Trump Bombs at First Debate, Shows Ugly Self

While some folks we know did not watch last night's presidential debate - some said it was too painful to watch, especially Donald Trump's behavior - the husband and I watched every minute of it. Overall, I thought Hillary Clinton was the clear winner, which seems to be the majority view, but more on that below.  Perhaps the most laughable/frightening moment was when Trump said he thought his temperament - that of a petulant first grader -  best qualified him for the presidency.   Trump surrogates had claimed that he had prepared for the debate "in his own way" and had criticized Clinton for the time she took to prepare.  The result?  Trump came across clueless and unprepared on many points and reverted back to some of his tried and true lies. The problem for Trump is that what works at rallies filled with his demented followers does not work on an internationally viewed one on one debate. The following is a sampling of some of the critiques of last nights debate.  First, the liberal perspective from Jonathan Capehart from the Washington Post:

For 90 minutes, we watched one candidate for president display the seriousness the office demands while the other did what was once unthinkable: show up unprepared for a globally televised job interview. . . . . Trump brought the vaudeville shtick that worked for him in the primaries to the main stage and bombed.

Trump’s performance was the rhetorical equivalent of hurling garbage on the lawn. A question about x would lead to mentions of y, z and whatever else came to mind. For instance, a response about Hillary Clinton’s emails led to a mention about the sorry state of New York’s LaGuardia Airport. And then there were the gasp-worthy moments that would sink any other presidential aspirant.

Clinton said the only time Trump’s tax returns were seen was when he sought a casino license. “[T]hey showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax,” the Democratic nominee charged. Trump’s response? “That makes me smart.” Neither average Americans nor the Clintons (who have released more than three decades of tax returns) could get away with that.

If there was one undeniable truth spoken by Clinton at the debate, it came in response to Trump’s dig at her for “stay[ing] home” last week. “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did,” Clinton said. “And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president.” Kaboom.

On the conservative side from the Post, Jennifer Rubin, until this year typically an apologist for the GOP, let loose on Trump as well:

[L]like Super Bowl games to which the Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump debate was frequently compared, it was not as competitive as one might have imagined. Clinton came away the winner, accomplishing what she set out to do.

She wasn’t warm and fuzzy, but she was calm, cool and in command of her facts. She hit more than once his “Trumped up trickled down” tax plan, a winner with her supporters. She made a pitch for gun control, extolled African American families and urged anti-bias training for police. She prodded Trump to agree that we should take guns away from people on the no-fly list. (The National Rifle Association won’t be pleased.) She slammed Trump when he accused her of preparing for the debate. . . . . she reamed him for his statements on nuclear weapons and willingness to allow other countries to get the bomb.

Trump was soon back to classic Trump —  inveighing  against trade and making bizarre comments. . . . He incorrectly stated that “stop and frisk” had not been ruled unconstitutional. At times he seemed to babble, running out of material. He still has not bothered to flesh out proposals or to broaden his grasp of issues. His meandering answer on first use of nuclear weapons suggested he had no idea what the issue was. Trump blundered accusing Clinton of lacking stamina, giving her an opportunity to boast of her own travels and recount his insults against women.

His worst moments came as he continued to defend raising the birther issue and claimed credit for prompting President Obama to produce his birth certificate. Clinton laid into him, slamming him for starting his political career by trying to de-legitimize the first African American president. “A racist lie” is what she called it. She raised the lawsuit from the 1970s for housing discrimination. 

Trump needed to conceal his temper, avoid queries on his taxes and dalliance with birtherism, and appear ready to be president. He didn’t. . . . . The first debate win goes to Clinton.

Going over to the arguably less "liberal" Politico, the "insider" verdict on Trump's loss of the debate was similar. Here are highlights of that:

Score round 1 for Hillary Clinton.  That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of swing-state activists, strategists and operatives who watched the first debate here Monday night. The insiders’ bipartisan verdict: Clinton dispatched Donald Trump in their first of three nationally televised meetings.

Overall, roughly 80 percent of insiders — with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans responding to the post-debate survey — said Clinton did the better job at the debate, including 99 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans.

Democrats said Clinton was prepared and succeeded in provoking Trump — who began the debate speaking so quietly the audio engineers struggled to raise his volume to a comparable level in the debate hall but quickly became more animated in the face of Clinton’s attacks.

“No contest,” said an Iowa Democrat — who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously. “Trump held it together for 16 minutes and fell apart.”

Among Republicans, the tally was closer — but that speaks to a divided party as much as actual ambivalence about which candidate performed better on Monday night.

“Trump was an embarrassment,” an Iowa Republican said. “I'd hate to be the guy in the spin room lying about how Trump won the debate.”

“It wasn't close,” a Virginia Republican added. “Sure, our tribal politics will force it to seem somewhat close, but even the most committed of Trump supporters know, deep down, that did not go well.”

The vast majority of all insiders, 88 percent, said Clinton met expectations going into Monday night. That includes nearly three-quarters of Republicans: One Florida Republican called Clinton “calm in the face of an insane person.”

“Put plainly: he failed the presidential test,” a Virginia Republican added. “And hiding out on Fox News isn't going to fix it for him.”

The views at the New York Times were similar, even among more conservative columnists.  Here is a sample from one column:

Trump lost. Really, I think we can work under the assumption that when a candidate is accused of cheering for the housing crisis, it’s not a good plan to reply: “That’s called business, by the way.”

There had been some speculation that all Trump needed to do was speak in complete sentences to beat expectations, and if that was the bar, the man did great. When Hillary Clinton suggested he might be withholding his federal returns because he never paid any taxes, he responded: “That makes me smart.” Complete sentence.

There’s something terrifying in the way Trump can’t admit error, even in a case where the incorrect statement in question has become world-famous. There are undoubtedly people in Chad who know that Trump supported the invasion of Iraq before it happened. But when it came up on Monday, he denied it once again, arguing that his much-quoted interview on “The Howard Stern Show” was something else entirely:

Both of these candidates have a lot of baggage and Clinton got past her email burden by admitting she was wrong and saying she was sorry. Not the perfect apology, but it got her through the night.

Trump, for his part, could have anticipated that the business of calling women pigs, slobs and dogs would come up. The correct answer, as his advisers undoubtedly hinted, was to say he regretted it, and hoped he’d be a better example for his 10-year-old son. His actual response was to: 1) Claim that nobody likes Rosie O’Donnell; 2) Congratulate himself for not saying “something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family"; and 3) Point out that the polls are looking good.

People tuned in to see Trump and he didn’t disappoint. Not every politician would respond to a comment about how he got his start in business with $14 million in family money with: “My father gave me a very small loan.”

Remember when we made fun of Mitt Romney for his privileged background? Hahahahaha.

The Hillary Clinton Haters Can’t Quit the Crazy

As noted in a recent blog post, some in the GOP base - and, of course some in the conservative pundit class - simply cannot let go of their hatred for the Clintons, and in some instances Hillary in particular (to far right extremists, nothing is worse than an uppity woman unless its the brain dead Sarah Palin or a black man in the White House).  It is part and parcel with the GOP's run away train swing to crazy land.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the Hillary hater's inability to let go of their lunacy.  Here are highlights:

They were called “The Clinton Crazies.” It was the 1990s and while the rest of the nation seemed to bask in an era of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity, they saw all manner of dark deeds emanating from the White House. To them, Bill Clinton, enabled by his wife, was a serial rapist, a drug-runner, a closet racist, a cocaine addict, someone who ordered the murder of close friends and aides.

When Hillary Clinton referred to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, she meant them. They wore the epithet like a badge of pride.

It has now been two decades since American politics seemed overrun with a cadre of conservative journalists, opposition researchers, and Republican lawmakers committed to bringing down the president, despite what they saw as the mainstream media’s efforts to protect him. In those intervening years, Clinton’s approval ratings have sky-rocketed as he matures into the role of globe-trotting elder statesman. His wife frequently tops the list of most admired women in the world.

Over the last several weeks, The Daily Beast tracked down more than a dozen Clinton accusers, conspiracy mongers and dirty tricksters. Almost to a person, they look back on the Clinton years as one of the most exciting times of their lives, a time when Washington was crawling with all manner of rumor and allegation (most of which originated in Arkansas, a state largely mysterious to most Beltway types) and the presidency seemed likely to topple at any moment.

Farah [Joseph Farah, the editor of WND.com, a/k/a Wing Nut Daily on this blog] remains largely unrepentant, convinced as ever that “with Bill and Hillary there are some fundamental character problems, and I haven’t seen any improvement. They have always been very power hungry, wealth hungry, and motivated only by what is good for them.”As for the notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy, Farah and other reputed members say that it never existed.

Farah is not alone among Clinton conspirators with his lack of self-doubt about his work back in the ’90’s.  But there are some soldiers of the Clinton Wars, comrades in arms with Farah and his ilk, who look back on those days and cringe. Richard Mellon Scaife, who helped fund the so-called “The Arkansas Project”—which sent opposition researchers to Clinton’s home state to find out where the bodies (or bimbos) were buried—was once described in the New York Times as a “charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy,” but now counts himself a Clinton admirer. David Brock, a conservative journalist whose investigations helped spur the “Troopergate” investigations, today runs a liberal media watchdog site.

“Scaife and Ruddy have run from what they did,” said Farah. “Without any real explanation that makes any sense. You won’t see them talking about Vince Foster any more. They think Clinton has grown up since leaving the presidency, that he is somehow a changed man. Well, maybe they are the ones that changed.”

The fervor in right-wing circles over the Clinton presidency made media heroes out a few figures still around, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Matt Drudge.

[O]thers remain in them, still battling, but with little to show for a cause they have committed so much of their life to. Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer who said she was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office in 1993. Her claims were largely discredited, and now widowed and divorced, she has dedicated her life to proving that Clinton is “a serial predator.”

She wrote a book: Target: Caught in The Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, but aside from the occasional Fox News appearance, has found few venues willing to give her an airing and fewer employment prospects.

In 1994, Patrick Matrisciana produced a film called The Clinton Chronicles that was, according to its subtitle, “An Investigation Into The Alleged Criminal Activities Of Bill Clinton.” Over 500,000 copies found their way into circulation, but the distribution company that Matrisciana founded, Jeremiah Films, was since shut down (his son operates a rebooted version of it), and he has no plans to do another film on the Clintons.

If, as expected, Hillary Clinton runs for president, it remains to be seen how much the vast right-wing conspiracy will reconstitute itself.  Those who regret their role in the Clinton Wars think that it is a mistake to rehash Benghazi, never mind Vince Foster or Katherine Willey.

But those who think that Clinton was one of history’s great scoundrels are gearing up for a sequel. Even if they failed to much derail the first President Clinton, who is to say a further airing of the allegations won’t slow the potential second?

I'm sorry, but as much as I was not always a Clinton fan, these people are simply crazy and have never heard of the concept of letting go and moving on with life.  Sadly, it is a trait all too common among the spittle flecked base of today's Republican Party.

Concerned Women Attack Chelsea Clinton for Marrying - the Horrors - A Jew

Never at a loss for words in their perverted quest to make the USA a Bible beating, Kool-Aid drinking theocracy, the bitches at Concerned Women for America have reached a new low - or at least another low, since they are in general such lying sleaze bags that they achieve many lows. Now, these godly, self-anointed bitches are attacking Chelsea Clinton for - oh the absolute horror - marrying a man of Jewish descent. Heaven forbid that people be judged based on their character or personal attributes. For the good bitches at CWFA, the only thing that matters is whether or not one is a far right Christian who hates gays, Jews, Muslims - indeed practically everyone else in the world. I know many individuals of the Jewish faith that on a daily basis act in a more Christ like manner towards others compared to the hate filled Christofascists at CWFA. (In my view, CWFA offers yet another reason not to call one's self a Christian nowadays). Here are some highlights from CWFA's screed authored by uber-bitch, Janice Crouse Shaw, taking Chelsea to task for marry someone Shaw obviously views as just a descendant of Christ killing Jews (NOTE: Shaw cites far right nutcase Al Mohler as one of her "experts"):
*
When asked about the significance of her daughter, Chelsea, marrying Marc Mezvinsky, who is Jewish, and thus being married in an interfaith union, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, “Over the years, so many of the barriers that prevented people from getting married, crossing lines of faith or color or ethnicity have just disappeared.” True, the barriers have disappeared, but serious difficulties remain.
*
Observers have noted that both Clinton and Mezvinsky were raised in homes where religious faith was central to family life and questioned whether one or the other would convert and how they would reconcile the practice of their different faiths.
*
While intermarriage indicates a “high degree of assimilation and tolerance,” it also means “the declining role of faith and religious identity in the minds of many young Americans,” according to Allan Schwartz, in the “Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Marriage.” In her classic book, The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts, Judith Wallerstein reports that couples set the stage for conflict, bitterness, and misunderstanding as they make the emotional and psychological separation from their families’ religious heritage. Problems begin as early as the planning of the wedding ceremony, where different traditions are in conflict, especially when certain symbols of faith “evoke powerful emotional responses.”
*
“When the level of doctrinal commitment is low, the barriers to interfaith marriage are correspondingly far less significant.” What this comes down to is that typically traditional “practices” and “activities” are simply adjusted and adapted — this is a gentle way of saying they get “watered down” to the point of irrelevance; central beliefs of committed adherents pose a larger, more difficult challenge, since they are far less amenable to compromise. As noted by Dr. Mohler, theological differences matter, and decisions that are made by a couple over the course of a lifetime — especially in raising children — affect the marriage.
*
For the true Christian believer, this means a life lived in light of Christ’s singular claim that He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Taking His claim seriously, that He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), means that all decisions are made in light of His teaching and commands. This includes His teaching that marriage is intended by God to be a life-long covenant — not just between the couple, but sealed by God and witnessed by fellow believers in the couples’ church community. That said, real Christian marriage includes a commitment to follow Christ, both in lifestyle and in childrearing.
*
Religion that is not practiced is little more than a set of myths and of no more significance than the fairy tales told to toddlers at bedtime. Faith that does not make demands on behavior is not faith at all. Inevitably, a lack of unity in faith entails multiple problems on both the little and the large issues that couples continuously encounter as they face the task of building a strong, meaningful, harmonious marriage. How could it possibly be otherwise?
*
Shaw does unwittingly get one thing right but ascribes it to Chelsea rather than to CWFA as is more appropriate - as practiced by the Christianists, their version of Christianity is a distorted set of fear and hate based myths that ought to be given no more significance than the fairy tales.

"Deranged Narcissism"

I have to agree with the assessment of Jeffrey Toobin over at Huffington Post, namely that Hillary's refusal to concede and admit that she has lost the race for the Democratic Party nomination is clearly evidence that Akasha has perhaps gone over the edge and had a mental break down. She's beginning to make the Chimperator look like he's in touch with reality. Hillary seems to be living in some parallel reality of her own creation. She's starting to be down right scary in her insanity. I agree with John Aravosis and others that Nancy Pelosi and other senior leadership in the Party need to act to ship Hillary off to a rest home for some serious mental health counseling. Here are Toobin's comment and those of some other network commentators:

*

Political analyst Jeffrey Toobin called Hillary Clinton's refusal to concede the election "deranged narcissism."

*

"Well whatever that was, it wasn't a concession speech." -- FNC's Hume

*
"If I were Barack Obama, if I heard that speech, I would not be very happy. ... They are living in parallel universes right now." -- CNN's Borger.

*
"This was a defiant speech, against all the kind of advice that [heavyweights] within the Democratic Party gave her" -- Ex-WH adviser David Gergen, on whether he was surprised by Clinton's speech (CNN).

*
"She did everything but offer Obama the vice presidency" -- GOP strategist Alex Castellanos (CNN)

Hillary is Alienating Black Voters

In her quest to destroy the Democrats if she can not be the nominee, Hillary (with assistance from Slick Willie) is doing immense damage to the loyalty of Black voters to the Democrat Party. I really cannot recall when I have seen a candidate as self-centered and vicious as Hillary has become. I increasingly think both she and Slick Willie completely are amoral. They will do anything and harm anyone they deem necessary to further their own uncontrolable thirst for power. Do we really need individuals like that in the White House? Not in my opinion. This New York Times story demonstrates what blacks are saying. Here are some highlights:
*

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign. Representative James E. Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House, said that “black people are incensed over all of this,” referring to statements that Mr. Clinton had made in the course of the heated race between his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

*

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

*
Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Church Going Gun Owner

That's how Hillary has been trying to portray herself to Pennsylvania voters. Obviously, she must think the voters there are beyond moronic if she expects them to believe that snake oil pitch. Meanwhile, when asked when the last time she attended church and/or fired a gun, here's Hillary's response, while saying that information was "not relevant." Here's the CNN quote:

After a weekend spent making direct appeals to gun owners and church goers, Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services "is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans. “We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here. “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”

My advice is do NOT expect an answer to this question any time soon - if ever. My other reaction is that while watching the "debate" last night, I seriously thought I would vomit listening to Hillary endlessly saying the words "faith" and "grace." The woman is utterly disingenuous and clearly will say whatever she thinks the particular audience in front of her wants to hear. Someone please get me some Malox or Mylanta!!

Meanwhile, Obama called Hillary out on her ridiculous depiction of herself. I love this quote:

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley,'' Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical "Anne Get Your Gun.'' Obama continued, saying "Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton.''

Hillary - Queen of Sleaze (and Faulty Memory)

Hillary Clinton continues to try to sleaze her way to winning the Democrat nomination and rather than explaining why she’s the better candidate she is simply trying to destroy Obama. As 365gay.com is reporting, Hillary is doing her damnedest to disingenuously keep the Rev. Wright controversy alive. Interestingly enough, it now looks like Hillary may be the one to disavow some of her own affiliations, beginning with her own former pastor who has made supportive statements concerning Rev. Wright. Similarly, Hillary needs to explain why she appears to be in league with the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, a principal financial backer of some of the most hateful and insane elements of the Christianist far right who funded the Arkansas Project, which was set up to destroy Bill Clinton. You've heard of Paula Jones, Vince Foster's "murder," Troopergate, and Whitewater? Mellon Scaife is responsible for all of them, yet Hillary is ass kissing Scaife and his editorial board. Then there’s Hillary circulating a hit piece by the American Spectator. One would truly think from such conduct that she was the GOP candidate.

Here’s a highlight from 365gay.com (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/03/032608clint.htm) showing Hillary trying to breathe new life into the Wright controversy:

"I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor," Clinton said at a news conference after being asked if Obama should have left the church. She declined to say what Obama should have done, or whether the subject is now a legitimate topic for her appeals to Democratic superdelegates, the party leaders who will decide whether she or Obama will be the presidential nominee.

I cannot help but wonder what Hillary thinks of the remark made by her own former pastor, Dean J. Snyder of Foundry United Methodist Church, concerning Wright? Is she going to condemn Mr. Snyder too? Hopefully, some journalist will grow some balls and ask her this very question point blank and see how fast she throws Snyder under the bus. Here's Snyder's comment (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/CpVd):

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.

The woman increasingly sickens me and has managed to remind me of all the reasons I could not stand the Clinton presidency. Both she and Bill lack honor, integrity and morals. The USA does NOT need more of their nasty style of leadership.

Hillary Becomes Even More of a Selfish Shrew

John Aravosis has a post on America Blog that bears reading (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/25-of-hillary-supporters-would-vote-for.html) because it shows the lengths that she will go to defeat Obama - and the Democrat ticket in November if it does include her. Basically, if she can be the nominee, she wants the party to lose: I suspect so that she can run again in 2012 after McCain's one term presidency. The woman is totally self centered and - let's be blunt - a BITCH. Perhaps being married to Bill does that to a person, but it would be nice if she'd look beyond herself for a moment. Throughout this campaign she has succeed in reminding me of everything sleazy about the Clintons and why the thought of them back in the White House makes me physically ill. She is alienating the black vote, promoting McCain, and engaging in precisely the nasty, underhanded politics that turns voters off and makes them avoid participating in politics. Here are some highlights from John's post:

I've received a lot of emails and comments like this from Hillary supporters. A recent PEW poll shows that 10% of Democrats who support Obama would defect and vote for McCain should Hillary become the candidate. But, a whopping 25% of Democrats who support Hillary would defect and vote for McCain should Obama become the candidate.Are one quarter of Hillary's supporters racists? (Latte-drinkers not looking so bad, after all, eh?) Have they simply bought in to Hillary's incessant message that Obama, the possible Democratic candidate in the fall, is much less qualified than McCain? It's probably a mixture of both.

Someone in the party (and the media) needs to ask Hillary what her plan is to get those 25% back should she not win the nomination. Hillary can only tell Democratic voters so many times that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama before her supporters (and lots more Americans) end up listening to her. Or is that her plan after all? If Hillary can't win, then no Democrat deserves to win?

Did Limbaugh's Crossover Voters Break Ohio Law?

A reader referred me to this story (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-ohio-crosso.html) which looks at a phenomenon that has happened in a number of states, including Virginia based on what some Republican friends told me themselves: they voted for Hillary in the Democrat primary because - as encouraged to do so by Rush Limbaugh - they see Hillary as the more easily defeated Democrat in November and, therefore, want her to be the Democratic Party nominee. and voted for her to reduce Obama's results.

The difference is that in Virginia, unlike Ohio, no one has to register to vote by part affiliation. You only get to vote in one party's primary, but are free to pick which party each time there is a primary. Not so in Ohio and in some other states. In fact, in Ohio, changing primaries for such a purpose is a criminal offense and punishable by a fine of $2,500. Yet apparently, a number of Ohio Republicans are talking about the fact that they did exactly that. Thus, the question becomes: did Hillary really win among DEMOCRAT voters. Remember, Bill Clinton went on the Limbaugh show just prior to the Texas and Ohio primaries. Here are some highlights:

It seems that some Republican voters have bragged online that they voted Democratic ballots in the Ohio March 4th primary in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Essentially, they wanted to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama because they think she's the weaker candidate and would lose against Republican John McCain in November.

The so-called Republican "plot" was instigated by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh (at right) who urged Republican voters in Ohio and Texas before the election to cross over for the primary to rig the nomination for the November election. Voters in those states could do this at the last minute because their local election laws allow voters to change party affiliation at the polls.

Ohio's revised election code includes an election falsification clause (Revised Code 3513.20), which says that if a voter who changes parties is challenged by poll workers as to the sincerity of his change of heart and also signs an affidavit stating that he supports the principles of the party to which he's changing -- when in fact he doesn't support them -- then he would be committing election falsification. Election falsification is a felony that is punishable by six to twelve months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

It's clear that cross-over voting occurred in large numbers in Ohio this year. The Ohio secretary of state's office doesn't have statistics yet on how many voters crossed parties in the primary (it's still compiling them), but the Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that in Cuyahoga County alone, the state's largest county, at least 16,000 Republicans switched parties for the primary. The statewide numbers of cross-over voters could be large, since the secretary of state's office reports that the number of Democratic ballots cast in this primary as opposed to the number cast in the 2004 presidential primary increased by nearly a million, or 76 percent. (In comparison, the number of Republican ballots cast this year increased by only about 100,000, or 11 percent. These numbers do not include absentee, provisional and overseas ballots, which are still being counted.)

The Clintons And Gays

I know a number of LGBT individuals who are fanatic Clinton supporters. To be honest, I do not understand their thinking. If nothing else, Bill and Hillary can be relied upon to do what is expedient for them in terms of winning votes or raising money. Unfortunately, other than in the form of lip service, loyalty to their supporters, particularly gays, is not their strong suit. It never has been. In this regard, Andrew Sullivan has a timely post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-clintons--2.html#more) that looks at the cynical manner in which the Clintons have treated gays in the past and references John Aravosis’ research in the process (http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html). Why gay voters think they can trust Hillary when Obama has better positions on gay issues is astounding to me. If you do not believe me, do some investigation of your own. Just remember that Hillary does not even reference that LGBT voters exist on her campaign website.Here are some highlights from Andrew’s post:

Many readers expressed disbelief at my claim that the Clintons ran anti-gay ads on Christian radio stations in 1996. Did I have proof? Actually, John Aravosis recently provided a very extensive round-up of what happened back then. It's all true. Here's an excerpt from a Log Cabin briefing at the time:

In an article in today's Washington Times, entitled "For Christian Radio, Clinton Changes Tune on Gays, Abortion," it was reported that the Clinton-Gore campaign "shrugged off" angry calls to shelve the radio ad. The article cited reports from gay and lesbian groups that the campaign might delete the portion of the ad which boasts of Clinton signing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but "Clinton campaign spokesman Joe Lockhart said there are no plans to alter the radio ads, which will run for 'a few more days.'" After boasting about Clinton signing the anti-gay DOMA, the ad concludes with the line: "President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it."

John also notes that Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to triangulate against gays in 2004. Kerry refused. But the Clintons have used gays in two ways since their careers began: to get money (an untapped resource that the Clintons shrewdly figured out early on), and to pivot to win red-state votes. Remember that the Clintons used this tactic in 1996 - not a close election, or one in which they even needed to gay-bait to win. But they did. It helped a little. And they knew the gays were pathetic enough to keep supporting them.

The Clinton Tax Returns: What's the Holdup?

I guess better late than never, but the mainstream media apparently is finally waking up to the fact that the continued refusal by Hillary Clinton to release tax returns for prior years is beginning to look suspicious. As I have stated before, those who have nothing improper to hide do not act the way Bill and Hillary Clinton are acting concerning their tax returns. I'm sorry, but I can only assume the worse, particularly in view of the spectacular rise in the Clinton's net worth over a relatively brief period. Here are highlights from ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457&page=1):

After weeks of intense pressure, and more than a year after announcing her presidential candidacy, Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered little explanation for why she has delayed releasing the tax returns made public by most other Democratic presidential candidates in recent years.

"What is the holdup?" said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. "She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them." Past Democratic presidential candidates have set a precedent for releasing their tax returns before or during the primary season. Sen. John Kerry released his in December of 2003, and former Vice President Al Gore's were in the public domain while he was in office. Clinton's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, released his 2006 return last April.

The lack of disclosure leaves the public with an obscure picture of how the Clintons have managed the multi-million-dollar fortune they have amassed since leaving the White House, say government watchdog groups. Personal financial disclosure filings, required by government ethics rules, only offer a broad glimpse of the Clintons' finances. Since 1999, the couple's net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings.

Tax forms would help fill in the blanks where the disclosure forms leave off, says Boyle, including exact amounts for income and stock gains and losses as well as details like how much was paid in mortgage interest, charitable deductions and personal exemptions taken. "In this very extended primary season and competitive environment where people are really struggling to weigh these two candidates, this would be helpful for people to know," said Boyle.

The Clintons, A Horror Film that Never Ends

In his Sunday Times of London column (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece) , Andrew Sullivan did a masterful job at describing not only the relentlessness of Bill and Hillary Clinton, but also a good recap of why some Democrats are crazy to be still supporting them and giving Hillary ammunition to keep brutalizing her way towards the White House. I will admit it - I have Clinton fatgue already and the thought of the endless scandals and polarization a Hillary presidency would bring makes my stomach clench up. If this country is to move forard and see the absolutely crical reforms we need accomplished, Hillary needs to step aside for the good of the country. Unfortunately, she will not go out graciously. Here are some highlights:

The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.

Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).

Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).

They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them. The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil. And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

Reliving The Clinton Fatigue

Andrew Sullivan has a post on his blog that goes a long way to explaining part of my sense of exhaustion and near revulsion at the thought of another Clinton term in the White House. The situation of the country is too dire on a number of fronts to have citical time, effort and political capital - to the entent Hillary would have any - eaten up with the endless drama that is part and parcel with Bill and Hillary Clinton. I can't say it any better. Here are highlights from Andrew's post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/reliving-the-ps.html):

It's Bush-Cheney all over again, but less disciplined, more narcissistic, more cynical. And this campaign, in retrospect, has exhibited all these patterns. The press is marveling at the Clintons' near-death political experiences in this campaign. Doesn't it all feel creepily familiar? It's funny, isn't it, how these two characters, long steeped in politics as a way of life, still manage to create psychodramas on a regular basis.

At the core of this is their totally dysfunctional relationship. We - even those like me who really do believe in the privacy of public figures - learned over eight years that you cannot ignore this dynamic, because they have put it into the center of the public square. That is why you can confidently predict that the marital dramas will not be over either. If you think there is not another sex scandal to drop, to create another psychodrama, you are a more hopeful person than I am. The Clinton pattern is to gain some momentum in the polls or the campaign before triggering such a scandal themselves. As soon as they feel success in their wings, they self-sabotage, because they need that kind of drama to have meaning. And the story is so compelling to by-standers - we are all rubber-neckers in the face of the car wreck that is the Clintons' story - that we will be yanked around indefinitely by this crap. I can't believe we are flirting with going through all this again and again and again.

Hillary's Tax Return Hypocrisy

I am beginning to wonder what Hillary and Bill Clinton have to hide in their tax returns since somehow Hillary just keeps on postponing their release. I have always believed that if one has nothing to hide, then one does not act like they do. As I have previously mentioned, I would very much like to know how Billary increased their 2003 net worth of slightly over $2,000,000 to roughly $34,900,000 by 2006. Moreover, her behavior is more than a little hypocritical sine in 2000 when running for the U.S. Senate in New York, she made a huge deal out of her opponent’s delays in releasing his returns. The longer she withholds releasing the tax returns, the more I and I suspect many others will by default have to believe that the returns must show something she does not want primary voters to know. As Newsday as stated (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/flashback_hrc_once_thought_tax.html):

Eight years ago, when Hillary parachuted into NY to become our Senator, she and Howard Wolfson became completely obsessed with opponent Rick Lazio's tax returns, which he did not release until the end of August.

They talked about them at every opportunity. In early July, Hillary called it "frankly disturbing." A guy in an Uncle Sam outfit was dispatched to be a nuisance at various Lazio events in August. Howard himself showed up once to try to rattle Lazio by offering him a copy of some Chappaqua property tax receipt after Lazio said he'd release his state returns as soon as Hillary released hers (which didn't exist, because she had just moved up here).

Pressed again today by the Obama campaign, Wolfson said: "Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15." Maybe a reporter could, like, actually risk getting Wolfson mad by trying to pin him down on whether "on or around April 15" will definitely be before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, and why a 2001 return from a sitting NY senator can't be copied by, say, March 15?

Without being too cute here, the question is why Clinton and Wolfson were so obsessed by Lazio's returns that they were disrupting his events, but they now treat it as an irrelevancy when Hillary's returns are requested.

So the reasoning is apparently this: "We acted like Lazio's tax returns were a big deal in 2000 because it was in our self-interest to do so, and this year we'll act like our returns aren't a big deal because it's in our self interest to do so. We don't act on principle, and we don't care about being consistent, and we don't care about being hypocritical."

Rush's Dittoheads Likely Carried Texas for Hillary

It may sound crazy, but David Weigel has an analysis that would seem to indicate that anti-Clinton Republicans are the ones that voted her to victory yesterday (http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html). Why you might ask? Because they see her as the weaker candidate in November. Hillary as the opponent is the best hope for a McCain victory, particularly because she cannot hang Iraq around his neck - BECAUSE she voted for it TWICE. Again, why can't Democrats see what the GOP sees so clearly?

It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)

What the F*CK is Wrong With Ohio - Morning Despair

I suspect some readers are wondering how I am feeling following the results from yesterday’s primaries. I believe much like Andrew Sullivan, although vodka was my beverage of choice last night (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-clintons-wi.html):

I just had a Jager shot, and hope to get drunk very soon. So this is my last post of the night. Here's what I'll do in the morning: find out who won the most delegates in the March 4 states, and check someone else's math (yes, I'm not going to get it wrong myself) to see who subsequently has the numbers to win. And then take a deep breath. And say what I think. Right now, emotion clouds the mind. Oh, and Jager.

Well, it’s the next morning and my reaction so far is that we just so John McCain not only win the GOP nomination but – I am very much afraid – score a de facto win the White House. I truly believe that (1) Hillary is putting her ego (and Bill’s) ahead of the Democrat Party and the country, (2) she remains unelectable in the general election in November, and (3) in states like Virginia, she will be a significant drag on other Democrat candidates inasmuch as the GOP will come out in droves to vote AGAINST her. She will greatly reduce the chances of candidates line Glenn Nye who I mentioned in a post yesterday. Meanwhile, blacks, the under-thirty voters and disaffected Republicans may well just stay home in disgust. I hope Bill and Hillary will be proud of that result.

Moreover, I also believe that if by some extreme miracle Hillary does get the Democrat nomination and wins in November, we will see little or nothing get done and suffer through one Clinton scandal after another. In my opinion, Bill is - as my New Orleans belle grandmother would put it – white trash - and doesn’t know how to (a) keep his mouth shut, (b) keep his zipper up, and/or (c) keep his hands off of dirty money. True, he got elected president, but he has never lost the white trash character in my view. As I said when I worked the polls AGAINST Bill Clinton in 1996, how can you vote for a man who would molest your teenage daughters if given an opportunity (maybe being a father of two daughters influenced my views). I suspect that the GOP party leaders are already preparing the first Clinton scandal to be unveiled the morning after Hillary is nominated, assuming the country suffers that sad fate.

As the post title indicates, I truly do not understand what is wrong with Ohio voters. As a state that is greatly suffering as a result of the same old politics of division, they cast votes to in effect continue a broken politics that virtually guarantees that the change that is so badly needed in states like Ohio will NOT occur. The fact that the GOP is rejoicing over Hillary’s victories ought to tell the moronic soccer moms, retirees and others who voted for Hillary that they are idiots.

Canadian PM Denies Top Aide Leaked Obama NAFTA Memo

The USA is not the only country where the Democrat primary race is causing political waves. It increasingly appears that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have deliberately tried to help the Clinton Campaign agaist Obama since his reactionary political cousins in the GOP greatly prefer Hillary as their opponent come Novemeber. Things are so hot in Canada that the opposition has demanded that Harper's chief of staff be fired. I for one am fed up with winning at politics by dirty tricks. Obama is no saint, but compared to Billary, he's is definitely Mother Theresa. The quickest way toward a beginning of the lessening this kind of cheap shots is to see Hillary knocked out of the primary race. Here are some highlights from CBCNews (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/04/harper-obama.html):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday denied the top official in his office leaked a memo of a meeting between an aide to Barack Obama and a Canadian diplomat over the Democratic presidential hopeful's NAFTA position. "It was not my chief of staff," Harper said during question period while under fire from NDP Leader Jack Layton, who demanded Brodie be fired if it is confirmed he tipped off reporters to the details of the meeting."The leak of this particular document is not only regrettable, as the Canadian Embassy in the United States has already said, it is completely unacceptable to this government and we will do our best to find out who did it."

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said it was clear the Tories are trying to help Republican friends at the expense of Canadian interests. "They will do what is necessary to help Republicans. They're a nasty, unprincipled bunch, who are incompetent to boot," Rae wrote in a blog. The controversy could play to the Republicans' advantage in November and hurt the Illinois senator in Ohio, a potential swing state where job losses have made the 15-year-old free-trade deal highly unpopular.

Obama and Clinton have both said they want to reopen the free-trade deal between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to ensure better environmental and labour standards.Trade Minister David Emerson and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said U.S. officials should not forget the benefits of the agreement and hinted Canada could respond to a NAFTA pullout by renegotiating U.S. access to Canada's oil.

Hillary Resorts to Bush Fear Tactics

In what I can only perceive as a move of desperation, Hillary Clinton is running an ad trying to motivate people to vote for her rather than Barack Obama based on fear. Her 3:00AM ad begins with language to the effect that "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call," implying the wrong vote - i.e. a vote for Obama - will endanger one's children. Hillary apparently thinks voters will still fall for the tactics of the Chimperator. Perhaps the GOP base likes such ads, but I suspect most Democrats have wised up to them. Fortunately, Obama had a great response which I hope gets plenty of coverage ( http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_responds_to_the_red_phone.html):

Now before we open this up for conversation, I just want to take a moment to respond to an ad that Sen. Clinton is apparently running today that asks, “Who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it’s 3 a.m. and something has happened in the world?”We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is — what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.

And I’ll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies. That’s the judgment we need at 3 a.m. And that’s the judgment that I am running for president to provide.

More Hillary Dirty Tricks

Hillary and her staff are definitely showing that they will do anything to try to win, including subtly playing the race card yet again. All she doing for me is proving that she's not fit to be president and that any thoughts I might have ever had about voting for her need to be seriously reconsidered. Her campaign is busy circulating a photo of Obama dressed in local dress taken while he was on a trip to Africa in 2006. Having traveled to Africa myself on more than one occasion during my in-house counsel days, I know from experience that often visitors are expected to be "good sports" and put on native wordrobe items or eat what the local inhabitants consider food delicacies. To be a good sport/guest, I obliged and even though a few of the foods were pretty disgusting, I ate them nonetheless. Hillary knows this just as surely as I do (see the photo at above left of Hillary and Chelsea), but her campaign is no doubt hoping to inflame latent racism against Obama among ignorant/racist potential primary voters. I hope it bites her right in her very wide ass. I will stay home in November before I vote for HRC. Here highlights from Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm):

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama. The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya. The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa. "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap

Clinton Mocks Obama

As the Huffington Post is reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html), Hillary Clinton has resorted to mocking Barack Obama as her campaign spirals downward. How is this playing out with audiences? If one of her target audiences is purpotedly women over 60 years of age, it's perhaps backfiring. I spoke with my 80 year old mother this afternoon and she said she though Hillary was "acting awful." She was no amused and, I must admit, she surprised me by how closely she is following the duel between Hillary and Obama. I think Hillary is putting the nails in her own coffin by doing this, but then the Clintons always play dirty. Here's HP's summary of what toke place:

Hillary Clinton's campaign is on its last legs after suffering a string of defeats to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton made the decision to go negative in an effort to halt Obama's rising momentum. Today, Clinton was at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, and she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.