Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton


Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump meet my standards for President of the United States. I will vote for neither of them. The question then is who do I vote for?

I have swallowed hard and accepted Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

No candidate will be perfect, that is certain. I have realized I am far more libertarian than I once thought, although I still have reservations about foreign policy of the libertarians. Even so, I pinched my nose and accepted that I would vote for an admitted adult pot smoker who is a little zany.

The other day CNN interviewed him. He was asked what he would do about Aleppo. Johnson didn’t know what Aleppo is. Neither did I. Neither did most people, if they are honest.

Johnson was forthright in that he didn’t know, and has admitted that this may sink his candidacy. Eh. His candidacy wasn’t likely to succeed. It may have sunk any chance he did have though as he probably won’t get extra support he needs to get into the debates.

I am not concerned by not knowing what Aleppo is and I appreciate his candor and not weaseling out of a difficult issue. It doesn’t help him, and I’m probably voting for a loser, but I would be too if I pulled the lever for Clinton or Trump.

We deserve a better selection. The Republicans kept saying that and they ended up with Trump. America is being disrespected from within.

Go to D.C., Get Rich

Hillary Clinton famously told us that she and Bill were broke when they left the White House in 2001. They are now worth is reported over $100 million.


It’s a familiar tale: go to Washington, D.C. and get rich.

Vice President Joe Biden is a career politician. He has held no other job since 1973. Yet, he lives in a mansion. How?

It’s not just Democrats; this is truly a bi-partisan phenomenon.

You might be able to make a case for the Clintons for as a former president, you have an asset to generate money (although it certainly looks like they were criminal in their endeavors).

But what about Bernie Sanders?

Sanders is a self-professed socialist. It is reported he didn’t earn a paycheck until he was 40 and that was a government check. That may not be quite accurate because it is also reported that he wrote pornography back in the 1970s. I think it is fair to say he was no more than “average” in his earning history.

Since 1981, Sanders has been a public employee save for the the two years 1989-91. During his run for POTUS this year, it was suggested Sanders was the poorest person ever to vie for the office. Again, I am not certain how accurate that claim is. But a man who has held public office solely for 35 years certainly would not be wealthy.

Yet, today it is reported that Sanders purchased his third home. This vacation home merely cost $575,000.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an advocate for the working people, has bought his third house for nearly $600,000.

Fresh off the presidential campaign trail, the self-described Democratic socialist bought a seasonal waterfront home in North Hero, Vermont, in the Lake Champlain islands, for $575,000, as first reported by Seven Days weekly newspaper.

The independent senator and his wife also own a row house in Washington, D.C., and a home in Burlington, Vermont, a Sanders’ spokesman said Thursday.

Nice work if you can get it.

This is why the average man loses faith in politics. There is no way a public employee should be able to such luxury based solely on his public salary. His connections should not bridge the salary to the luxury. Sanders’s character is shattered and his supporters should note that.


All that hype about Hillary’s speech led to a ho hum speech. She took care of herself. She was not particularly emphatic for Obama. Consider me a skeptic, but it feels like she is positioning herself for 2012.

Yeah, 2012. You heard Bill today, yes? Candidate X will not be able to deliver. It feels like that is the Clinton strategy.

How does Obama handle this?

Hillary, Assissination, and the Record

Much hay is being made about Hillary Clinton’s comment invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy. The thing is, it isn’t the first time she has done so to make her point.

I have no issue with Sen. Clinton’s remark. She was trying to defend why she shouldn’t drop out of the race. To support her side she pointed to other Democratic races that weren’t won until June or after. Certainly 1968 was one of them given Kennedy was the front-runner when he was assassinated.

The issue with what she said isn’t the assassination remark, it’s that Bill Clinton didn’t win the nomination until June 1992. After the New York Primary in April, he was the presumptive nominee.

Bill was the clear front runner now [ed: after Super Tuesday]; however a grassroots strategy by Jerry Brown pulled him awfully close to the Arkansas governor. Brown used a 1-800 number to call mass numbers of people and receive funding for his campaign. His wins in Connecticut and Colorado made it look like he was going to take over Bill. However a series of controversial bumps set Brown behind and Clinton won the Democratic nomination in early April after his win in New York.

Seattle Politicore


Way back in college I was a Psychology major for a semester or two. I changed majors frequently. Here’s a little tidbit . . . I was even an Art major for a semester. Ha! Anyone who has ever seen my “art” will cackle at that. Anyhow, I recall during my Intro to Pysch class learning about subliminal advertising. I was fascinated by it. The man with the erection in the Camel logo, a women in a nighty on a staircase that spelt out sex with the x crossed at her vagina, etc. It was all so . . . juvenile. Anyway, I thought it was interesting stuff when I was 18.

I am amazed at this kerfuffle-in-the-making over the latest Hillary Clinton commercial. Before we get into it, dear reader, watch the above video.

Did you notice anything?

Watch again.


What if I point out to look at the child’s pajamas? Watch it. Anything?

What if I told you the letters visible on his pajamas are NIG. Anything?

After reading Ann Althouse’s piece, I still had no idea what the issue was. NIG? National Institute of . . . ? I just couldn’t figure it out. Then I read a commenter who mentioned race and it finally clicked in: NIG, according to Althouse, is supposed to conjure up nigger, as in Obama.

Sheesh, people. This is a stretch. A major stretch. And I am not buying it. I don’t care for Clinton any more than any other conservative, and I know her campaign is in trouble, but to believe that her campaign is spelling out partial racial epithets on children’s clothing in the hopes of the viewer putting the it together is definitely beyond where my reality extends to.

I know, that’s why it’s called subliminal.


What a political ad! McCain is really pushing for the presidency. Without question, he is right on the war. Immigration and campaign finance reform are big stumbling blocks, however. But just look at this ad.

Now compare it to Hillary Clinton’s. (ed. Unfortunately, after all these years, I can only find it at C-SPAN at this link. 12/24/21)

There’s a huge difference, yes?

And then there’s Fred Thompson’s message. Maybe his campaign is not dead after all. Powerful!

Clinton Busts a Gut

Readers of this blog should recognize I am not a supporter of the Clintons. Nevertheless, today’s video from the Clinton campaign is extremely funny.

For those of you who have not followed her campaign, there has been a contest to select a campaign theme song. If you recall, when Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he used Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop. There’s been a lot of buzz about Hillary’s contest with many folks wanting Smashmouth’s version of the Monkees’ I’m a Believer to win.

The video sharing the winning song is a reprise of the final scene from the Sopranos. While I thought it was a horrible way to end the series, it is pure genius for the political campaign. This is exactly the right use of the Internet to connect to voters. Hillary has been reaching out much better than all the other candidates in this regard. This will be water cooler fodder for a long time.

I do have two negative thoughts, however, about the video. One, Bill Clinton will never cease to amaze me. He is redefining the “dignity” that former presidents enjoy. Two, Hillary selected a campaign theme song sung by a Canadian. That does not seem particularly patriotic.

Spend Spend Spend

Watching the CNN Democratic debate this evening is like my grandmother watching QVC: eyes wide open, everybody is spending money!

This week Senator Obama took some heat as he proposed a universal healthcare program under his presidency. He pitched no figures, but some did the research and found that Obama thinks it will cost only $50-60 billion dollars. Of course, that is after he raises an equal amount of taxes on “the rich”.

The Edwards campaign complained about Obama’s plan stating that Edwards plans a “truly universal” plan that will come in at $90-120 billion annually. At least he’s honest.

The last question of the debate was asked by a substitute teacher. She wanted to know the big issue each would tackle during his first 100 days in office. Edwards was the first asked. His answer:

Travel the world.

Seriously. The man has an image issue as he spent campaign funds for his haircuts ($400 apiece) and spa visits. This week we learned that during his run with Senator Kerry in 2004, Edwards renovated his campaign plane on the taxpayer’s dime. Answering that his first move would be to travel on the taxpayers’ wallet does not bode well for his campaign. Edwards is seen as a person living large on other people’s money.

He also wants to send every student to college with tax dollars.

I do not see Edwards lasting through the primary season.

Richardson wants to guarantee a $40,000 starting salary for teachers.  Of course, that will not win him any votes in New Jersey; NJEA’s current campaign is to raise starting salaries to $50,000.

Dodd was unwilling to take a pledge to veto any bill that includes earmarks.  Given that he is unlikely to win the nomination, he insured his place in Congress by hedging.  Back in January, Dodd joined Biden and Clinton in voting against an amendment that would assign the senator’s name to the earmark included in any bill; namely, we would know who is slipping the pork into the bill. Those three presidential hopefuls do not believe the citizens deserve to know who is pushing through pork without vetting the issue.

All I heard tonight was to stop the war and spend.  Democrats need to heed Bob Kerrey’s advice or 2008 is going to be a huge disappointment.