Hillary’s Voice

Cross posted at: Pagan Power

They say that history repeats itself. But I never thought it could happen so soon. The clues were all there. Standing out sorely for anyone to see. And while many of us spoke out loudly and often we were castigated and labeled as delusional. We tried to warn everyone. Sought others to heed our call. We doubled and tripled our efforts, losing sleep, missing work, closing ourselves off from families and friends. All of it intended to wake people up to what was hiding behind the hope. A change no one really wanted.

It started with MSNBC. They apparently had Cult-Aide delivered in place of the water cooler. Timmy started the hate, regurgitating Republican talking points as if he had graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Atwater Rove College of Smear. Tweety had to come out of the closet, admitting that Obama made his “leg” tingle. Shuster proved that even cavemen can get a job in broadcasting. And Olbermann auditioned for the latest drama queen on any number of soap operas.

We should have noticed when the far left led by Howard Dean and Donna Brazile canceled the Congressional Black Congress debate sponsored by Fox. It should have alerted us that something was amiss. But too many bought into the lie. And our silence at the time only egged them on and helped to consolidate their power base. CNN joined MSNBC aiding and abetting the crime. Little by little, day by day truth disappeared slowly but steadily. It only took a gradual shift to sneak it by everyone without much notice.
But it was enough to accomplish their master plan.

Yesterday’s New York Times Editorial cut right to the chase. They wasted no time whatsoever in throwing Hillary Clinton right under the bus. After all she has done for the city of New York it would seem that the very least they could do is have a little grace and dignity. But they apparently don’t understand what it means to have respect.

According to the New York Times Editorial Board Hillary continuing in this race is contingent upon two ridiculous requirements.

First of all she is not allowed to use the phrase White voters. Because apparently this is offensive to black voters and we sure as hell can’t have that.

Sen. Clinton and the Campaign

But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones.

In other words, Hillary must use only black approved politically correct language when discussing her strengths and Obama’s weaknesses. Since when is honesty and frankness something that we should sweep under the rug? Is censorship the new password for Democrats? After all the lies we have heard these past long 7+ years from the Bush gang, isn’t it refreshing that we have a candidate for President that is willing to be up front with us for a change?

Obama can declare that there are “typical white people” and that is ok but Hillary makes mention that she has stronger support from whites and she is painted as being racially divisive? Give me a break!

Last week, economist Paul Krugman made it very clear that he finds John McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal potentially harmful. Krugman also made very clear that he doesn’t like Hillary Clinton’s counter-proposal but considers it harmless.

That said, Krugman reportedly heard about (but has not seen) a negative Obama ad that falsely uses Krugman’s criticism of McCain as an attack against Hillary. At his blog, Krugman made it very clear that he would be displeased if Obama’s ad did this:

Barack Obama reportedly said this at a speech yesterday:

“’My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,’ Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. ‘Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.’” (New York Times)

Contrast that statement to the strongly implied message his campaign sent out in a March 5th email, signed by Obama Campaign manager David Plouffe:

Since the Reverend Wright situation recently left splatter marks on Barack Obama, we’ve heard a lot from Obama’s campaign about how Hillary Clinton embellished the danger of her trip to Bosnia back in 1996, among other things.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on some of Obama’s own embellishments: i.e., his falsely taking credit for other U.S. senators’ legislative work. A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign sent a fund-raising email that 1) said that Hillary is attacking Obama’s supporters — a statement that’s as divisive as it is factually questionable; and 2) accused Hillary of being divisive.

Last night, I found a Time Magazine blog post called “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements.”

Between the media bias and some of the Obama campaign’s tactics, I’ve often found myself countering others’ statements — which often involves “negatives.” This is odd, because I’m far more pro-Hillary than I am anti-Barack.

That said, I thought I’d share some of the reasons that I like and support Hillary.

On this sad 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq it is time to come clean, time to set the record straight and time to unify in our heartfelt deep opposition to this war. Unintended collateral damage is an inevitable consequence of war. Sometimes innocents are destroyed. That is just the nature of it all. But today I want to redeem one particular innocent that has been riddled with more bullets and blown up with more bombs than anyone I can think of in recent history. The person I speak of is a brave soul, a smart person that has fought a lifetime to bring the hope of a better life to all Americans. The person I am here to redeem today is Hillary Clinton.

Much has been made about the failure to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. As this was the whole purpose of the war to begin with I find it necessary to examine the facts of the times as they existed on the ground prior to the invasion. The most overlooked fact of all of this is why we thought that Iraq had WMDs. Well the answer to that is both simple and complicated. First the simple:

After the Iranian takeover of our Embassy in 1979 the United States started looking for an ally in the region to help stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The person that offered to halt this was Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Prior to our “relationship” with Iraq it had been placed upon the list of countries providing support for State Sponsored Terrorism. But we needed an ally and we needed someone ruthless. And Hussein fit both of those requirements.

Florida Democrats Won’t Vote Again, Official Says
WASHINGTON — The Florida Democratic Party chairwoman on Monday officially buried the possibility of redoing the state’s disputed January presidential primary, saying there was no practical or affordable way to conduct a new election…  Michigan Democratic party leaders on Monday proposed legislation to conduct a new primary on June 3 to allocate the state’s 156 delegates. The election would be run by the state but be privately financed. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has agreed to the plan; aides to Mr. Obama, of Illinois, have refused to commit to it. It is more uncertain than ever that he will: The party’s rules may disqualify anyone who voted in Michigan’s Republican primary from voting in the Democratic primary — including those who may be Obama supporters who voted Republican because his name was not on the Democratic ballot. Michigan Democratic officials said the plan for a revote could not move forward unless both campaigns agreed to the proposal in the next day or so.
Looks like Obama will do ANYTHING to win, including disenfranchise the entire state of Michigan.

Since the 2004 Democratic convention, Barack Obama has been known for giving carefully crafted speeches. Yesterday, he gave another one.

One of the speech’s strong points was a spotlighting of modern-day racial injustices. Among the troubling aspects were a few seeming inconsistencies.

Between 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina (with help from Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh), George Bush managed to get a few million Americans riled up whenever other people questioned their president — as though the questioners were calling Bush fans’ mamas “ugly.”

Brilliant strategy: getting people emotionally invested to the point that they took personally any political opposition to a guy most of them weren’t even friends with.

Six days ago, I received an email evincing that Barack Obama’s campaign staffers are using a similar tactic. In part, the email reads: