During the last campaign the left made a stink about Sarah Palin’s experience and the fact that she would be a heartbeat away from the presidency. The left made these claims despite the fact that she had more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The left ignored Obama’s lack of executive experience in spite of the fact that he would actually be the heartbeat.

Now a prominent Democrat, and a black one at that, is stating what thinking people knew all along:

Doug Wilder, who in 1990s Virginia was America’s first elected black governor and was an early backer of Obama. “One problem is they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.” Times UK

Wilder is making the statement about Obama’s Chicago Mafia but it is important to note that Obama has no more experience than they do.

When Wilder discussed not having experience governing at the executive level, whether he meant to or not, he was discussing Obama as well.

Most Army privates serving in Iraq or Afghanistan have more leadership experience than Obama and his Mafia…

It will be interesting to see the number of left wing lunatics who will rationalize Caroline Kennedy’s qualification to take the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy has no political experience other than she comes from a family full of people who have sponged off the government and have never worked real jobs in their lives. If they claim she learned by being there then it will contradict the argument that Hillary had gained no experience just by being the wife of the president. That is what the Obama campaign put out and what his supporters ran with (I happen to agree with that assessment).

There are a lot of folks who are really on board with the idea of Caroline Kennedy going to the Senate. They do not care that she has absolutely NO experience whatsoever. The very people who are in love with the idea of her serving are dismissing her lack of experience as insignificant and saying that it would be refreshing to have a regular person who is not a DC insider serving. These are the same morons who blasted Sarah Palin because they viewed her as unqualified. Palin’s regular, outside the beltway, persona was off putting to the elitist twerps who dug through trash to see what they could get on her. This was mostly because of fear but it shows the double standard that the left employs. They are good at it because the media are always willing accomplices when it comes to liberal hypocrisy.

One moron at Huffington said there was no comparison because Palin was running to be the next in line for the presidency and Kennedy would be one of a hundred. The reader is supposed to believe that Kennedy’s lack of experience is OK but Palin’s is not because of the seriousness of the job. This totally ignores the fact that Palin has political experience and it ignores the fact that she has more than Barack Obama or Joe Biden when it comes to executive service.

The morons who make this argument ignore the absolute fact that they supported Barack Obama with his lack of experience for the position of president. They voted for a man who has less experience than Palin while stating that she was not qualified to be next in line for the job. This is the stupidity that comes from the liberal mind. They lack the ability to use logic and to reason things out. As long as they win and can push their socialist agenda, they are happy.

As for Kennedy, I really don’t care who New York puts in that seat but I am opposed to political dynasties. The Kennedys have been in American politics for decades and it seems that more and more of them get elected and earn their livings off the backs of the taxpayers. We need to end this cycle of family members succeeding family members and put the Congress back in the hands of the people.

Does America really need another Kennedy in government? I will argue that she is unqualified but only because of the way the left went after Palin. The fact is that many are not very qualified when they are first elected. But if the left can deride the experience of Palin while ignoring the lack thereof with regard to Obama and Caroline Kennedy then it is only fitting we point this out and hold them to their own standard.

Will the hypocrisy of the left never end?

Related:
Camille Paglia

During the never ending Democratic primary Barack Obama and his toadies took every opportunity to disparage Hillary Clinton. They knocked her claim to foreign policy experience and they dismissed her time as First Lady in her claim to decades of experience. To be certain, I dismissed her claims as well but I still maintain that position. I will say that she has a hell of a lot more experience than Obama but nowhere near what she claimed.

The Obama folks though, want you to forget about what they said. They want you to ignore their claims that Hillary had no experience and they want you to ignore their near daily attacks on her with regard to her experience (though they also claimed she would be more of the same because she was a DC insider. How can you be and have no experience?). They want you to forget this now because The One has selected her to be Secretary of State.

They will now tell you how much experience she has and how great she will be for his administration. Obama and his people frequently mocked Hillary’s claim of foreign policy experience and now they want to put her in a position that requires more foreign policy experience than the president. The AP is reporting on this very issue which is amazing given that prior to the election no news organization (if you consider the AP such a thing) would consider such questions of the Messiah.

It wasn’t too long ago that Barack Obama and his advisers were tripping over one another to tear down Hillary Rodham Clinton’s foreign policy credentials. She was dismissed as a commander in chief wanna-be who did little more than sip tea and make small talk with foreign leaders during her days as first lady.

“What exactly is this foreign policy experience?” Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

That was in March, when Clinton was Obama’s sole remaining rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, Clinton is on track to become Obama’s secretary of state.

And, unsurprisingly, the sniping at her foreign policy credentials is a thing of the past. My Way News

This should surprise no one but it will hit the left hard because their thought processes are not based in reality or logic. They base everything on emotion which is why they supported The One. They felt good about voting for a black man, they felt good about change though change was never defined and they felt good about hope even though that is not proper mission planning. The reality is, the left will ignore the past statements just as their Dear Leader wants them to do.

The left might ignore the change of position on Hillary’s qualifications because many of them liked her and would have voted for her had Obama not been the predetermined candidate courtesy of the MSM and the DNC. But the change is only one in what will be a long string of changes. Obama started the primary way left to appeal to the base, he moved center left during the general to appeal to moderates and Independents and now that he has won he will ignore most of what he promised.

He will bring change but only in the fact that he will change what he promised to do when he had to pander for votes. Now that he has them he will do what he needs to do to stay in office and to get reelected.

Some say that Obama’s first term will be Bush’s third. That will drive the left bonkers because Obama and the left claimed that would be the case if McCain were elected. Whether it is or not, he will not be delivering the change he promised.

I once heard someone say that Obama’s promises come with expiration dates. It would appear that his assessment of Hillary came with one as well.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Jason Bourne is a fictional character in novels written by Robert Ludlum. During a mission Bourne, a CIA agent, is shot in the head and suffers amnesia. Matt Damon portrayed Bourne in the movie version of the novels and did a remarkable job with the character.

Unfortunately, it would seem that Matt Damon has trouble with his brain in real life. He was interviewed and gave his impression of Sarah Palin. Damon stated that the selection of Palin worried him. He stated that he wanted to know if she wanted to ban books and why. That Democratic rumor has been disproved but there are still those who are unable to see the truth. Damon also wanted to know if Palin thought dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4000 years ago. I guess he thinks her name is PALINtologist.

The interesting thing is that Damon questions Palin’s experience by saying she was the Mayor of a very, very, small town and has only been a Governor for a year and a half. This gives him pause because she is, according to Damon, likely to become president. Damon bases this on actuary tables.

In the interview, which was more an Obama endorsement, Damon never once expressed the same reservations about Barack Obama who has never been the mayor of a town of any size. Obama’s sole claim to experience is his service as a community organizer (running his campaign not withstanding /snark), which I think means he was not the leader of the entire population, very small or otherwise. Obama has only been a Senator for 4 years and he has been campaigning for 2 of them which means he began his run with a whopping 2 years of legislative, not executive experience. Obama has spent more time running for office than he has serving in the Senate where he has worked for fewer than 200 days. Palin’s year and a half as Governor is a year and a half of executive experience and that does not count her executive time as mayor. Regardless of the amount of time, it is more than Obama has.

In a surreal comedy where life imitates art, it appears that Damon took a shot of liberal Obama Kool-aid to the head and has lost the ability to engage in rational thought.

Damon said that Palin reminded him of a really bad Disney movie. If they made a movie about Damon’s support of Obama it would have to be called The Bourne Insanity.

Breitbart [video]

Saracuda Palin, the next Vice President of the United States, excoriated Barack Obama for his so called experience as a community organizer. I know that Obama did not like this because he sent me an email WHINING that Palin mocked his time as a community organizer and then he asked me for money. In a TV interview Obama said that Palin’s claimed experience was fair game and that he has been going through this for 19 months and she for 4 days. That is a nice was to dismiss the woman but she has been going through this since she ran for office and it is a bit more than 4 days.

Well, if experience is fair game why is Obama whining about Palin questioning his experience as a community organizer? Let’s face it, Obama’s camp was the one that attacked Palin as lacking experience. This from a candidate whose biggest claim to fame is that he was a community organizer. Why is it fair to attack Palin but then unfair for Palin to point out Barry’s lack of experience? I know Barry is upset that she hit him on his community organizer experience but that is all he has to attack. Let us take a look at the community he organized.

Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the country. The unconstitutional laws there (which Obama supports) are supposed to keep people safe. But they do not. This Summer Chicago had 123 murders by firearms. This was double the rate of US military killed in Iraq during the same period of time and we are fighting a war there. Obama was a community organizer there and he wants us to believe that his sainted touch made the place better. The truth is that he and his buddy Rezko raped the people and the place he “organized” is more run down now than it was before he organized it.

This is the experience that Obama claims. He continually blows the organizer trumpet as if he is Gabriel himself. If he put that experience out there as a qualification then it, using his words, is fair game. He failed miserably as an organizer and he has less experience than Sarah Palin. She has served as an executive as a mayor and a governor and she is in charge of the Alaska National Guard. Obama can claim none of this experience.

All one needs to do is look at the community Barry organized to see how little experience he has and how disastrous the outcome was to know he is not the one to lead this country.

Remember, if she was insignificant they would not attack her so viciously. She is a game changer and they know it.

John McCain’s surprise pick of Sarah Palin to round out his ticket has sent shock waves throughout the land of politics. Republicans are energized and Democrats are suddenly fearful. They fear that they might just lose in a year that they should win and do so handily. They fear that Obama made a serious mistake by selecting Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton (a ticket I think would have won). You can tell the Democrats think Palin is the real deal and a threat because of the vicious way that they immediately attacked her and the way they continue to do so.

It started when the Obama campaign failed o acknowledge that she is a Governor and it was compounded by the assertion that she lacked any experience. Who could blame Obama for belittling the executive experience that Palin has as a Mayor and ignoring her executive experience as a Governor? For his campaign to suggest she lacks experience smacks of hypocrisy since she has more leadership experience than any of the Democrats in the race. John McCain has never held an executive position but he was in the military and certainly served as a leader there. However, Palin has more executive experience than he does.

The hits kept on coming when the Democratic Propaganda Outlet (Daily Kos) published an absolutely false story that Palin was actually the grandmother of her youngest child and faked the pregnancy to cover her daughter’s delivery. Some went so far as to suggest that Palin’s husband was the daddy of the daughter’s supposed child.

Now, a writer for a small and insignificant Baltimore paper has said that the selection of Palin is insulting on many levels. Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun indicates that it is nothing more than pandering for John McCain to select a woman who is inexperienced and expect people who would have voted for the experienced Hillary to vote for the GOP ticket. Though Hillary is far more experienced than Obama, I fail to see how she is more experienced than Palin. Hillary has about 8 years experience in the Senate. She has never held any other elected office and she has no executive experience. She only got the Senate seat in New York by riding the coattails of her husband. If Bill Clinton had never been president then Hillary would never have been a Senator.

Palin did not ride to office on the coattails of her husband. She is self made and earned her elected positions on her own merit. So the question is, Susan, why would you feminist women support a woman who needed a man to get ahead rather than one who made it on her own? Reimer takes issue with the fact that Palin is pro life, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught next to evolution. I find no reason to be against someone who believes in the sanctity of life and who supports the Second Amendment. I also find it refreshing that someone would offer differing opinions on how we got here. Palin wants children to be given differing points of view whereas Reimer only wants them indoctrinated with an unproven, flawed theory.

People like Reimer will come out in full force to attack Palin because she is strong and she is a real threat to their victory. Adding her to the ticket reinvigorated Republicans and will likely sway some of the Independents and women who feel that Hillary was mistreated by the chauvinistic Obama campaign. She is a real threat and the Democrats do not like it. They were outflanked by John McCain who demonstrated that a little tactical training comes in handy.

These people will make the mistake of underestimating Sarah Barracuda and will regret it. She is bright and fierce and will take them apart. Don’t let her good looks fool you, this woman is the real deal and will fight a tough fight.

The Democrats are in turmoil. Obama got a 6 point bounce from his convention and McCain stole his thunder by announcing the selection of Palin. He and his supporters know they should be way up but they seem unable to close the deal. This is troubling to them and they have a real fear that they could lose this November. Therefore, they are doing the only thing they know how to do and that is to attack with lies. They will continue to do this until the general election because they are afraid. Seriously, if she were a lightweight or someone with whom they need not concern themselves, why are they attacking her so ferociously? The Democrats have even stooped so low as to release Palin’s Social Security number. Seems Chuckie Schumer did this to Michael Steel. Not only illegal, but unethical as well.

Palin gives her convention speech tonight. I expect she will deliver an outstanding speech that will further energize the base and grab the attention of Independents and those who have yet to decide.

After Palin speaks there will be plenty of Democrats losing sleep.

And there will be more unfounded attacks.

Jesse Jackson said it was a redemptive campaign. Obama’s foreign policy wisdom has caused great joy in moonbat-ville tonight. Only problem, it is all predicated upon a mistake.

The MSM and the Internet are all atwitter as liberals frolic at the news that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has agreed with the Messiah, Barry Obama. A German publication quoted Maliki as agreeing with the Messiah on a 16 month withdraw plan for US forces. I have been reading the reports of this at ABC’s Political Punch and the liberals are having multiple orgasms. They are thanking Obama and attributing all this to his vast foreign policy experience. The only problem in all this is that Maliki never said that he agreed with Obama. He was either misquoted or his statement was mistranslated.

A little while after the convenient translation error (I think it was intentional to help Obama) Maliki said that he agreed with the plan that he and the President (the real one, not the guy pretending to be president) agreed to the previous day. That plan agreed to include a general time frame in which our troops could start drawing down but it was all contingent upon the Iraqis being able to step up and take more responsibility for their own security. It might be 6 months, 16 months or 60 months, but whatever it is, it will depend upon Iraq’s ability to provide for itself.

All of this probably will not matter. No one will pay attention to the correction and even if they do they will continue to say that Maliki agrees with Obama. They are still saying that John McCain wants to have a 100 year war which is an absolute lie and deliberate distortion of what he actually said so don’t be surprised if sometime in the near future you see a TV ad with the Obama team claiming that Maliki agrees with him.

Obama is a lightweight who has no foreign policy experience. His only claim to experience is as a child roaming around different countries like a nomad. He does not understand the world and this latest fact finding mission (which is really one big campaign trip disguised as work) will do little to change his mind. If Allah himself appeared in the desert over there and told Obama to let the war continue Obama would say the buck stops with him and he is going to bring the troops home. Then he would say “Maliki wants it that way.” Democrats always want to withdraw. That is what got Bill Clinton in trouble. If he had stayed in and finished the job there would have been no blue dress evidence.

Barry O Bam Bam has this rock star status and people are cult like in their behavior around him. He is trying to boost his foreign policy creds by going overseas (he left his wife home so she would not be tempted to tell any phony sniper stories on the campaign trail) and this “error” conveniently allows his people to take credit for the plan (even though the reporting is wrong). He has the top news anchors from the big three networks and a huge contingent of reporters following him on this trip. If this is not a campaigning mission why are all the network heavy hitters going along? None of them go on any other Congressional Fact Finding Mission. They usually ignore those things but all of the sudden they need to accompany Obama on his? Right. These people are in the tank for the man and they are going to give him great coverage to help build him up.

It would be kind of funny if some major news event (it could be a positive event) took place this week and overshadowed the Messiah’s campaign trip. What would be even greater would be for him to make a monumental gaffe that the entire world would see. The liberals in the American media could not cover up a mistake from the world stage. Man that would be great.

I do have a serious question that is a little off the topic of this post. McCain has said that he wants to secure the border first and then tackle immigration. There are a lot of Americans who think we should be securing all our borders and that we should do it quickly. So the question is:

Is there any chance we could lock the place down while Obama is out of the country?

Iraq is in need of leadership so Obama could just stay there and help them. He has the name and upbringing for it…

Allah Pundit at Hot Air shows how the Maliki response was changed by Der Spiegel
Macranger is following the story
Marc Ambinder has an interesting take

Barack Obama has changed his position on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Now, before I continue with this, I know I will get comments from the Obamabots saying this has been his position all along. I would counter by stating that Obama has had about a half a dozen positions (maybe more) on the war depending on what contest he was in and to whom he was speaking. As a matter of fact, one of Obama’s positions included having troops in Iraq until 2013 which is exactly what John McCain said. Of course, McCain was blasted from the left and Obambi never got heat for it. Let’s see how well he does after his latest flip.

Today, in contrast to his earlier positions, Barack Obama stated that he would wait until his trip to Iraq before he defines his position on it (since he never intended to go to Iraq until he was embarrassed in to it, he cannot have always held this position). Obama stated that he wanted to speak to the commanders before making an assessment and he assured us that this has been his position all along. Except that in a debate he said he would immediately withdraw troops and that included a yes, even if the commanders oppose it, statement. Obambi said he would take their advice under consideration but as Commander in Chief the buck stops with him (as if he has more experience than the commanders). He and Hillary were both pandering to the anti war nuts at the time and they had to be tough. They were playing a game to see who could get the troops out faster.

Obama has changed from immediately, to 16 months, to by the end of 2009, to 2013 to any number of answers. This cannot make the nutroots very happy because they supported him and his “I was opposed to the war from the beginning” meaningless statement and they loved his promises to leave Iraq immediately.

For a list of the different positions Obama has taken go here. The list at the bottom are his quotes on the war and what he will do and includes his 2013 position.

The Obama campaign and the candidate himself have a lot of testicular fortitude when it comes to obvious lies. Obama contends that he has always held this position or that one, when the reality is that he did not. David Axelrod stated that Obama said he would always listen to the advice of commanders and that would factor into his thinking. This is a lie. Obama has repeatedly stated that he would listen to commanders but that he was going to withdraw the troops regardless of what they told him. He even had a second news conference today to address the GOP pointing out his flips and Obama stated that he would listen to the commanders but what they say would not affect his 16 month withdraw plan. Obviously, the commanders will not hold sway with Obama if they think we need to be there longer than 16 months.

Obama is playing a game here and he thinks he can get away with it and to be honest he will with part of the country. He and his campaign believe that if they continue to say things and keep repeating them people will hold them as true. They do this regardless of what Obama has said in the past. Obama has ALWAYS been in favor of gun control and he stated that he felt that guns should be taken away from people. He keeps saying he has always been in favor of it so that people will believe it is true but his record and his statements say something entirely different.

Obama also has another problem with regard to the war thing. He is running against a war hero and a man with a wealth of military experience. Obama has none, nada, zero, nil, experience in this arena. His rise to the top was all predicated on a meaningless opposition to the war and the left’s disgust at Hillary’s vote to authorize it. The left made her pay for voting for war and they love Obambi because he says he will end it and bring our troops home immediately. But that was then. He was running against a Democrat in a Democratic primary. He needed to persuade Democrats to vote for him and the best way to do that was to talk tough about bringing the troops home right away. The left ate that up and they loved him for it.

Now though, Obama will have to appeal to the other half of the country. He will have to appeal to those who do not believe in surrender and who understand that experience matters. Obama is moving toward the center to try and appeal to the moderate Republicans. He knows that most will not appreciate a strategy that means defeat because they remember all too well what happened in Vietnam. Obama also knows that he cannot look naive on this issue because national security is a very important one. By now saying that he might need to refine his plan he is trying to demonstrate that he has experience and good judgment. The problem is, he has made his positions clear a number of times and no matter how many times he says he has ALWAYS believed in his current plan, the fact is, he did not. This is a lie and he knows it is a lie he just hopes that YOU will not know it is a lie.

Consider this, if a candidate has always had the same position on an issue he would not have to keep saying that he has always had that position because people would know it. The very fact that people are pointing out the differences and the fact that he is defending against them shows that he has changed positions. If it was always the same there would be no validity to the attacks (if they would even occur) because people would know. Notice that he never has to say that he has always supported abortion. That is because he has and people know it. There are no other positions on which to compare and there are no other statements to the contrary. People know it, as opposed to his stances on gun control and the war in Iraq on which Obama has had more positions than the Kama Sutra.

Over the next few days Obama will claim he has always been consistent so that his code pinko friends on the left will be led to believe he has not abandoned them. He will also claim that the GOP is distorting his record. Regardless of what this guy says, he is lying.

And if anyone in the MSM had any integrity they would call him on it. Unfortunately, they go along with him. Keith Olberman (definitely not the MSM) is so in love with Obama that if Barry said tomorrow that the war in Iraq is righteous and that we need to go into Iran and have war for 100 years Keith would say how brave Obama is for saying things no one else will. Olberman blasted Bush and all his criminals for wanting to grant immunity to communications companies but when Barry voted for it Olberman said he was showing courage and fawned all over him.

Unfortunately, Olberman is not the only moron in the media that would stand in line to give Obama a Lewinsky. Chris Matthews would get in line several times with a tingle in his legs and there are others who will ignore everything just to help put a Democrat back in the White House.

It is obvious that Obama is trying to swing to the middle and will say anything in order to get elected. Muslims believe that it is perfectly OK to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam. Barry is deliberately lying and deceiving people in order to get elected (as did every Democrat who pretended to be conservative in the last election in order to get into office).

Wonder if it is a coincidence that both entities believe in the same things…

Related items:
US News and World Report
CNN
Stop the ACLU

Right from the start let me say that I am not into denigrating the military service of veterans who served honorably. Wesley Clark served this country honorably and I do not intend to attack that service. However, his recent attack on the service of John McCain leaves open some questions about the ability of Clark to make reasoned decisions and to think cogently about an issue. To recap, Wesley Clark stated:

Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility.

We will not get into the fact that if McCain’s military credentials do not qualify him to be the Commander in Chief or to serve as President in general then Obama’s sickly resume hardly qualifies him to be the guy who directs traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue. Besides, Clark already stated that Obama has judgment and character and that those items are qualifications for the job. Let us just look instead at the hypocrisy of Wesley Clark.

Four years ago Wesley Clark and John Kerry were running for the Democratic nomination which Kerry eventually won. Wesley Clark backed John Kerry. To Clark, Kerry’s three month stint in Vietnam qualified him to be Commander in Chief as opposed to McCain’s meager service. Or, as Clark might say [if Kerry were a Republican], getting a few splinters and leaving early hardly qualifies as executive responsibility.

But the heart of the matter is Clark himself. He ran for president which means he believed that he possessed experience that demonstrated executive responsibility. How did his service qualify him any more than John McCain’s? Clark led a company in Vietnam for exactly one month before he was wounded and sent to Fort Knox where he commanded a company of wounded soldiers. There are two other shots that Clark took at McCain and they are important:

“That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded – that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
~snip~
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,”

Clark served as a commander for one month before he was shot and sent home. I hardly think serving one month as getting shot qualifies him any more than getting shot down in an airplane but that never entered his mind when he ran. As for command time, what does Clark have besides that one month? He was commander of the Allied forces in Kosovo so one could debate whether that service qualifies him as a wartime commander. Even if it does (and I believe it did), what about being relieved of his command qualifies as executive responsibility?

Like I said, I am not into dishonoring anyone’s service and that is not my intent here. I am pointing out that Wesley Clark is dismissing the service of John McCain when he had no problem with Kerry’s thin military resume (but very think traitor credentials) and Clark never felt as if his own military experience was less than qualifying for the job when he ran. This in spite of the fact that the very issues Clark brought up with regard to McCain very easily apply to Clark.

The bigger issue here is why Clark is doing it. He is trying to diminish a few of McCain’s strongest attributes, his vast military experience and his foreign policy credentials. The left is trying to negate this as an item that can be used as a comparison to Obama because Obama cannot win that match up. By reducing the importance of the issue they hope to even the playing field and have voters believe that McCain has as little experience as Obambi. Clark did this out of fear.

I predict this will backfire. Regardless of what people think about the war, a great number of them support the troops. Our military has higher approval ratings than the president and the Congress combined (and probably twice the combined total). Attacking a veteran is an unwise move.

General Clark might have handed McCain the White House on a platter.

When it comes to experience, Hillary Clinton is happy to claim it all. She says that she has 35 years of experience making change and she says that eight of those years were during her husband’s time in office. Hillary likes to lay claim to the good things that happened then but kind of forget the bad ones. She does not want credit for any event that could make her look bad but she is very happy to lay claim to the good events.

Hillary is quite upset at an Obama mailer that trashes her health care plan by stating she would force people to buy it. She says it is inaccurate but she specifically said that the government would garnish wages to force compliance which sounds like people would be forced. There is one other thing Hillary is a bit upset about. B. Hussein O-BOMB-us has taken Hillary to task for NAFTA. That (so called) free trade agreement was signed by her husband and it has been a problem for folks who believe they lost jobs because of it (though lost jobs is due to many dynamics). Hillary has distanced herself from this whole ordeal by stating:

“I am fighting to change NAFTA,” she insisted. “Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other.”

So in this instance, she lays no claim to the experience her husband gained while president. If NAFTA was a big hit Hillary would be claiming that she helped push Bill to sign it. She is all about the us when it suits her cause but, as we see here, she disavows any involvement in the problematic items from their co-presidency.

I also find it interesting that she says neither of them were in the Senate therefore neither of them voted for it as a way to deflect criticism of the agreement but, she and her hubby called Obama’s position on the Iraq war a Fairy Tale because he was not in office to vote for or against it. In other words, it is OK for her to say she was not in the Senate when asked about a particular item but it is NOT OK for Obama to do that. For the record, I have maintained that his position on the war is irrelevant because he was not a member of the Senate so we will never know how he would have voted. Since we have seen both of them wait until the other voted on legislation before voting, it is not beyond reason that he would have gone along so as not to look weak on national security. Frankly, his word on the matter is not good enough for me.

As for Hillary, she wants it both ways (and I am not talking about her love life). She wants credit for the good things that happened and to stay away from the bad things. Either her eight years were experience or they were not. Since she has claimed they were and has taken credit for items from that time, she is responsible for NAFTA.

Hillary, release your records from the eight years and while you are at it, release your tax records…

An experienced politician would have thought about this before running for the presidency.