On Hillary, Us and Her Campaign

So much has been said and so much still should be said, of course, about any candidate for the presidency of the United States, but even more needs to be said about the first female to get this far in one of these races and here it is.

Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

A bit from the article:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton.

And it's so true. And it's so tiresome.

The Republicans and Right Wing have been investigating and attacking and publishing and printing and putting out material on first Bill Clinton, and now Hillary for years, undeniably. Virtually every bit has been fiction, at minimum, and frequently, far too frequently, out and out lies, fabrications and untruths. She and her husband have been investigated, honestly, more than any other two people in the entire nation and, very likely, the world.

Far too many have believed some or all of them, too, to all our loss.

This is, again, a hard-working, smart woman who wants good--maybe great?---things for her nation and for the people of this nation. She's been a Senator, she's been Secretary of State and in both she did good to great work. She's tested, God knows she's tested, and proven of worthy mettle.

So let's get over the misogyny. Let's get over the lies. Let's get over the untruths. Let's get over the fiction,  let's elect the first female president of these United States and let's get on with the work and progress or our nation.

Link:  Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason

A Simple But Fairly Accurate Description of This Presidential Election

Let's choose wisely, folks.

Decision 2016, In the Can

It's all over but the crying.

The Big Difference Between the Two Political Parties' Presidential Candidates

The big difference between the two political parties' presidential candidates is that two of them are discussing America's and American's problems and possible solutions.

The 3 candidates from the other political party are discussing the big ears of one, the stupidity of another, which one might be gay, one another and the like.

Oh, and Donald Trump just got some endorsements, yesterday, from some NASCAR drivers. That's got to mean a lot.

Right?

The One Sure Thing On This Presidential Election

Speaking with friends this weekend on our 2016 presidential election, I've come to the only one, sure conclusion.

If any person says they know how this election is going to turn out, they are wildly, wildly wrong.

This is, without doubt, one of the most quirky, even bizarre, unpredictable elections of the last 50 years, at least, and likely longer. To say they know the outcome shows they know little.

Another Historical Presidential Election

Just think of it.

Our last President, meaning our current one, the first black President of the United States.

Fantastic.

I wish I'd had the presence of mind a friend of mine had when he was first elected. He and his wife knew they wanted to be on hand for the acceptance speech in Chicago that November.

Now?

Now we're on the cusp of electing either the first woman President or the first Jewish, Democratic Socialist.

And some people say our best days are behind us. 

Bah.

Next up, in Presidential elections...

Oh, yeah.

First black man elected president, next up, the first woman elected.

Bring it on.

News this last week

First things first, could we get over the fact that President-elect Obama (I still love saying that) requested Senator Clinton be his Secretary of State?

Why the big hub-bub?

Remember why she was running for the Presidency? Let's see--she's smart, hard-working, ambitious and intelligent. Why this should be a surprise fails me.

Let's get over it, embrace the intelligence of it and move on. So what if they were, at one time, competitors for this same job?

The same with his meeting tomorrow with Senator McCain.

Apparently we're so used to divisional politics, stupidity, narrow-mindedness and short-sighted moves from our politicians, we're awestruck by intelligence and intelligent moves, even if they are political.



The other news this week was an oft-repeated story about President-elect Obama possibly being our next FDR.

The obviousness of this, to me, is extremely apparent. It's great to say, sure, but seems very apparent.

In the first place, we're coming off a "do nothing", know-nothing dolt of a President, just as they did going into the first Great Depression. The only thing is, at least Hoover wasn't blatantly evil (my highly biased but common opinion) and in the pockets of Big Business, the way the current occupant is.

But secondly, and really, much more importantly, it seems that, unfortunately, we're apparently going to need just such a figure in this position, to lead us from Washington and the White House, given our current state of affairs.

Our economy and that of the world is going to heck in a handbasket right now, so we need this guy to do all the right things and put the people first, just as FDR did.

The one big difference between the two--FDR and President-elect Obama--besides their skin color, is that the first was born to wealth, making Obama's rise to power all the more magnificent.

So yesterday, when the President-elect announced he'd be releasing, each week of his Presidency, a video on Youtube for his weekly address, instead of on the radio as all his predecessors since the Depression did, he at once connected to FDR and, in effect, brought us in closer. I'm surprised I haven't seen anything written, yet, about this. This makes the "fireside chat" even more personal and relatable. It's fascinating.

It also takes him (Obama) and the fireside chat and us--all of us--into another "next generation moment" for his campaign, his Presidency-to-be and the nation.

The thing is, it was a very deft, intelligent, simple but brilliant and obvious move.

For everyone on computers, it was the obvious next step for that venue.

Now, instead of no one listening for and to the President's weekly radio address, virtually everyone will be tuning in to Youtube for it.

And we'll do it partially because it's so new itself, partially because it's our new President, partially because it's President Obama himself and, finally, because our economy and country are in such a bad condition and we need to know what new thing will happen next.

Again, it's a brilliant, simple, important move that will be very welcomed by the nation.

Finally, our President-elect evoked another of the most important of our country's former Presidents yesterday, when formally relinquishing his Illinois Senate seat:

"In his published letter, Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln, 'another son of Illinois' who had left for Washington, 'a greater man who spoke to a nation far more divided.'"

"Lincoln, Obama wrote, said of his home: 'To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything.'"

"Obama wrote, 'I feel the same, and like Lincoln, I ask for your support, your prayers, and for us to `confidently hope that all will yet be well.'"

President-elect Obama is not perfect. Far from it. He has never claimed to be.

But our hopes, as a nation, are high and we have high expectations. He'll disappoint us, sure. He won't be able to do everything we want or need him to do.

But he's making the right moves. He's thinking and acting deliberately (which is a huge and very welcome change from the previous administration, of course). He'll ask us to sacrifice and work hard.

It seems we've turned a corner and can have hope again.

Joe Biden?

That's the best we can do?

Joe Biden?

What is that about?

What is this, the "reassuring old white guy to calm down the racists"?

Let's face it, the racists aren't going to vote for Obama, no matter what.

Who, exactly, does Joe Biden bring to the table, in terms of votes come November, that we wouldn't already have gotten?

Hillary would have brought more votes.

Same with Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas--or any intelligent, capable woman on the ticket.

But Joe Biden?

Don't get me wrong, I think he's smart and capable and, yes, God knows he's experienced and he's on the correct side of a lot of issues. His work has been good and admirable. And, sure, he knows how the system works and yeah, we hope he won't just be a "yes man" in Obama's Administration but geez, what exactly does he add to the ticket?

What, we didn't have the requisite "old white guy" on the ticket so we have to counter-balance the opposition?

I don't get it.

What part of "Change" is this?



On a completely different subject and as part of a trend I've described and discussed here in the past, the nation's 9th bank failure occurred last evening, in case you didn't see or hear of it.

Formerly for Hillary... now for McCain??

You gotta be kidding me:


Some Clinton Money Edges Toward McCain

Wednesday, July 09, 2008, 8:38:46 AM | Lindsay Renick Mayer

Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama last month may not have been enough to win over some of her biggest donors. It seems Obama is struggling to gain favor with Clinton's financial supporters, while Republican John McCain is having some luck with them. In May, when Obama seemed to have his party's nomination in the bag, 115 donors who had given Clinton more than $1,000 donated at least that amount to Obama for the first time, according to CRP data cited in the Wall Street Journal. But an equal number also made their first big contributions to McCain that month. In 37 cases, the former Clinton supporters gave more money to McCain than they had contributed to Clinton, while that was true for only 19 Clinton donors who started giving to Obama. It will be interesting to look for movement by Clinton's donors in June, after she bowed out of the race, but that data won't become available until July 20.

originally from the Center for Responsive Politics web page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/atom.xml


What kind of sick, stupid or shallow dumbass could go from wanting Hillary Clinton as their next President, to wanting John "I don't care if they're there 100 years" McCain? Holy cow, people. You cannot possibly be so short-sighted to go from some kind of progressive stance to a reactionary twit. Really. No one can be that out and out stupid or bitter.

Ah, but I forget the intelligence of the American voter.

I give people too much credit, once again.

Say it once and repeat frequently

Let's say this now and make this clear, 9 months before the knucklehead leaves office:

George W. Bush created and, more importantly, LOST this war, that's the long and short of it. The next President, whoever that is, did not lose this war.

Say it again. Say it frequently. Make--and keep--this clear.

George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and anyone and everyone else who created or helped create this stupid, misrepresented, illegal war and incursion into Iraq are the ones who lost this war. The next person to pick up the mantel of President for the United States has to clean up the mess, yes, BUT THEY DID NOT LOSE THIS WAR.

It would be a gross, unjust miscarriage of justice to say or think that anyone else lost this war but "W" and his cabal. They went in against international law. They chose, arbitrarily and unjustly, wrongly, to go in. They chose to go in with too few soldiers and support. They chose to go in without a plan. They chose to go in without a plan for after the "liberation" and/or fall of Saddamm Hussein. They did all these things, themselves, all alone. Senators Clinton, McCain or Obama (or former Senator Gore), if they are the next President did none of this. It won't be theirs to lose, in any way and it's extremely important to call this out now--and again and again, through next January's inauguration and beyond. History needs to call out these important details and facts.

It would be a gross injustice to the next administration, to the American people and to history to have it labeled any other way than that it was a war--let me repeat again--that George W. Bush and his administration lost.

Meanwhile, this from Yahoo! and the Associated Press just now: "US GI's in Iraq Suffer Worst Week of '0". See it at this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

"Hang on to your seats..."

"...it's going to be a bumpy ride."

Tomorrow's testimony by General David Petraeus before the Senate should be fascinating, for several reasons.

For starters, it's going to be interesting to see how he describes the situation in Iraq. Things don't sound too good over there but Senator McCain is saying how "golly-gosh terrific" it is and that, gee, it's just not that bad. Meanwhile, as I entered in the blog 2 days ago, Generals in the military are saying how frayed the soldiers are, since some of them are on their 2nd, 3rd or fourth tour of duty. Also, the "Green Zone" had casualties over the weekend, too.

Then there's the fact that all 3 candidates to be our next President are going to be there, asking questions--leading, in their own way, of course, no doubt. I can hear them now: "General, don't you think...?". Beauty.

Third, there's the fact that the testimony has to happen but that the Republicans really don't want to be there or go through with it, most likely, this being an election year and the whole war being such a huge mistake, in so many ways.

And that's just 3 of the factors.

Yeah, it's going to be pretty fascinating.

It's a good thing we're not cynical, eh?

Three big problems--and reasons why we must get out of Iraq

Problem/fact No. 1

Right this second, if someone asked you, could you give a rough estimate of the total national debt of the United States? I just gave it some thought and I sure couldn't.

Turns out, right now, it's just short of 9-1/2 Trillion dollars. The estimated population of the United States is 303,760,712 so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,084.98. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.69 billion per day since September 29, 2006. (These statistics from the "US National Debt Clock" website: http://brillig.com/debt_clock/).

Problem/fact No. 2

Then there's the more serious loss of over 4,000 soldiers dying and thousands that have been injured, one way or another, it seems clear we can't go on the way we are in Iraq and the world.

Reading just now, I find that 3 more American soldiers died in Iraq today when the ultra-safe "Green Zone" we established for our troops was just hit with missiles. Thanks again, "W".

P/F No. 3

This weekend the The New York Times gave us the following--actually, more from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, read: the Pentagon. It seems that the Generals from the highest levels of our military are warning us all that our troops simply can't continue to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, tour of duty after tour of duty. It's just taking far too high a toll on our soldiers over there, mentally and physically.

Don't believe it? Here's a quote from General Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff in comments to Congress last week: "Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it." He goes on, "Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families, testing the resolve of our all-volunteer force like never before."

Not enough for you? How's this: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General George Casey, Jr., the Army Chief of staff and their deputies have "warned that the war in Iraq should not be permitted to inflict an unacceptable toll on the military as a whole", according to The Times.

So folks, if you think this can keep going on ad infinitum, think again. It can't. It doesn't matter if you and I go over and fight, it just can't go forward as is. We don't have the resources. This is what comes from not thinking before you act. (Wanna' bet this President NEVER played chess before, in his life, and actually THOUGHT AHEAD A FEW MOVES, before he made his play?)

"W" broke Iraq but "all the king's horses," you know?

So Senator McCain can say we need to keep this war going and Senators running for the Presidency can say we won't bail but for at least these 3 big problems and reasons, as I originally said, this can't keep going on. It just can't.

So let's take the politics and emotion out of the equation. Logic and facts tell anyone who examines the situation, we simply can't stay in Iraq. "W" blew it. He didn't plan. He didn't take all the details into account (like his Father did--see earlier entry, below) and so now, if you have to look at it this way, we have to "lose".

We simply have no other choice.