Barack when they were trying to promote the idea that he can’t beat the Republicans. Of course it was always pitched that they, the Clintons, would never think of releasing that information, but they had no doubt the Republicans would when they thought the time was right. Which implied that would be right after he secures the nomination. See? Then it would be too late to have Hillary rescue the Dems. Clinton surrogates have been whispering for months now that “Well, we all know that there is a certain element in the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black man.” But the problem with that canard is that they never consider that there is also a large element who will never vote for a white woman either. And furthermore, neither of those two groups were ever likely to vote for a liberal Democrat to begin with! So you are really talking about losing votes you never had.
But look, the bottom line is Clinton is losing. And that is not acceptable to Clinton Inc. They may have gotten burned after going negative in South Carolina, but that won’t stop them because going negative is what they know and what they know works. I’m predicting that a “scandalous” issue will surface. It will not come directly from the Clinton camp. They will try to make sure their fingerprints aren’t blatantly on it, but frankly, that’s of secondary concern now. Everybody will suspect it came from them anyway, so they won’t be able to totally avoid any blowback. But they can see that if they don’t bring his train to a screeching halt, and soon, none of this will matter. I think (hope?) that she is not the least bit interested in the VP slot. That would require an eight year wait for her turn and God knows how she’ll be viewed by then. I said a year ago that she’d pick Bill Richardson as her VP, but now I’ve heard that Bill recently ripped Richardson when he wouldn’t endorse Hillary. Supposedly the comment to his one time UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary was “What? Two cabinet appointments weren’t enough?” God I hope that’s a true story. I think Richardson, like the Super Delegates, is waiting to see who comes out on top. In fact, he’d probably be more valuable as Obama’s VP than he would as Hillary’s.
I’m fully expecting to update this post once the scandal breaks.
2/21/08 Update:
She got absolutely trounced in Wisconsin and Hawaii so they uncorked the scandal.
So far the "scandal" has fizzled. About 5 days ago Clinton Inc. fed a story to reporters that Obama was plagarizing his speeches. They showed them clips of a recent Obama speech and then clips from Governor Deval Patrick's (D-Mass.) speech from two years ago using the same language. Oh, and then they denied that they were the source, naturally. It got no traction at all. It makes me think that they really don't have anything on him, or they would have used it. At this point even her most ardent supporters are admitting that she's toast, and are reduced to speculating on the reasons why she is losing. And the parade of negative stories just keep on coming. Lots of stuff about the profligate spending and their mounting finacial woes. But they just can't stop themselves from spinning the story. Check this quote from a Politico story:
" Clinton’s 2007 year-end report showed her owing more than $5 million to vendors ranging from phone bank firms and pollsters to charter airline operators and telephone companies. Her campaign last month dismissed those debts as a matter of bookkeeping. "These are not true debts accruing by (sic) the campaign, but simply unpaid invoices," said spokesman Blake Zeff.
Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had enough money in the bank to pay off its debts (it finished the year with $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election). "Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses," said Zeff. "
Mr Zeff should take an elementary accounting class so that he might discover that unpaid invoices are exactly and precisely "true debts accruing to the campaign." But aside from that, does he really expect us to believe that they haven't paid $1,300 to Dunkin' Donuts because they need additional information for their records? Like how many were jelly filled?
Last night Barack Obama spoke here in Madison in front of a packed Kohl Center crowd with the overflow watching from the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion next door. He took the stage a little late, because, I believe, they were waiting for the official results from the Maryland primary. He was then able to lead off with an announcement that they had just captured their eighth primary/caucus in a row. The experts have been putting the pencil to the scenarios unfolding and their judgment is that she is toast. She is apparently going to concede Wisconsin and Hawaii to Obama and try to make her last stand in Ohio and Texas. The problem with that strategy, they say, is that she is already in a position that says she has to win the remaining contests with at least a 55% to 45% margin. But with each additional primary she loses, that percentage goes up. After she loses in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage goes to 57%. If she then loses the next group (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota) it goes to 60%. Considering that she lost Virginia 63% to 37%, that’s looks pretty much impossible. He’s got all the momentum, which is even more important in politics than it is in football. He’s got, and is raising more money, and he is having a whirlwind romance with the media. And all of those are good reasons that he’d better double the size of his secret service protection detail.
I’m only half joking when I suggest she’d try to take him out physically. Her preferred method will likely be a sudden revelation about something shady in Obama’s past. They hinted a long time ago that they had a real juicy bit on Barack when they were trying to promote the idea that he can’t beat the Republicans. Of course it was always pitched that they, the Clintons, would never think of releasing that information, but they had no doubt the Republicans would when they thought the time was right. Which implied that would be right after he secures the nomination. See? Then it would be too late to have Hillary rescue the Dems. Clinton surrogates have been whispering for months now that “Well, we all know that there is a certain element in the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black man.” But the problem with that canard is that they never consider that there is also a large element who will never vote for a white woman either. And furthermore, neither of those two groups were ever likely to vote for a liberal Democrat to begin with! So you are really talking about losing votes you never had.
But look, the bottom line is Clinton is losing. And that is not acceptable to Clinton Inc. They may have gotten burned after going negative in South Carolina, but that won’t stop them because going negative is what they know and what they know works. I’m predicting that a “scandalous” issue will surface. It will not come directly from the Clinton camp. They will try to make sure their fingerprints aren’t blatantly on it, but frankly, that’s of secondary concern now. Everybody will suspect it came from them anyway, so they won’t be able to totally avoid any blowback. But they can see that if they don’t bring his train to a screeching halt, and soon, none of this will matter. I think (hope?) that she is not the least bit interested in the VP slot. That would require an eight year wait for her turn and God knows how she’ll be viewed by then. I said a year ago that she’d pick Bill Richardson as her VP, but now I’ve heard that Bill recently ripped Richardson when he wouldn’t endorse Hillary. Supposedly the comment to his one time UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary was “What? Two cabinet appointments weren’t enough?” God I hope that’s a true story. I think Richardson, like the Super Delegates, is waiting to see who comes out on top. In fact, he’d probably be more valuable as Obama’s VP than he would as Hillary’s.
I’m fully expecting to update this post once the scandal breaks.
2/21/08 Update:
She got absolutely trounced in Wisconsin and Hawaii so they uncorked the scandal.
So far the "scandal" has fizzled. About 5 days ago Clinton Inc. fed a story to reporters that Obama was plagarizing his speeches. They showed them clips of a recent Obama speech and then clips from Governor Deval Patrick's (D-Mass.) speech from two years ago using the same language. Oh, and then they denied that they were the source, naturally. It got no traction at all. It makes me think that they really don't have anything on him, or they would have used it. At this point even her most ardent supporters are admitting that she's toast, and are reduced to speculating on the reasons why she is losing. And the parade of negative stories just keep on coming. Lots of stuff about the profligate spending and their mounting finacial woes. But they just can't stop themselves from spinning the story. Check this quote from a Politico story:
" Clinton’s 2007 year-end report showed her owing more than $5 million to vendors ranging from phone bank firms and pollsters to charter airline operators and telephone companies. Her campaign last month dismissed those debts as a matter of bookkeeping. "These are not true debts accruing by (sic) the campaign, but simply unpaid invoices," said spokesman Blake Zeff.
Zeff pointed out the campaign at the end of 2007 had enough money in the bank to pay off its debts (it finished the year with $13 million on hand after subtracting the debt and contributions earmarked for the general election). "Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses," said Zeff. "
Mr Zeff should take an elementary accounting class so that he might discover that unpaid invoices are exactly and precisely "true debts accruing to the campaign." But aside from that, does he really expect us to believe that they haven't paid $1,300 to Dunkin' Donuts because they need additional information for their records? Like how many were jelly filled?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)