Archive for the ‘hillary clinton’ Category

Obama’s Vague Promises = Inevitable Leftist Dismay

December 20, 2008

The deepening disenchantment on the far Left with Barack Obama has sparked a campaign here in New England to track Mr. Obama’s appointments and moves as he prepares to take office. Folks at The Phoenix group of alternative newspapers (Boston,Providence, Portland) have started a site named Take Back Barack.

Jeff Inglis, a commentator at the site, writes yesterday (excerpts,emphasis added):

….I’ve come to a deeper understanding of this visceral feeling I have of worry about Obama….

….Only time will tell whether Obama will do the right things, the things we voted for him to do – withdraw from Iraq, improve our education system, fix healthcare, green the economy. Many liberals and progressives are counseling us to wait and see, to give Obama a chance to make change.

That is the wrong path. We cannot sit back on whatever laurels we may have heard by electing Obama and let him do what he and his advisors want. We must remain constantly involved, a constant force to push Obama, his advisors, and Congress to do what we know needs to be done.

He might just do the right things, even if we left him alone. But we can’t take that chance - especially with the advisors he has chosen. Maybe he can take the Clinton out of Hillary and the McCain out of Jim Jones. Maybe they will come around – or even already have – to share Obama’s views on many topics. But I’m not willing to bet my future, my country’s future on that….Obama called on us to stand up and take our country back. We need to do that - and we start by Taking Back Barack.

Ralph Nader is not happy either. On Democracy Now (Dec 5) here is Nader in an exchange with Amy Goodman (excerpts):

…after appointing all the heavyweights, keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton at State Department, and other positions—Treasury, for example, coming from Wall Street—the article said, well, it’s time now to consider some liberal appointees….Well, what’s left?….As long as liberals and progressives gave Obama a pass during the election and didn’t demand anything in return, he knew that he had their votes and he had their support regardless and moved right, moved to the corporate. And that’s reflected in the appointments that he has been putting in place….Now we look forward to the second level. Who’s going to be Food and Drug Administration head? Who’s going to be the head of the Auto Safety Agency or EPA? Will so-called liberals and progressives get their share of the Obama administration at that second level? It remains to be seen. But the signs are not very auspicious.

….(Obama) defeated Hillary Clinton in a close race, and now he’s reinstalling the Bill Clinton administration. Now, there are two interpretations, briefly, here. One, it could reflect his insecurity. That way, by putting Clintonites all over the government and keeping Gates, he is basically eliminating a lot of potential centers of criticism and challenge to his administration after January 20….

Amy Goodman asks about the Marine General Jim Jones nomination as National Security Adviser:

Jim Jones is basically the representative of what President Eisenhower cautioned us about, the military-industrial complex. He is experienced. He’s clever. And now he’s in the White House. So the question is, who’s going to run what? Is Obama going to transform Jim Jones? Is Obama going to transform all these establishment appointees? Or are they going to, in effect, transform him, in contrast to his more liberal rhetoric?

Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin is with Nader in this discussion and she has much to say about Iraq and Afghanistan; we’ll leave that for a later post. Stay tuned.

h/t Brian Maloney: Radio Equalizer

Obama Dismays the Left

Oh No! Glass Ceiling Repaired: Hillary Takes Pay Cut

December 12, 2008

We reported earlier (12/04/08) that Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State was in jeopardy for constitutional reasons:

There is a long history of controversy and litigation regarding the provision in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting members of Congress from subsequently attaining to federal offices offering increased monetary compensation due to the largess of the Congress in which they sat. The most recent example is that of Hillary Clinton who has been nominated to the office of Secretary of State. In Clinton’s case the salary for the position was increased, not by Congress, but via an executive order by President Bush as a COL increase.

In any event the Constitutional provision comes in to play: (CNS reports)…the Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration. (CNS reporting again)

Since the bill passed both houses of Congress unanimously, we are guessing that Senator Byrd chose to approve this end run around the constitution.Here is James Taranto at WSJ online writing today:

As if she hasn’t already suffered enough indignities at the hands of the unfairer sex, Hillary Clinton will make “about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice,” the Associated Press reports:

Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Mrs. Clinton’s nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job’s pay was increased during the lawmaker’s current term.In other words, Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been ineligible to serve in the post because she was serving in Congress when Rice’s salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So late Wednesday, the House and Senate quietly rolled the secretary of state’s salary back to $186,600, its level in January 2007 when Clinton began her second Senate term.So as a result of the emoluments clause–written by dead white males–Mrs. Clinton will be earning less than a man would for the same job. She’ll even be earning less than another woman now makes! (emphasis added)

Glass-Ceiling-Still-Intact

Sen. Byrd: Staunch Constitutionalist Re Hillary, But Obama?

December 4, 2008

There is a long history of controversy and litigation regarding the provision in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting members of Congress from subsequently attaining to federal offices offering  increased monetary compensation due to the largess of the Congress in which they sat. The most recent example is that of Hillary Clinton who has been nominated to the office of Secretary of State. In Clinton’s case the salary for the position was increased, not by Congress, but via an executive order by President Bush as a COL increase. In any event the Constitutional provision comes in to play: (CNS reports)

The question of eligibility arises from Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. It says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a civil office that benefited from a salary increase during the time that House or Senate member served. On Jan. 4, 2008, President Bush signed an executive order raising the salaries of cabinet secretaries from $186,600 to $191,300, a cost of living adjustment….

Meanwhile….

The Senate’s senior member and staunchest constitutional advocate on the Democratic side of the aisle, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is exploring whether Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is eligible to become secretary of state in the Obama administration. (CNS reporting again)

Now Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has a long history in the Senate and consequently a long history in looking at this particular issue. In speaking of a 1973 case during the Nixon administration when there was a circumvention of the  Constitution by lowering the salary in question, Byrd said:

(The Constitution) “is so clear it can’t be waived…In my judgment, the bill itself shouldn’t be passed. We should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

From a Washington Post story at the time via CNS

One wonders if the distinguished Senator from West Viginia will be as diligent in his constitutional fervor when it comes to the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

The Presidency is About Control, But Who Ever Controlled The Clintons?

November 22, 2008

biehillie

Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can’t control each other. … I think it’s because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, ‘You’re going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That’s issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.’

(Bob Woodward in remarks (emphasis added) from advance transcript of tomorrow’s The Chris Matthews Show)

Perhaps you’re wondering why the proposed Obama administration is looking so familiar, kinda like a Clinton third term. It has certainly teed off the hard lefties among his supporters. Joe Conason over at Salon.com attempts to ‘splain away:

….Wasn’t Obama the One who would exorcise the Clintonite demons from our midst and cleanse the capital of their sins?….Obama no doubt understood that he would be courting disappointment or worse among those whose measure of him depended on his supposed distance from the Clintons. Having encouraged those assumptions as a matter of political necessity, he must have realized within days of his election that if he made selections based on merit, he would inevitably recruit many of the best and brightest of the last Democratic administration…..(now here comes the funny part! emphasis added))….

If her experience in national security and foreign policy were as shallow as advertised back then, after all, on what basis could he offer her the position of top diplomat? If her judgment were as poor as charged by him and others over the past two years, then why would he place such heavy responsibilities on her shoulders? If her honesty were as questionable as his campaign sometimes claimed, then how can he trust her now?

The answer is not necessarily that his campaign rhetoric was false or insincere, but that he developed respect for her over the difficult months of that harsh contest — and came to believe that she would be as formidable at his side as she was in his face.

Not dishonesty or flip-flopping eh Joe?

Jawa Report blog has a theory about the re-emergence of the Clintons: (A Conspiracy You Can Believe In):

What if the Clintons have something on Obama that they’re hanging over his head? Something so destructive and devastating to his Presidency that it could destroy it if made public? What if they’re using it to shoehorn their peeps into positions they want – essentially blackmailing him with whatever it could be? Doesn’t it just seem odd that Obama, who beat Clinton handily and won the campaign convincingly, would have to keep groveling and checking-in with Hillary and Bill? And why exactly are so many Clinton holdovers being seated in the new administration?

Gives one pause, eh? Especially with all of the lawsuits around the country seeking to settle the matter of Obama’s eligibility to be President. The most significant of these is the one by Leo Donofrio now before our Supreme Court and scheduled for conferencing by the justices on Dec. 5. For a fair and balanced account of the various cases please go to the America’s Right blog written by Jeff Schreiber. Be sure to read the sidebar there containing links to many articles and cases. Donofrio’s page* Natural Born Citizen on the blogtext.org site is now missing as well as all the other blogs there; appears to be a cyber attack. We have previously written about the eligibility question here and here.

*Update:Received word that Leo Donofrio’s site page has been resurrected  here.

Other sites to visit for further information are Michelle Malkin about Hill SecState , and about the eligibility controversy see Atlas Shrugs and TD Blog.

Obama: The Opera “Ohmmm! Salvatore!”

November 15, 2008

We don’t know the author of this satirical piece (found at Garden Web) but it’s a fun read; knowing a smidgen of Italian helps but not mandatory! Earlier this year we mentioned “An Inconvenient Truth”, an opera commissioned by La Scala to appear in 2011. An yes, Bill Ayers is in the show ( Guglielmo Ayers, terroristo Americano, amico dello Obama Tenore Anarchico)

Here is “Obama: The Opera” (trumpet flourish!)…..read it here.….

obama-the-opera

Father Michael Pfleger – Not Quite Over the Top This time

November 10, 2008

pfleger
The MP3 below is an excerpt from the first post election homily at St Sabina R.C. Church (11/9/08) by Father Michael Pfleger who so disappointed Barck Obama with his Hillary Clinton tirade at Rev. Wright’s church. He gets quite carried away and the parishioners love it. He says that along with Oprah (and Louis Farrakhan for that matter) he is now freed to re-enter the fray with Barack Obama. The histrionics are amazing! (video below the audio link))

Pfleger-110908-06:42 (MP3)


h/t Michelle Malkin

Obama Natural Born?: Questions Persist

October 12, 2008

This video adds powerful fuel to the smoldering fire i.e. questions, about Barack Obama’s birthplace and citizenship. I would not be surprised to see this video pulled from You Tube. A note of caution: Attorney Berg has been associated with some very controversial legal actions in the past including one concerning the 911 conspiracies.
h/t Blogmeister USA

Also see American Thinker

Obama Change = Clinton III

July 18, 2008

funny pictures

There is no change evident in the Obama campaign. What we see is a potential third Clinton term; many of the Obama foreign policy advisers are holdovers from the Hillary campaign or retreads from the Bill Clinton administration. According to New York Times today a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, (are assembled) to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.” Here are some snippets to show the huge influence of ex-Clintonians in the Obama camp:

….an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Most of the core members of his team served in government during President Bill Clinton’s administration and by and large were junior to the advisers who worked on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. But they remain in charge within the campaign even as it takes on more senior figures from the Clinton era, like two former secretaries of state, Madeleine K. Albright and Warren Christopher, and are positioned to put their own stamp on the party’s foreign policy

Most of them, like the candidate they are working for, distinguished themselves from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy camp by early opposition to the Iraq war. They also tend to be more liberal and to emphasize using the “soft power” of diplomacy and economic aid to try to advance the interests of the United States. Still, their positions fall well within centrist Democratic foreign policy thinking,

Mr. Obama’s core team is led by Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration, who has pushed for a tougher response to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, and Anthony Lake, Mr. Clinton’s first national security adviser,

The core group also includes Gregory B. Craig, a former top official in the Clinton State Department who served as the president’s lawyer during his impeachment trial; Richard J. Danzig, a Navy secretary in the Clinton administration
(emphasis added)

Source: NY Times 7/18/08

Now That Hillary’s Gone (Or Is She?)

June 5, 2008

From James Taranto’s “Best of the Web Today”, a Wall Street Jouranal opinion piece:

Is She Really Out?
We got a campaign email today from Hillary Clinton in the wee hours this morning that almost reads like a concession:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

An extremely close reading of that last sentence, though, leads one to wonder. “If he were the Democratic Party’s nominee,” she writes. This is the subjunctive mood (sic), which implies a counterfactual assumption. It’s possible, though, that we’re reading this too closely…

On a related note about a possible Obama-Clinton ticket we have this from Jimmy Carter (Fox News):

Jimmy Carter urged Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate in an interview with a British publication, saying such a pairing “would be the worst mistake that could be made….The former Democratic president, who announced his support for Obama as the Illinois senator clinched his party’s nomination Tuesday night, told the Guardian’s Weekend magazine that Obama and Clinton together “would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates…..In a bluntly worded assessment, Carter defended his stance by citing Clinton’s negative ratings and the many questions and biases Obama faces….If you take that 50 percent who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds,” he said. (emphasis added)

As to the question about an “Arab sounding” name we note the lead from an article in todays “Le Monde”:

Le candidat du Parti démocrate à la présidence des Etats-Unis, le 4 novembre, sera donc Barack Hussein Obama, 46 ans, fils d’une Américaine et d’un Kényan, né à Hawaï, élevé en partie en Indonésie, étudiant à l’université Harvard, travailleur social dans le ghetto noir de Chicago, entré au Sénat, à Washington, il y a trois ans et demi.

Hell, why not just put Michelle Obama on the ticket; you could call it impeachment insurance! After all Hillary was virtual V.P. all those years.
h/t Someecards

Hillary Bloodied, Battles ON….

May 12, 2008


h/t Graphic: Conservative Punk


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.