Hillary Clinton declares cause of US debt

freepik image

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 said...

"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.  

A movie: The Kite Runner

I like very few new films, 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 set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the awful horrors of the Taliban in 2000.

As credits were rolling, the stylish opening of the film suggested this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the creators would portray elements of evil and good in the Middle East. Perhaps a "Best Picture" nomination is in the offing and other nominations including: best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.

Anti-Hillary sentiment (real and imagined)

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

The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mentioned, 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 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...

"

Hillary Clinton, official public photo

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 Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.  

Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets without pollen. 

Sadly, some people on the Left can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own.  Some even suggest he is an "Uncle Tom". After hearing that explanation, one might ask - who is bigoted?

Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and 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 Glenn Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.

Glenn Beck, Wikipedia

People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did indeed distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this particular group attracted to the Paul candidacy?  

Ron Paul, official public photo

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 with Mitt Romney and how does he use the first 24 minutes?

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

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"

Does party affiliation matter?

Representative Ron Paul hedged recently when asked whether he'd support the Republican nominee, regardless of who it might be. It's a safe bet it won't be him.

In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly. I respect his core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency.  Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?

Shirley Chisholm: Wikipedia

Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).

As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.

Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why?  Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, it is hard to believe.  True Independents and Centrists might be the most noble voters, but nobility is by definition....a rare attribute.