Bill Clinton wants a Smooch from Obama

I wrote yesterday about the public meeting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Unity New Hampshire. I believe that Obama needs Clinton voters and Clinton needs Obama money and outside of that they have no use for each other. There are those who claim they are friends but I think that associates would be a more apt description and now that Hillary, who believes the presidency is her birthright, has been beaten by Obama, she has no use for him and anyone associated with him except to get her debt paid.

I also pointed out that Bill Clinton was not happy with the results and that he would not actively support Obama. If he did do anything for Obama it would not be with the enthusiasm he would have had if Hillary had won. He wants Obama to lose so Hilary can run in 2012.

There is a story out in the Telegraph UK that indicates Bill Clinton is still extremely bitter (does he cling to religion and guns) and that he continues to be condescending toward Obama and says Obama cannot win. There are reports that Clinton, who is upset that his reputation suffered, has shocked friends by his blatantly bitter attitude. Mr. Clinton reportedly said, to his friends, that Obama would have to “kiss my ass” if he wants his support. Clinton seems to have this thing about people’s lips being below his waistline.

We have heard that Bill Clinton holds a grudge (as does his wife) a long time and that they can be ruthless to those who are seen as disloyal to them. There were a lot of old Clinton people who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early on and I know that irritated them to no end. Bill Richardson was one who Bill found particularly upsetting. If Hillary ever makes it to the White House then there are a lot of people who will have absolute hell to pay.

It was amazing to see how so many people who thought the Clintons walked on water threw them overboard so quickly in order to latch on to the empty suit. The Clintons have a hit list of people who need political payback and they cannot wait to unleash their fury.

Given the number of former Clinton supporters who jumped ship early, I imagine Obama might have to get in line to give that kiss.

Big Dog

Sexism in Campaign is Overrated

Gloria Steinem, the aging feminazi, is on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton. While Steinem is out discussing the supposed qualifications of she who would be Queen, it boils down to one qualification and that is, Hillary is a woman. Steinem discusses the campaign and how Hillary is not given a fair chance or how the media is better to Obama or any of the other claims made by the Clinton apologists. She throws in a few of the references to male domination and all the other excuses that women use when they fail to achieve. Women have made quantum leaps with regard to equality in the workplace and in education. There are many women in institutes of higher learning and there are plenty in the workplace and they are protected under Equal Opportunity laws to such a great extent that they receive benefits of affirmative action. Women owned businesses receive special treatment so much so that contractors align with them in order to win competitive bids. This is not good enough for the feminist Steinem because, in her eyes, there must be sexism involved if Hillary is losing. Steinem goes so far as to indicate John McCain’s time as a POW was overrated and if he were a woman men would ask what she did wrong to get shot down and captured. I think we all remember this being the case with Jessica Lynch, who by the way, was rescued by a bunch of men.

Steinem, while claiming to be a feminist, is supporting a candidate who cried, who relied on a man (her husband), who debated by whining about getting questions first and who generally ran a poor campaign. Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead when this whole thing started and she was the presumptive nominee long before the contests began in earnest. The campaign process was a mere formality. Instead of sexism, isn’t it just possible that people do not think she would be a good president? Isn’t it possible that after the population had a chance to see Hillary on the campaign trail they were less enamored with her? Top this off with a candidate who has the ability to say absolutely nothing and still thrill people (especially women) and it spells disaster for any candidate regardless of that person’s sex.

The idea that Hillary is being rejected because of sexism is absolutely ludicrous but the mere suggestion shows that even staunch Democrats believe that their party is comprised of sexists. It is not the Republican Party that is giving the nod to Obama, it is the Democrats who are voting for him over the woman who has been dubbed the smartest woman in the world. The Democratic establishment has also recognized that it has racists in it because anyone who opposes Obama is tagged as a racist. Remember, this is all coming from the party of diversity and tolerance.

Hillary Clinton is being rejected because she is a polarizing person. She rubs people the wrong way and, when compared to Obama, her lack of personality is glaringly obvious. The suggestion that America rejects her because of her sex ignores the flaws of the person and lays blame on the voters who are obviously too stupid to see that she deserves to win. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job though Steinem would have us believe this. There are plenty of women in this country who would do an admirable job as President just as there are many blacks who would do an equally good job. Yes, America is ready for a black or a woman but we are not ready for this black or that woman, not because of those qualities but because of what they represent with regard to the issues.

Steinem believes that Hillary is the best candidate and that is her opinion. Just because people do not accept Hillary does not mean people are sexists any more than those who reject Obama are racists. Does this mean there is no racism or sexism? Certainly not. There are people who will not vote for either of these candidates based solely on their race or sex. I would bet though, there are more people who will vote FOR them based on these attributes than against and that is just as bad. Some however, will vote for a person based upon a perception of qualifications. In some cases it will be the lesser of two evils as it usually is in politics.

If Steinem wants a woman to win perhaps they should run one who can win. I would also wonder if Steinem would have the same feelings were the losing female candidate a Republican? BTW Gloria, I would vote for a Conservative woman or black person if I thought they would do the best job.

We have 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can come up with? That, in and of itself, is depressing.

Related item:
Boston.com
Interesting Post:
Sonnabend
Big Dog

ILLEGALS Kill Border Guard

Those of us who believe in the rule of law want the borders of this country, particularly the southern border, closed down so that ILLEGALS cannot sneak across. People like Ted Kennedy and John McCain (and every Democrat) like to characterize these people as honest and hard working. I have no doubt they are hard working people (I doubt they only do jobs Americans won’t) but they are not HONEST. When a person breaks the law by crossing our border ILLEGALLY and then lives here under false pretenses then that is anything but honesty. This is criminal behavior and our government has sanctioned it for decades. The people in our Congress have turned a blind eye to border patrol agents who were thrown in jail for doing their duties, agents who received more time in jail for protecting us than any of the ILLEGALS get for invading us.

Now we have word that a border patrol agent in California was run over by a vehicle that he tried to stop after it entered this country ILLEGALLY. The area where this took place is popular among off road enthusiasts as well as drug runners entering the US ILLEGALLY. Our government is responsible for the death of this agent. The failure of the President and the Congress to secure our borders has allowed a vehicle to enter ILLEGALLY and run over an agent.

The way our government treats these things it might be a blessing that the agent died. If he had lived the government would have locked him up for a decade because he bothered an honest, hard working invader.

Story:
Fox News

Big Dog

Others with related items:
The Virtuous Republic, InvestorBlogger dot com, third world county, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bill Clinton Whines About Hillary’s Press Coverage

Bill Clinton is out on the campaign trail and he is whining about the press coverage his wife is getting. Clinton said that the media ignores experience and looks at political issues which he claims have a “half life of 15 seconds.” He made the claim that if the media would only look at the experience of his wife then people would see she is best qualified and most experienced to lead this country. Let us take a look.

Hillary has never run anything. She has not been a CEO of a company, she has not been a Governor of a state and she has not been the boss in a business. Her work experience is as a lawyer and as the First lady of Arkansas and of the country. She was not in a position of leadership in any of those capacities and yet this is what she claims for experience. She is no more experienced than any of her rivals other than she can lay claim to being a First Lady and they cannot. The job of First Lady does not qualify her or anyone else to be the President. The wife of a CEO for a large corporation is not qualified, based upon being the wife of the CEO, to run the company. In addition, Hillary refuses to release any of the records that might shed light on her supposed experience.

As for Bill, he has no right to complain about media coverage. He had it easy as President and continues to get great coverage. If Drudge had not broken the Monica story it might have never been told. When the “Path to 9/11″ aired Clinton used his star power to force ABC to take out truthful items that reflected unfavorably on him. He used a surrogate to steal documents from the national archives and the media failed to skewer him as they would have ANY Republican. Clinton got sympathy from the media when he was being impeached and the treatment was in stark contrast to the treatment that Republicans involved in sex scandals have received.

Bill Clinton and his wife are liars who rewrite history as a matter of convenience. He recently said that he was against the Iraq War from the start despite the fact that his earlier words on the subject convey a totally different opinion. If we were to have a Democracy in Iraq tomorrow with all fighting in the Middle East ended, Clinton would claim that he supported the effort from the start.

Hillary is no different. She changes positions depending on the latest poll and who will be offended the least. She made statements, before George Bush was in office, that Hussein was a threat and that he had WMD and needed to be removed from office. Now she claims she was misled by the President. She is a partisan hack who is only interested in attaining power, a power she feels is due to her. She believes that it is her birthright to be President and that we should trust her because she said so. She was responsible for the socialized health care plan that failed though her hubby, in revisionist style, is now taking the blame for it.

They are both snake oil salesmen who will say or do anything to get and keep power. Bill indicated that even if he were not married to her he would be out there stumping for her. The truth is, if they had never been married no one would no who she is and she would not be in the Senate and she would not be running for the presidency.

And if Bill were not married he would be out doing the same thing he has done all through his married life.

Chasing, conquering, and sexually abusing women.

Source:
Breitbart

Big Dog

Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Wake Up America, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Instead of Questions, Hillary Plants Questioner

The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.

I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.

As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:

Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com

There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.

I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.

It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.

Who says Republicans are not inclusive?

Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?

UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.

Big Dog salute to Webloggin and Stop the ACLU.

Big Dog

Others:
Liberty Pundit
Right Voices
Sister Toldjah
Michelle Malkin
Right Angles
Assorted Babble
TownHall Blog

Stop SOPA