The Straw Man strategy: Finding someone really well known and really unpopular in your opposing party to make him/her the poster child for your foes. This approach has been used by both Republicans and Democrats. Straw Men include Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Recently Rush Limbaugh has become the new whipping boy for the Democrats. The Dems have talked up Newt as the leader of the GOP. The Democrats are attempting to paint Limbaugh as an eccentric and extreme right-winger and by extension the whole Republican Party.
Barack Obama and his apologists Goebbels like have spun the fable that the John McCain is largely responsible for the Wall Street debacle. This is another in a series of vicious smears emanating from the Obama camp. In truth major responsibility rests with the Democrats. This problem had its genesis in policies pursued by the Clinton administration.
Michael Reagan in a brilliant article titled "Democrats Own the Wall Street Debacle" in Newsmax.com spells out the unvarnished truth. Here is an appetiser.
".....Obama brazenly blames John McCain and the GOP for the current Wall Street mess when it’s clear none of it was due to Republican policies. The truth of the matter is that it was McCain and three GOP colleagues who sought to reform the government’s lending policies three long years ago after the Bush administration had failed two years earlier. On May 25, 2006, McCain spoke on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, and warned against the debacle we are now facing if it failed to pass........."
.."McCain warned, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” McCain predicted the entire collapse we now are suffering through. He stressed the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Obama advisers Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson"
This is arguably the most devastating ad from the McCain campaign so far. Hillary Clinton secured 18 million votes in the Democratic Party primaries. Yet Obama failed to consider her as a running mate. This is the greatest slap in the face for Clinton in the course of her political career. Obama is making her eat humble pie. In addition he has insulted the millions of women voters who supported Clinton.“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth,” the narrator in the ad says.The ad then quotes Clinton criticizing Obama for being vague and “increasingly negative.”
Sen. Clinton said : "I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN Democratic Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, NV, 11/15/07)
In this video both Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Joe Biden launch devastating attacks on Obama's lack of experience. John Edwards states that (Obama's) rhetoric is not enough. Hillary Clinton states that John McCain brings a life time of experience and crosses the Commander in Chief threshold. She stated that Obama brings a speech from 2002. In essence neither Edwards, Clinton or Biden believes that Obama has the experience necessary to assume the position of Commander in Chief.
Video Script:
HILLARY CLINTON: In this election, we need a nominee who can pass the Commander-In-Chief test. Someone ready on day one, to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a President who passes that test.
JOHN EDWARDS: Rhetoric is not enough. High falutin language is not enough.
HILLARY CLINTON: ...No time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked "Is he ready?" You said "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."
JOE BIDEN: I think that I stand by the statement.
BILL CLINTON: When's the last time we elected a President, based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? He will have been a Senator longer by the time he is inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for President full time, you don't have time to do much else.
HILLARY CLINTON: I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander-In-Chief threshold. And, I believe that I have done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that, and you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.
As Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic Party nomination grinds to a conclusion, today she gave a broad hint of her interest in the Vice–Presidential slot.
The Clinton campaign partly fuelled by the oxygen of racism has spent months emphasizing the point that Obama is incapable of defeating John McCain. The hatred between both candidates is palpable. Indeed it is difficult to see how both could work in tandem. In addition Bill Clinton would undoubtedly involve himself in the election campaign. His bad tempered outbursts would be manna from heaven for McCain.
According to the Associated Press Obama has now amassed sufficient delegates to lock up the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama most political discussion is not about this today. Rather it is about Clinton’s possible Vice Presidential ambitions. Clinton has staged a publicity coup. Hillary may not even be serious. Rather it may be a case of pay back time as she seethes over her failure to secure the nomination. Is she prepared to accept second best? Certainly many of her supporters feel that she has been cheated of the nomination because she is a woman and are unlikely to accept a consolation prize. If Clinton fails to secure the Vice Presidential slot she will set her sights on 2012.
The outcomes of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries have further weakened Clinton's prospects of securing the Democratic party nomination.
The Party is now on the horns of a dilemma. Obama is winning in terms of the popular vote and delegate count. As North Carolina is a larger state than Indiana, Obama has moved further ahead in the delegate count and popular vote.
However there is increasing antipathy towards him amongst a large section of the white Democratic electorate throughout the US, which has plumped increasingly for Clinton. The Rev Jeremiah Wright issue has severely damaged Obama.
The 30% African American electorate in North Carolina has to some extent blunted Clinton's success and handed the state to Obama. Obama’s victory in North Carolina is a major blow to Clinton who had hoped to secure knock out successes in both states. Such an outcome would have rocked the super delegates and possibly stampeded them into the Clinton camp.
Obama’s success does not alter the fact that if he secures the Democratic nomination-as is highly probable- he is likely to lose a sizeable section of Reagan Democrats to John McCain. It is probable that Clinton as Democratic candidate would hold a higher proportion of the conservative Democrat vote. She will target super delegates with this message in a final effort to detach them from Obama. It is important to remember that Clinton has adopted an increasingly conservative posture to win white working class votes. This has camouflaged her liberal policies. It is a political stunt, which has worked well for her.
She will also endeavour to secure voting rights for the Michigan and Florida delegates. Will the Democratic nominee be chosen by only 48 of the 50 states? A resolution of this issue could help Clinton.
If the super delegates were to move towards Clinton and deprive Obama of the nomination the Democratic Party would be torn asunder as African Americans walked out at the Convention. This is unlikely to happen.
Delegates are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. This is music to the ears of John McCain who needs every break that he can get.
Today McCain reassured conservative voters on the issue of the appointment of conservative judges. This is an astute move, which will appeal to Reagan Democrats and will help consolidate GOP support.
In this particular interview Clinton squirms on the abortion issue. She attempts to sanitise her pro-abortion stance. She favours the culture of death over the culture of life. Obama behaves in a similar manner. Both profess to be Christian yet the fifth commandment merits not a mention. God is ignored. Both candidates have a record of shame on the issue. Both are weak-kneed politicians lacking the moral fibre to stand for the truth. Catholics or other Christians who vote for Clinton or Obama are complicit in the destruction of the unborn child in the womb. As such they commit a grave sin.
Clinton's abortion record is as follows:
Supports Roe v Wade
Strong defender of partial birth abortion
Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-abortion women
Rated 100%by NARAL.This indicates a strong pro-abortion voting record
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
Barack Obama's record is as follows:
Supports Roe v Wade
Strong defender of partial birth abortion
Rated 0% by the NRLC indicating a very strong pro abortion stance
Obama is even more extreme on the abortion issue than NARAL Pro-Choice America
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.
Hopefully Christian voters will stand by their faith. The law of God takes precedence over individual "rights".
Whilst Hillary Clinton may have won the Pennsylvania primary by a margin of 10% (55%-45%) and kept her hopes of securing the Democratic Party nomination alive, the outcome only marginally improves her delegate count vis a vis Obama. Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145.
Obama holds a massive financial advantage, with $41 million raised in March and $42 million available to spend against Clinton this month.Clinton raised $20 million in March and had $9 million for the primary available at the beginning of April. However she has debts of $10.3 million, putting her in the red.
There are nine pre-convention contests remaining.It is anticipated that Clinton will win in West Virginia and Kentucky, whilst Obama is expected to take North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota. Indiana and Montana are at this stage too close to call. It is important to remember that Independents can vote in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. The demographics of both are somewhat different from Pennsylvania-both have a younger age profile. Both of these factors may aid Obama. The Guam caucus is insignificant whilst the Puerto Rico Primary is unlikely to give Clinton a huge delegate bonus. There are some indications of a growth in support for Obama here.
It is highly unlikely that either candidate will have the required 2,025 elected delegates necessary to secure the nomination. However Obama will lead in terms of the popular vote and the number of elected delegates. The thorny issue of Michigan and Florida has yet to be resolved. It is probable that pressure will increase on Clinton to withdraw from the race with the conclusion of the primaries. The super delegates may come under pressure from Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Edwards to declare support for Obama. This could put Obama over the top.
If the issue is not finalised before the Democratic Convention- in August- the implications for the party are serious. The Clintons will utilize every strategy and stratagem to secure the nomination. If the super delegates were to deprive Obama of the nomination the party would be torn asunder. African Americans would walk. Clinton would lose to John McCain. Obama is odds on favourite. It will take a political earthquake to deprive him of the nomination.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Joe Murray in the Bulletin which is Philadelphia’s Family newspaper: “Departing from a previous position made during the 2000 presidential campaign, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain hinted to a crowd of Villanova students that pro-choice Republicans need not apply for the position of his running mate. Mr. McCain said that "it would be difficult" for a pro-choice Republican, like former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, to share the ticket.
"I don't know if it would stop him, but it would be difficult," Mr. McCain told MSNBC host Chris Matthews…………………………”
John McCain is determined obviously to copper fasten the support of religious conservatives within the GOP. A pro-life running mate will reassure Catholic and Evangelical GOP voters. Such voters can be guaranteed to inject muscle into the McCain campaign organization and will undoubtedly turn out in force on Election Day. As Clinton and Obama are strongly pro abortion many pro life Democrats and Independents are likely to defect to McCain. Such voters cannot in conscience vote for the destruction of the unborn child in the womb. In addition many pro life Democrats are revolted at the support of Clinton and Obama for partial birth abortion.
Hillary Clinton may have shaded the verdict. However she failed to land a knock out punch on Obama. Issues -such as Obama's comments on "bitter small-town Pennsylvanians"; his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.; and the absence of an American flag in his lapel- figured in the debate as did Iraq. However it is unlikely that Clinton gained much political mileage from them.
On the economy both candidates were unconvincing. When asked about McCain's accusations that the Democratic nominee would raise taxes, Clinton ruled out a tax hike on middle-class Americans, whilst Obama claimed that he planned to lower taxes on the middle class, but he left open the option of raising capital gains taxes. Both candidates were economical with the truth. The economic proposals of both envision a greater role for the state in people's lives and a plethora of new programmes and quangos. Such programmes will require an enlarged bureaucracy. Ipso facto taxes must rise under an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Tonight Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton debate at the National Constitution Center. The debate is being telecast nationally by ABC and will start at 8 p.m.
Since the last debate in Ohio on Feb. 26 both candidates have been buffeted by controversy. There has been a major controversy over comments made by Obama’s pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright. Tonight Obama will likely have to explain, what he meant when he told donors in San Francisco last week that Pennsylvanians are “bitter” over their economic circumstances and “cling” to religion and guns." Support for Obama in Pennsylvania was on an upward curve prior to his San Francisco statement. On the basis of several polls Obama appears to be trailing Clinton by at least 6%.
It is likely that Clinton will attempt to goad him, in the hope that he may make another foot in mouth comment tonight. She will attempt to portray him as inexperienced, rash and elitist. Success for Clinton tonight could stampede more blue-collar voters into the Clinton camp and result in a devastating defeat for Obama in Pennsylvania. If such a scenario were to unfold Clinton could sway more super delegates. Nevertheless Obama will probably prevail in the North Carolina Primary. In the unlikely event of a knock out blow by either candidate, the scene is set for a possible bloody convention.
Clinton herself will come under pressure on her Bosnia lies. Indeed she has a history of exaggeration and lies. Obama will probably target Clinton on this issue. He will attempt to portray Clinton as a political insider incapable of introducing meaningful change.
Is it too much to hope for some forensic questioning of both Clinton and Obama on their economic policies? Both have attempted to bribe voters with their own money. Both are committed to an enlarged role for the state. Increased bureaucracy and quangos- as advocated by both candidates- will lead to an explosion in public expenditure and massive rises in taxation. There are no free lunches.
This is a watershed election. Clinton and Obama are Socialists. McCain is conservative and favours restraint in public expenditure and low taxes.
An appalling vista could unfold: A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.- both pledged to huge public expenditure splurges. No doubt Clinton or Obama would introduce change. The change would involve higher taxation.
In her appearance at the Faith in Public Life's Compassion Forum at Messiah College, near Harrisburg in Pennsylvania, Clinton sought to justify her support for abortion. According to CNN having met- in Romania- a group of women who were forced by the Communist regime to give birth to as many children as possible, Hillary Clinton became a supporter of women's right to abortion. As far as Clinton is concerned it justifiable to to destroy the life of the unborn child in the womb because of the sins of the regime.
She said that every woman should be allowed to make her own decision and that abortion should remain safe and legal. God should have no say in the matter. Clinton proclaims herself a Christian. Unfortunately and regretfully she is a Christian in name only. She has set herself against the laws of God. The fifth commandment states” Thou shalt not kill”. No ifs no buts. Women are not compelled by the US Government to have children. How does she justify her support for abortion in the US? Fact of the matter is that Clinton wishes to to climb to power with the support of the pro aborts. c 1.37 MILLION children were aborted in the US in 2007. In excess of 50,000,000 babies have been done to death by abortion in the US since Roe V Wade. Clinton lacks the moral fibre to oppose the abortion holocaust. She is a weak and cowardly politician.
Clinton, asked whether she believed life begins at conception, replied that "the potential for life begins at conception," adding that the Methodist church, her denomination, had "struggled with this issue." Once more she runs for cover. She uses a formula of words to obfuscate. Life begins at conception. She knows that but cannot admit the truth.
She refers to the Holy Spirit. Does she seriously believe that abortion is in accord with God’s wishes?
Clinton told CNN's Campbell Brown and Newsweek's Jon Meacham. "I don't think that I could have made my life's journey without being anchored in God's grace and without having that, you know, sense of forgiveness and unconditional love”. Those who support abortion have set themselves against Gods grace. Where is the unconditional love for the unborn child in the womb?
Those politicians who promote abortion have the blood of innocent children on their hands. No Christian can in good conscience vote for a politician who advocates abortion. The right to life is absolute. Sen Robert P Casey (Jnr) Pa and former congressman Timothy J. Roemer both of whom oppose abortion should reconsider their support for Obama. Hopefully Clinton and Obama will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
The Pope arrives in the U.S. on Tuesday afternoon and will be greeted by President Bush at Andrews Air Force Base. He will visit Washington and New York from April 15 -20.
It is anticipated that he may refer to the evils of abortion. Benedict’s clarity on the abortion issue leaves no room for doubt. It may influence millions of Catholic voters, many of whom live in key swing states such as Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Undoubtedly Pope Benedict will refrain from comment on the election itself. Nevertheless he will propound Catholic dogma and doctrine with vigour.
Clinton and Obama support the destruction of unborn life in the womb and embryonic stem cell research. In fact both support partial birth abortion. Whilst John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research, he is strongly pro life.
Catholics who intend to vote for Clinton or Obama support the slaughter of the innocents and are at odds with church teaching. Essentially they are thumbing their noses at the Fifth Commandment.
All Catholics in good conscience must pose the question. Would Jesus support the pro-abortion stance of Clinton or Obama? Self evidently no. Whilst they may like Clinton’s or Obama’s stances on other issues the right to life has pre eminence. No Catholic in good conscience can vote for Obama or Clinton. It is a choice between God and Satan. Hopefully all Catholic religious will live up to the tenets of their religion and support McCain.
"Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured."
"Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff's deputy in late February."This is video of Hillary Clinton telling the story in Wyoming on March 8, 2008.
Gov. Jon Corzine, a Clinton super delegate, has just stated on CNBC's Squawk Box that he reserves the right to change his vote from Hillary Clinton if she doesn't win the popular vote. Looks like its curtains for Clinton. It is highly unlikely that the super delegates will deprive Obama of the nomination if he wins the popular vote. To do so would precipitate a cataclysmic split in the Democratic Party as African Americans departed.
ABC This Week 123007. Hillary thought that Pervez Musharraf was on the ballot in Pakistan's upcoming Parliamentary Elections which were held on February 18, 2008. He was re-elected as President to a 5-year term in October 2007.This was a major gaffe. It provides further evidence that Clinton is out of touch on foreign policy issues. Her foreign policy claims are built on foundations of sand.
Lets call a spade a spade. This video shows clearly that Hillary Clinton told lies in relation to her trip to Bosnia. It should be compulsive viewing for Hillary. Today Clinton told a news conference that the wear and tear of the presidential campaign had caused her to misspeak about the circumstances of the visit. "I made a mistake and, you know, I had a different memory," she said. "And you know, my staff and others have, you know, all kind of come together trying to sort out. So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I am human."
This was no mistake. It was a calculated effort to exaggerate her claims of foreign policy experience. Lets be blunt. Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts . She lacks the good grace to admit that she told untruths. She is treating the electorate with contempt.
She spoke about her contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. In reality she took no part in any negotiations.
She claims that she argued for US military intervention in Rwanda. No evidence of this exists. What does exist is evidence that Bill Clinton stood idly by and allowed the butchery of between 800,000 and one million people.
Clinton's foreign policy claims are in ashes.
Lies are nothing new to Mrs Clinton. For years she claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary of Mt. Everest fame. On May 29, 1953, Edmund Hillary of New Zealand and Tenzing Norgay of Nepal became the first human beings to conquer Mount Everest. How did Hillary Diane Rodham born in 1947 get named after a man who the world came to know some 6 years later? Eventually she admitted that she was not named after Sir Edmund.
