Hillary Clinton declares cause of US debt

Hillary Clinton has now identified "Republicans" as the sole cause of America's national debt. Yes, it's all a vast right wing piracy.

Stumping yesterday in Maquoketa, Iowa in town hall style, Ms. Clinton addressed the causes of America's political, social and economic woes and explained them with one word - "Republicans."

During Ms. Clinton's diatribe against all things Republican, she actually said to her audience...

"They have driven us into nine trillion dollars of debt."

Note: She didn't say "Congress" nor did she cite any spending complicity on the other side of the aisle - she said "they" i.e. Republicans.

At the conclusion of the event, Ms. Clinton listened intently to one admirer and then enthusiastically replied...

"Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely...totally partisan, totally ideological, that is not the way to get things done in America."

Indeed, Senator.  

Go see The Kite Runner

My family and I usually go to the theater this time of year and yesterday I went along with no advanced knowledge of the movie we were going to see.

I rarely recommend a new film because I believe so few are worth seeing, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner.  If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions -- I'll be surprised.

This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale that is set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the horrors of the Taliban in 2000.

The stylish opening when credits are still rolling suggested that this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the film's creators would capture the depth and dimensions of both evil and goodness in that part of the world.

Suffice it to say that a "Best Picture" nomination must be in the offing and perhaps other nominations including best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.

Anti-Hillary sentiment

A contributor named Lisa (Posted: lisa December 8, 2007 11:29 PM ) doubts the veracity of my remarks concerning popular opposition to Hillary Clinton (which I referenced in my post on Bill Moyers' blog.)

The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mention in that post, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research.  This report from USA Today and Gallup may help others see the pervasiveness of  Ms. Clinton's baggage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2

Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...

"Basic dislike, policy disagreements, character concerns commonly mentioned"

Jones also contends that...

"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."

Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.

Millions of men like me will vote for a female presidential candidate who shares our views - but unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher (who can't run here due to her birthplace) or the late Jean Kirkpatrick (who can't run for obvious reasons) - plus many other accomplished women are not available in this race.  

Yet, some HS maintain that American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are sycophants - shrinking violets in need of male pollen. 

Sadly, this invective is delivered by the same people who can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own.  So what do they allege? He's behaving as an Uncle Tom. After hearing that explanation, one might ask - who is the bigot?

Hillary Clinton, official public photo

Similarly, for the gender-card-playing habits of HS who continue to stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is sexist?

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's TV program tonight...

We now know that Dr. Paul's supporters include those who accused TV host Glenn Beck of treason, those who threatened Mr. Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.

Glenn Beck, Wikipedia

These people do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did distance himself from them on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains - why would such a group be attracted to the Paul candidacy?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Dr. Paul is an unflinching apologist for so much American foreign policy. His voice has become a magnet for legions of dangerous and disaffected Americans with an axe to grind (or swing). He appeals to them.

Ron Paul, official public photo

It's one more reason some find comfort in the belief that Dr. Paul has as much chance of winning the Oval Office as Homer Simpson, or perhaps Dennis Kucinich.

MEET THE LESS

Meet The Press, Wikipedia

Tim Russert remains one of my favorite television journalists of all time. He's tough, always prepared and fair to everyone he interviews. Today, however, he disappoints this fan. He has an hour one-on-one with Mitt Romney and how does he use the first 24 minutes?

Mr. Russert spent the first 13 minutes discussing Romney's Mormonism and the next 11 minutes on abortion. What an abject waste of good interview time.  Here are issues, that could have dominated the interview: National Security, Healthcare Reform, Immigration, the Iraq War, Education, Tax Reform, Energy Policy or Federal Spending Reform.

The program did become more substantive after that first 24 minute segment. However, Mr. Russert still squandered a third of the time playing to single issue viewers who are fixated on topics having little to do with running the country.

After watching Bill Moyers - I posted on his blog...

"Mr. Moyers,

Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.

It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.

A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.

If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.

Respectfully,

JJM"