The candidacy of Barack Obama made me look at Hillary Clinton (and her husband) in a whole new light. I would have never thought someone could make me like and long for the Clintons, but Obama did just that. During the campaign, I was torn between rooting for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination (because I think she would have made a much better president than him) and rooting for Obama (because I didn't think he could win, whereas I thought Hillary could).
Obviously, I was wrong on that last point. We are now facing an Obama administration, and I am looking back with a degree of fondness on Clinton's America and feeling sick to my stomach about what may lie ahead. But the recent talk about Mrs. Clinton possibly serving as Obama's Secretary of State gives me some hope that maybe he is not as far gone as I feared. As Jonah Goldberg points out, it would be a head scratcher, since foreign policy was one of the areas in which Obama and Clinton had the greatest differences. But it has the radical leftists up in arms, and that is a good sign, no?
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC Thoughts
Thought #1: Watching the video that introduced Hillary Clinton at the DNC last night and then watching her deliver her speech, I have to say that I felt her pain. I thought all along that she was the better and more formidable candidate in the Democrat primary race, as well as the one who was most deserving of the nomination. If I were a Democrat, Hillary supporter or not, I think I would have found myself shaking my head with regret that my convention had nominated the wrong person. Instead, as a Republican, I am feeling relieved that they did so.
Thought #2: I am starting to wonder what kind of incompetents Barack Obama has running his campaign. Did you see this article about the plans being made for his acceptance speech tomorrow night? Seems to me that it only feeds the perception of Obama as being just a little too smitten with himself. But hey, I guess the Hillary supporters might appreciate the ancient Greek theme: it makes it seem more likely that some kind of deus ex machina might swoop down, pluck Obama off the stage, and drop Hillary into his place.
(Memo to Hillary supporters: sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm afraid you're stuck with Narcissus. And you have my deepest sympathies.)
Thought #2: I am starting to wonder what kind of incompetents Barack Obama has running his campaign. Did you see this article about the plans being made for his acceptance speech tomorrow night? Seems to me that it only feeds the perception of Obama as being just a little too smitten with himself. But hey, I guess the Hillary supporters might appreciate the ancient Greek theme: it makes it seem more likely that some kind of deus ex machina might swoop down, pluck Obama off the stage, and drop Hillary into his place.
(Memo to Hillary supporters: sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm afraid you're stuck with Narcissus. And you have my deepest sympathies.)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
More Anagrams
My children and I have had no end of laughs this morning since discovering the anagram site mentioned in the last few posts (thanks again, Susan). My son did a little more exploring of the site and discovered the "Anagram Hall of Fame." Here are just a few of the treasures you will find there:
dormitory = dirty room
Clint Eastwood = Old West action
Madame Curie = Radium came
The Morse Code = Here come dots
Conversation = Voices rant on
Mother-in-law = Woman Hitler
The United States of America = Attaineth its cause, freedom
Statue of Liberty = Built to Stay Free
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one
William Jefferson Clinton = Jail Mrs Clinton: felon wife
(by Ward Hardman)
George Bush = He bugs Gore
(by Mike Morton)
Ronald Wilson Reagan = No, darlings, no ERA law
(by Mike Morton)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea = Huge water tale stuns. End had you tense.
(by E.L. Benfer)
To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. = In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.
(by Cory Calhoun)
dormitory = dirty room
Clint Eastwood = Old West action
Madame Curie = Radium came
The Morse Code = Here come dots
Conversation = Voices rant on
Mother-in-law = Woman Hitler
The United States of America = Attaineth its cause, freedom
Statue of Liberty = Built to Stay Free
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one
William Jefferson Clinton = Jail Mrs Clinton: felon wife
(by Ward Hardman)
George Bush = He bugs Gore
(by Mike Morton)
Ronald Wilson Reagan = No, darlings, no ERA law
(by Mike Morton)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea = Huge water tale stuns. End had you tense.
(by E.L. Benfer)
To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. = In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.
(by Cory Calhoun)
Friday, March 7, 2008
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
Just in case you missed it, here's Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor commenting on the Democratic candidates' readiness to answer that infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call. It's short--all of about 10 seconds--and not to be missed. Take a listen.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Who Would Have Thought . . .
. . . that Super Tuesday #2 would have found me--a committed Republican who cast my vote for John McCain--sitting on the edge of my seat in front of my television set waiting in breathless anticipation not for McCain's "I've clinched the nomination" victory speech but instead for election results in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries? And who would have thought that when those results came in I would have found myself cheering for Mrs. Clinton and chanting along with her supporters in the crowd, "Hil-lar-y, Hil-lar-y" and "Yes, she can; yes, she can"?
You go, girl. Because as long as you and Mr. Obama are battling each other, you are spending less energy going after John McCain. And if by chance you can win this nomination, I will be a little more optimistic about GOP presidential prospects as well as about the fate of the country should we have a Democrat president. And finally, as much as I hate to agree with your husband, I have to say he's right--you are more entitled to this than Mr. Obama. You have worked longer and harder to get here and--darn it!--it just wouldn't be fair for that young, smooth-talking whippersnapper to slither in and take it away from you. So hang in there, Hillary--I'm behind you all the way (well, maybe not all the way).
You go, girl. Because as long as you and Mr. Obama are battling each other, you are spending less energy going after John McCain. And if by chance you can win this nomination, I will be a little more optimistic about GOP presidential prospects as well as about the fate of the country should we have a Democrat president. And finally, as much as I hate to agree with your husband, I have to say he's right--you are more entitled to this than Mr. Obama. You have worked longer and harder to get here and--darn it!--it just wouldn't be fair for that young, smooth-talking whippersnapper to slither in and take it away from you. So hang in there, Hillary--I'm behind you all the way (well, maybe not all the way).
Friday, February 8, 2008
Nitpicking
Every once in a while the English teacher in me just has to surface . . . .
All day long today in news reports on Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign funding "troubles" (I use quotation marks because there is some question about whether the whole thing was staged or real), I have repeatedly heard the statement--from news anchors, analysts and Hillary herself--that she had to "loan" her campaign money.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! "Loan" is a noun. "Lend" is a verb. So you take out a loan, you ask for a loan, you apply for a loan, you are turned down for a loan . . . but you lend someone money (or better yet, someone lends it to you). To say that you loaned your campaign money (as Hillary did) is just bad diction.
Sorry--this kind of stuff pains me, and today it was so pervasive that it gave me a bona fide grammar headache. But writing about it is like taking a pill. I feel better now!
All day long today in news reports on Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign funding "troubles" (I use quotation marks because there is some question about whether the whole thing was staged or real), I have repeatedly heard the statement--from news anchors, analysts and Hillary herself--that she had to "loan" her campaign money.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! "Loan" is a noun. "Lend" is a verb. So you take out a loan, you ask for a loan, you apply for a loan, you are turned down for a loan . . . but you lend someone money (or better yet, someone lends it to you). To say that you loaned your campaign money (as Hillary did) is just bad diction.
Sorry--this kind of stuff pains me, and today it was so pervasive that it gave me a bona fide grammar headache. But writing about it is like taking a pill. I feel better now!
Monday, February 4, 2008
More on McCain
It suddenly seems that everywhere I "click" I run into another column mirroring the theme of my "Four Days and Counting" post endorsing John McCain. If you are a conservative who is still undecided about your vote tomorrow, please take some time to survey the opinions below. They represent what I think is some of the soundest thinking on McCain's conservatism (or lack thereof) as well as on the qustion of electability and what for me is THE defining issue of this election year: the face of the Supreme Court that will be handing down judicial decisions over the next generation.
Jeff Jacoby, "A Conservative's Case for McCain"
Fred Barnes, "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives"
Burt Prelutzky, "Republicans Can't Afford to be Party Poopers in 2008"
The Anchoress, "Are Our Ideologies Our Idols?" and "'Faith-Based' and Hand-Wringing"
Calabresi and McGinnis, "McCain and the Supreme Court" (if you read no other of these columns, please read this one)
I know many of you are tired of talking, reading, and thinking about this election. After tomorrow I think I will be ready to let this topic go for a little while, too (although I don't know if I can go as far as the Anchoress and give up political writing for Lent!). But every day I become more convinced that the Republican Party's best hope for influencing the direction of our country over the next 25 years is John McCain. If Romney gets the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support him and cast my vote for him in November. But I don't have great hopes that he can win, especially not if Obama is the Democratic nominee. In his rhetoric and image, Romney just bears too many similarities to Obama--attractive candidate and family, superb oratorical skills, talk of "newness" and "change" and "unity" and a "fresh" direction for our country. He is competing on Obama's turf, and I just don't think he can win. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary, I think Romney has a somewhat better chance, because then he really can play the "fresh" and "new" Washington outsider card. But I don't think we'll know for several months who the Democratic nominee is going to be, which is why I think on the all-important electability question McCain is the way to go.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. I'm done now.
Jeff Jacoby, "A Conservative's Case for McCain"
Fred Barnes, "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives"
Burt Prelutzky, "Republicans Can't Afford to be Party Poopers in 2008"
The Anchoress, "Are Our Ideologies Our Idols?" and "'Faith-Based' and Hand-Wringing"
Calabresi and McGinnis, "McCain and the Supreme Court" (if you read no other of these columns, please read this one)
I know many of you are tired of talking, reading, and thinking about this election. After tomorrow I think I will be ready to let this topic go for a little while, too (although I don't know if I can go as far as the Anchoress and give up political writing for Lent!). But every day I become more convinced that the Republican Party's best hope for influencing the direction of our country over the next 25 years is John McCain. If Romney gets the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support him and cast my vote for him in November. But I don't have great hopes that he can win, especially not if Obama is the Democratic nominee. In his rhetoric and image, Romney just bears too many similarities to Obama--attractive candidate and family, superb oratorical skills, talk of "newness" and "change" and "unity" and a "fresh" direction for our country. He is competing on Obama's turf, and I just don't think he can win. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary, I think Romney has a somewhat better chance, because then he really can play the "fresh" and "new" Washington outsider card. But I don't think we'll know for several months who the Democratic nominee is going to be, which is why I think on the all-important electability question McCain is the way to go.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. I'm done now.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Four Days and Counting
So tonight, with my state's primary election looming, I decided it was time to settle on a candidate. And after several hours online visiting websites and looking up policy statements and past votes and quotes on issues, I made my choice: on Tuesday I will be voting for John McCain.
If my chance to vote had come a little earlier, I would have probably gone with Fred Thompson because in spite of my reservations about his passion for the office, he was the viable candidate whose views best reflected my own. But of course Fred is out, and so is Rudy Giuliani, the other candidate to whom I was giving serious consideration. I had previously decided against both Huckabee and Paul, so that now leaves me with a choice between Romney and McCain.
I have all along been unable to enthusiastically embrace any of these Republican candidates, having doubts about all of them. Thus my indecision a mere four days before the vote. But I will admit that I have always had a "soft spot" for McCain and thus a difficult time understanding the anti-McCain passion, even hatred, that often spills from the lips of many of today's vocal conservatives.
For example, this video of Ann Coulter promising to endorse and campaign for Hillary Clinton should McCain get the nomination confirms my growing suspicion of her as a complete loose cannon and self-serving publicity hound, and I will forthwith be removing her link from my sidebar:
I just don't understand how anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative and would be better for the country than John McCain. I also don't accept the argument that there is little difference between the two. Here are just a few issues illustrating the chasm that exists between these two frontrunners of their respective parties:
On Abortion
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade, voted yes on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 0% rating from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 75% rating from the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee).
Clinton supports upholding Roe v. Wade, voted no on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRLC.
On Civil Rights
McCain has a 0% rating from the ACLU, a 33% rating from the HRC and a 7% rating from the NAACP. He voted yes on banning same-sex marriage and on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds and no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He supports an amendment against flag burning and the right of formerly Confederate states to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.
Clinton has a 60% rating from the ACLU, an 89% rating from the HRC and a 96% rating from the NAACP (a rating, by the way, that indicates a strongly pro-affirmative action record). She voted no on banning same-sex marriage and on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. She also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
On Education
McCain supports homeschooling, charter schools, and vouchers as well as unrestricted block grants to states so school districts can decide for themselves how educational funds are best used. He has voted no on a host of educational funding initiatives such as $52 million for "21st century community learning centers" as well as on national education standards. He has a 45% rating from the NEA.
Clinton supports federally funded universal preschool. She is against educational vouchers and only supports choice for those in the public education system. She has never seen an education funding bill she didn't like and has an 82% rating from the NEA.
On Family Values
McCain has an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition; Clinton's rating from the same group is 0%.
On Free Trade
McCain has a 100% rating from CATO; Clinton's rating from the same group is 17%.
On Health Care
McCain is against mandating universal health care or insurance coverage; Clinton wants to universalize health care and pay for it with a huge tax increase.
On Iraq
McCain wants to achieve victory in Iraq; Clinton says she will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.
On Judges
McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Clinton will not.
I could go on. All of the above information and more is available at http://www.ontheissues.org/. The site itself reflects a slight leftward bias in its use of certain descriptive words and phrases, but the factual information is detailed and extensive. And based on that information I simply don't understand how it is possible to see the two of them as birds of a feather. I understand that McCain has taken some positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and immigration that are unpopular with conservatives. But he has an impressive gallery of supporters, he has long fought government expansion and overspending, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and his record on cutting taxes certainly beats Hillary's (72% from the NTU versus her 21%). He may not walk in lock step with the country's conservative powerhouses, but a Clinton or Obama clone he is not, and I wish people would stop making that claim. And I can't for the life of me understand how any Republican would choose to sit out this election because their first choice of candidate did not win the primary. The judges that are appointed during the next term will impact the direction of our country for a generation or more, and while we can't know for certain what to expect from any president's judicial appointments (just think back to that conservative hero Ronald Reagan), I would much rather take my chances on McCain's (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Paul's) appointees than Clinton's or Obama's.
(By the way, it is interesting to note that the site linked above describes both Romney and McCain as "populist-leaning conservatives" and places them at almost the same position on its political philosophy graph. Both Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, are "hard-core liberals." And to round out the current group, you might be interested to know that Huckabee is described as a "hard-core conservative" and Paul as a "moderate libertarian.")
So why McCain and not Romney? Even though I will admit to a certain "ick" factor with reference to his Mormonism, that is not my reason for not voting for him. McCain believes in evolution, which I view as just as false a faith as Mormonism. But voting for a president is not about finding the candidate who shares your religious views; it is about finding the candidate you believe to be most capable of leading the nation and most deserving of your trust. And with McCain I have a certain level of security that he knows what he is doing and that even though I may not agree with him on all points, I can count on him to say what he thinks and to stand up for his principles even when they are not popular. There is a record there that I can look at and feel that I know what I'm getting, whereas although Romney says a lot of the right things I have with him a much stronger sense of a politician saying and doing what is necessary to win the election, whether that means changing previously held views, promising sweeping government solutions to long-existing problems, or speaking glowingly of the sunny skies and good feelings that are going to magically manifest themselves as soon as he takes office. I respect that one can have a change of heart or mind, but in Romney's case I am not comfortable with the number of such changes he has apparently experienced in recent years (two big ones that come to mind are his views on abortion and the Department of Education). I also think that given the current state of world affairs, McCain's foreign policy experience is a huge plus, and I will frankly sleep better with him in the White House. Finally, I think McCain has a much better chance of winning in November, and I believe the importance of that simply can't be ignored, especially in a situation that to my mind offers no "dream" candidate.
If you will be voting on Super Tuesday and are undecided or simply unsure about your decision, I heartily encourage you to spend some time visiting candidates' websites, looking at specifics on issues, and visiting the site above. This is what I did tonight (at long last!), and I now feel that I can vote with some conviction and a clear conscience, if not that all-encompassing enthusiasm that has been so elusive during this very long election season.
If my chance to vote had come a little earlier, I would have probably gone with Fred Thompson because in spite of my reservations about his passion for the office, he was the viable candidate whose views best reflected my own. But of course Fred is out, and so is Rudy Giuliani, the other candidate to whom I was giving serious consideration. I had previously decided against both Huckabee and Paul, so that now leaves me with a choice between Romney and McCain.
I have all along been unable to enthusiastically embrace any of these Republican candidates, having doubts about all of them. Thus my indecision a mere four days before the vote. But I will admit that I have always had a "soft spot" for McCain and thus a difficult time understanding the anti-McCain passion, even hatred, that often spills from the lips of many of today's vocal conservatives.
For example, this video of Ann Coulter promising to endorse and campaign for Hillary Clinton should McCain get the nomination confirms my growing suspicion of her as a complete loose cannon and self-serving publicity hound, and I will forthwith be removing her link from my sidebar:
I just don't understand how anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative and would be better for the country than John McCain. I also don't accept the argument that there is little difference between the two. Here are just a few issues illustrating the chasm that exists between these two frontrunners of their respective parties:
On Abortion
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade, voted yes on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 0% rating from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 75% rating from the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee).
Clinton supports upholding Roe v. Wade, voted no on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRLC.
On Civil Rights
McCain has a 0% rating from the ACLU, a 33% rating from the HRC and a 7% rating from the NAACP. He voted yes on banning same-sex marriage and on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds and no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He supports an amendment against flag burning and the right of formerly Confederate states to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.
Clinton has a 60% rating from the ACLU, an 89% rating from the HRC and a 96% rating from the NAACP (a rating, by the way, that indicates a strongly pro-affirmative action record). She voted no on banning same-sex marriage and on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. She also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
On Education
McCain supports homeschooling, charter schools, and vouchers as well as unrestricted block grants to states so school districts can decide for themselves how educational funds are best used. He has voted no on a host of educational funding initiatives such as $52 million for "21st century community learning centers" as well as on national education standards. He has a 45% rating from the NEA.
Clinton supports federally funded universal preschool. She is against educational vouchers and only supports choice for those in the public education system. She has never seen an education funding bill she didn't like and has an 82% rating from the NEA.
On Family Values
McCain has an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition; Clinton's rating from the same group is 0%.
On Free Trade
McCain has a 100% rating from CATO; Clinton's rating from the same group is 17%.
On Health Care
McCain is against mandating universal health care or insurance coverage; Clinton wants to universalize health care and pay for it with a huge tax increase.
On Iraq
McCain wants to achieve victory in Iraq; Clinton says she will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.
On Judges
McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Clinton will not.
I could go on. All of the above information and more is available at http://www.ontheissues.org/. The site itself reflects a slight leftward bias in its use of certain descriptive words and phrases, but the factual information is detailed and extensive. And based on that information I simply don't understand how it is possible to see the two of them as birds of a feather. I understand that McCain has taken some positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and immigration that are unpopular with conservatives. But he has an impressive gallery of supporters, he has long fought government expansion and overspending, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and his record on cutting taxes certainly beats Hillary's (72% from the NTU versus her 21%). He may not walk in lock step with the country's conservative powerhouses, but a Clinton or Obama clone he is not, and I wish people would stop making that claim. And I can't for the life of me understand how any Republican would choose to sit out this election because their first choice of candidate did not win the primary. The judges that are appointed during the next term will impact the direction of our country for a generation or more, and while we can't know for certain what to expect from any president's judicial appointments (just think back to that conservative hero Ronald Reagan), I would much rather take my chances on McCain's (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Paul's) appointees than Clinton's or Obama's.
(By the way, it is interesting to note that the site linked above describes both Romney and McCain as "populist-leaning conservatives" and places them at almost the same position on its political philosophy graph. Both Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, are "hard-core liberals." And to round out the current group, you might be interested to know that Huckabee is described as a "hard-core conservative" and Paul as a "moderate libertarian.")
So why McCain and not Romney? Even though I will admit to a certain "ick" factor with reference to his Mormonism, that is not my reason for not voting for him. McCain believes in evolution, which I view as just as false a faith as Mormonism. But voting for a president is not about finding the candidate who shares your religious views; it is about finding the candidate you believe to be most capable of leading the nation and most deserving of your trust. And with McCain I have a certain level of security that he knows what he is doing and that even though I may not agree with him on all points, I can count on him to say what he thinks and to stand up for his principles even when they are not popular. There is a record there that I can look at and feel that I know what I'm getting, whereas although Romney says a lot of the right things I have with him a much stronger sense of a politician saying and doing what is necessary to win the election, whether that means changing previously held views, promising sweeping government solutions to long-existing problems, or speaking glowingly of the sunny skies and good feelings that are going to magically manifest themselves as soon as he takes office. I respect that one can have a change of heart or mind, but in Romney's case I am not comfortable with the number of such changes he has apparently experienced in recent years (two big ones that come to mind are his views on abortion and the Department of Education). I also think that given the current state of world affairs, McCain's foreign policy experience is a huge plus, and I will frankly sleep better with him in the White House. Finally, I think McCain has a much better chance of winning in November, and I believe the importance of that simply can't be ignored, especially in a situation that to my mind offers no "dream" candidate.
If you will be voting on Super Tuesday and are undecided or simply unsure about your decision, I heartily encourage you to spend some time visiting candidates' websites, looking at specifics on issues, and visiting the site above. This is what I did tonight (at long last!), and I now feel that I can vote with some conviction and a clear conscience, if not that all-encompassing enthusiasm that has been so elusive during this very long election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)