Palin Character, Values Hillary Emptiness

Scroll down to previous columns on NY congressional candidate Jim Tedisco, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton TOMORROW: WHY SARAH PALIN IS RIGHT ON ABORTION -- AND HER CRITICS ARE DEAD WRONG.

For his book, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media,” author Bernard Goldberg interviewed Rush Limbaugh.Goldberg asked Rush, among other things, what he thought about Palin Derangement Syndrome. “Why such hatred, especially from liberal feminists? Was it simply her politics or was something else at play?”

Here’s what Limbaugh has to say: “Something else. She was the only effective Republican candidate anywhere in this entire campaign – among all candidates, for all offices. Sarah Palin is what militant feminists have been suggesting all women can become. But she had the gall to have a Down Syndrome child and be opposed to abortion, which is the sacrament to feminist liberalism. She was the Clarence Thomas of the Anita Hill hearings. Her electoral future had to be destroyed.”


Steve Says: When I went to a (wonderful) Catholic elementary school, the nuns told us, "You never mistread girls. GOD will be very angry if you do." They got our attention. Bill Clinton never went to that school. His abuse of women, especially middle-class women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many others) in vulnerable positions, has been the bad habit of a lifetime.

Okay, when she was at Wellesley, Hillary wrote her senior thesis on labor organizer Saul Alinsky (a better man than many people think), and he offered her a job with his community development organization. His total budget for a year was $100,000 (including his salary). He labored almost exclusively with the working poor, including Blacks and first generation immigrants. He hated the "welfare state."

Hillary's response to the job offer? She said, No thanks and went off to Yale Law School, one of those places that usually leads to whole truckloads of money and power. Yes, Hillary "loves" the poor, but only at a distance.

As for Bill, I am not against people making money, even though I don't. He parlayed the presidency into a fortune of $100 million. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. He sold out to everyone, especially rich foreigners, who had a large bag full of cash.

Okay, during the end of the primary season, there was a guy who told a group I was in that he had been unemployed for 17 months (yikes). But he had scraped together $25 that he was sending in "to help pay off Hillary's debt." One problem, the money was being re-directed to her 2012 Senate re-election campaign. The whole thing disgusted me.

I told the group, "Bill should write a check" (I think it was $9 million they owed). That $9 million would have been the same for him as us kicking in ten bucks. The Clintons are one of the wealthiest families in America -- and trust me, they will get a while lot wealthier.

Sarah Palin will never be Hillary's intellectual equal, but unlike HRC, she knows the basic difference between right and wrong. And in life that matters more than anything else.

When Hillary and Bill started slobbering over Obama, it made me physically ill. As one of Shakespeare's cynical lines has it, "Nothing lost save honor." Yes, as Bill said, "Obama played the race card [against them]." But in a world where nothing aside from self-promotion matters, why should racial politics count?

Susan Rice, named ambassador to the U.N. the same day as HRC got the State job, was the person in the Obama Campaign in charge of smearing Hillary. I kept waiting for the two to embrace.

What did Obama promise HRC for endorsing and campaigning for him? Guess. I know what Susan Rice got for her misdeeds.

A Sarah Palin is a person whose life is suffused with character and values. She would not feel comfortable with a Suan Rice or a Hillary Clinton. Sarah does not regard politics as a nasty game whose only purpose is self-advancement. It matters deeply to Sarah that someone like Barack Obama is not dedicated to national security, freedom, tolerance, and opportunity. Those factors matter not at all to someone like Hillary. They don't show up in a bank account or on a resume.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is a trivial human being, but that doesn't make her any less dangerous. She has spent a lifetime putting her own interests ahead of those of the nation. Right now, she's too old to learn new tricks.

Hillary Morally Weak, Sarah Strong

"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I'll keep adding to this column on Wednesday and finish the "Hillary comments" on Thursday. I'd very much like to get your comments on a deeply flawed human being, Hillary R. Clinton.


I have many friends who were Hillary Supporters. One former friend, Robin, listened to my positive comments on Sarah Palin after she was named McCain's running mate. Robin then said, "Steve, I don't like all the praise of Palin because it makes Hillary sound bad by comparison." That's when Robin, a woman incapable of taking a clear-eyed look at HRC, became a former friend. "Yes, Robin, HRC is no Sarah Palin -- not by a longshot."

My sad impression is that most Hillary Supporters don't want to discuss the woman's actions in any serious way. Apparently, they feel that if they look deeply into this woman's heart and soul, they'll end up like the madman in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, who finally recognizes the evil of what he's done and blurts out, "The horror! The horror!" Horror and Hillary are more than alliterative.

John Edwards, another mindless left-wing Democrat, limply said of his affair that he had become "egotistic" and "narcissistic." John Edwards, meet Hillary Clinton, a card-carrying narcissist.

Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women, including Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Kathryn Willey. Of course, that didn't stop the gentle ladies of NOW and NARAL from endorsing Bill . . . or Hillary. Abuse of women is apparently okay as long as you're "right on the issues." Of course, without a demand for basic decency all the "issues" become practically irrelevant.

Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. In fact, what do you call a woman who values career more than the nation? Why, for services rendered, you call her "Madame Secretary of State," that is Secretary of . . . the Country.

As a member of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission, Sarah Palin cited the head of the Alaska Republican Party (Randy Ruedrich) for an ethics violation. Such acts continue to make her enemies in the state, one long synonymous with political corruption. .

Hillary Clinton has NEVER done anything remotely comparable in her long career. The sad reality is that most of Hillary's supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel candidate. I fear that if Mrs. Clinton appeared without clothes, such supporters would be marveling over how good she looks in a pants suit.

In the election, Clinton was a major factor in helping Obama carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. To say that she must have had a good (but of course, unstated) reason for doing so is to give her credit she in no way deserves. Over a lifetime, she has always done what is best for Hillary. Period.

During and after the election, I regularly asked people why HRC had supported her tormentor -- her abuser -- Obama. Perhaps for the same reason she'd always supporter her marital abuser, Bill, "the Big Dog?" No one ever gave an answer that made Mrs. Clinton seem like anything other than a moral weakling.

More than one Hillary backer told me, "Well, she had to. They [unnamed] threatened her. They threatened her MOTHER. They threatened CHELSEA." There is not one scrap of evidence any such thing ever happened. Moreover, anyone who would cave into threats has no business aspiring to the presidency.

People like Hillary Clinton are despicable. The fact that she's a woman is not exculpatory. Anyone who's so easily intimidated should not be occupying a high position of any kind.

OBAMA SHOULD END HIS CAMPAIGN

If you want to know the reason for tonight's (Friday's) headline, just scroll down slowly through the columns below to read the kind of "spiritual" advice Barack Obama and his wife have been receiving from Jeremiah A. Wright.

On my blog tonight, I'm calling for Barack Obama to end his campaign. Because of the Wright situation, he is no longer a viable candidate for President. I also believe he should resign from the U.S. Senate.

For Obama to pretend, as he is tonight on FOX and CNN, that the national revulsion over Wright all came as a surprise to him is ridiculous. His Church gave Louis Farrakhan a "Lifetime Achievement Award." You will hear in response that is was Trumpet Magazine, which is no longer associated with the Church that gave it. In fact, Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet, a pro-Black, anti-White publication Wright started. Obama's reaction to the "Achievement" award was to ignore it.

The real issue is this: who exactly is Barack Obama? Is he just perhaps not this individual who wants to transcend race (except, of course, when he sops up 90%-plus of the Black vote in the South)? Or is he perhaps someone who looks at the world much like his "spiritual advisor," Jeremiah Wright? I have paid a lot more attention in the past few years to Obama than he deserved, but I have no idea what the correct answer is to that question.

His wife, Michelle, only became "proud" of American when it became clear her husband was (key word) a viable candidate for the Presidency. In that regard, Michelle Obama apparently learned a lot from Jeremiah Wright, who hates his native land.

Perhaps the most sickening thing on the video tapes of Wright ranting away is to look the audience, a bunch of Yahoos. When Wright blames America for 9/11, the congregants are standing, whooping, and ecstatic. Were Obama and Michelle perhaps there on that day? And did they perhaps join the applause? That is the "church community" Obama speaks so lovingly about in his fine baritone.

This is the man who would be President. He and his Pastor are disgraces to their race -- the human race.

Barack, go. Go in peace or go in anger, but just go. "Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us."

Bill Clinton and the Culture of Death

The following is a column I wrote for my friends at the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo.


Steubenville, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Former president Bill Clinton made a campaign stop for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio on Sundayand found himself greeted by more than 100 pro-life students from nearby Steubenville University. According to eye witnessesaccounts, Clinton lost his temper and lashed out at the pro-life students during the speech.

Full story: http://www.lifenews.com/state2908.html


The students from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, who confronted President Clinton on the issue of abortion are some of the best young people in our area -- I live not too far from Steubenville. Bill Clinton accused them -- falsely -- of wanting to "criminalize abortion, etc."

The students in fact were making the point that a society which has a high level of abortion such as ours diminishes the overall respect for life, leading to abuse, crimes against people, and the like. It's an issue that any decent human being -- a category that doesn't include the philandering, cynical President Clinton -- must grapple with. The students have an concern that Clinton should have dealt with respectfully and thoughtfully. He didn't.


In the period of the Great Society and after, many bad things have happened in America, particularly in the Black community. Two generations ago, the rate of abortion among Black teens was LOWER than in the white community. Now, it is much, much higher -- four times the rate with white teens. Essentially, we have a community that is "doing away with" its future. We need to love children, not discard them as if they were human garbage.


Bill Clinton probably knows this, but he doesn't care about it. For him, it's all about his wife getting elected -- period.


By the way, Barack Obama voted in the Illinois Senate for what's called "live birth abortions." His vote meant that physicians didn't have to care for children who were born alive as a result of "botched" abortions. Essentially, it was a vote for infanticide. He should be ashamed of himself, but unfortunately shame is not his strong suit.

Of course, Obama doesn't debate the pros-and-cons of such procedures. Instead, he relies on windy rhetoric ("Yes we can"). However, for infants in need of care and basically asking if they can live, his slogan is "No, you can't." So much for "universal health care."

As a society, we can't fall into the trap of saying, "Well, we respect life some of the time but not all of the time." What that leads to is what we have now, where the "Angel of Death" is a constant presence in Black communities. People like Bill Clinton aggravate that situation.

ME LIVE ON POLITICAL PISTACHIO

On Monday, February 25, I'll be on blog talk radio with Adam Brickley, who has engineered the highly successful Draft Sarah Palin (Alaska Governor) for VP movement. We'll be on Douglas Gibbs's Political Pistachio program at 7 p.m. Eastern time, and I hope you'll tune in. Also, call in if you'd like. Here's the link: http://blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

Doug has a great show, and one of his guests next week will be Kathleen Willey, who claims (credibly) that President Bill Clinton molested her in the Oval Office. Ms. Willey joins a long list of women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many who remain namelss) whose relationships with former President Clinton have not been fruitful, to say the least.

On Monday, Adam and I will be discussing possible vice-presidential choices for Senator McCain. If you'd like to see Adam's site, something of a shrine to Gov. Palin (pronounced PALE-in), go to: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com.

Even if Sarah doesn't get the nomination, she is a GOP political superstar-in-the-making. She reminds me a lot of my Washington County, PA friend Diana Lynn Irey, who ran a heroic campaign in 2006 against the evil John Murtha.

This weekend I'll be writing about the Washington County, PA GOP and its web site.

Please see below about how you can contribute the campaign of an American hero, Senator John McCain.

Is Iraq "Hillary Clinton's War?"

Note: In this piece I raise "the great unanswered question of 9/11." Read on.

In terms of her oratorical "style," Mrs. Clinton invariably risks frightening small children. She's the female analogue to Ted Kennedy, an angry, red-faced individual who shouts a lot.

To understand the phoniness of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and of tomorrow's subject, Barack Hussein Obama), it's important to understand their target audience: the far-left Democrats who actually participate in primaries and caucuses. These are Moveon.org types, the 20% of the Democratic Party -- one-in-five -- who tell pollsters that they hope America loses the war in Iraq. To reach such people, rhetorical extremism is an essential ingredient.

Two of my favorite Hillary-isms are as follows: (1) "George Bush doesn't care about people"; and (2) THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

On the notion that GWB "doesn't care" about the people he represents and who elected him twice: Mrs. Clinton offers no evidence that she cares any more about "people" than does President Bush. She's a person who desires to become President, and to that end, she dumps verbal trash on the man who currently holds the office. Thus, she engages in political statements that don't go beyond hurling gratuitous insults -- an apporach her husband and others have called "the politics of personal destruction."

Why would she make such improper statements about Bush -- ones that "rise" to the level only of schoolyard taunts? Because she understands that he's an easy political target -- and because the most important thing in the world to her is winning the nomination. Her target audience, Americans who generally don't like their country very much, wants red meat, so she stuffs it down their throats.

Specifically, what about the "this is George Bush's war" comment? Again, it's a demagogic accusation. Hillary Clinton wants to become commander-in-chief. If as President she has to go to war, does she want many Americans to condemn it as "Hillary Clinton's war?" OrWorld War II "Franklin Roosevelt's War?" Or Korea "Harry Truman's War?" Or Vietnam "Lyndon Johnson's War?"

Some enterprising media type should ask her those questions, although no one will. She might accuse the questioner of being part of "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

Mrs. Clinton has a bad habit of speaking without thinking. Apparently, if she believes some statement will generate votes from left-wingers, the words just fly out of her mouth.However, is the conflict in Iraq really GWB's war, or is perhaps in a sense "Hillary Clinton's War?" One could make the case -- if one were so inclined -- to say that it is.

In October, 2002, Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution. In November, 2003, she also voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the war. A month later, December, 2003, she said the following: "The fact is we're in Iraq and we're in Afghanistan, and we have no choice but to be successful." For some reason, she's stopped making that important -- and accurate -- point.

In the spring of 2004, Hillary Clinton called Saddam Hussein "a potential threat [to America]." She added that the Iraqi dictator had been "seeking weapons of mass destruction . . . whether or not he actually had them." There's no real debate on this points.

In other words, back in the period from 2002-2004 Iraq was not "George Bush's war." It was America's war -- and hers. She noted correctly that if Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs, he certainly intended to get them at the earliest possible time. Of course, she wasn't a candidate for President then.

Nowadays, of course, her comments on Iraq are much different. She indicates -- falsely -- that the Bush Administration somehow "misled" her about WMDs. What she neglects to say is that the CIA director appointed by her husband -- George Tenet -- had said to President Bush that Saddam's having WMDs was "a slam-dunk." Mrs. Clinton (and her husband) apparently agreed.

George Bush clearly is a convenient scapegoat for Mrs. Clinton to use in her single-minded quest for the Democratic nomination. However, she fails to note that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she had the same information about WMDs as the President. She cast her war authorization vote with the same knowledge GWB had when he made the decision to go to war.

The approach Mrs. Clinton is taking allows her to be for a war when it's going well -- and against it when it's not. To paraphrase Kyle Smith, it turns politics and elective government into a circular firing squad, where ultimately no one is left standing.

The events of 9/11 were the reason the U.S. went to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had -- or was seeking -- WMDs that he wouldn't hesitate using was the main reason the country went to war in Iraq. Of course, Saddam had possessed -- and used -- WMDs against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds.

The catastrophe of 9/11 represented a major failure of intelligence by the CIA, headed by Bill Clinton's appointee. They also reflected a failure on the part of the FBI, headed by Clinton appointee Louis Freeh. (William Mueller, Bush's appointee, had been in his office for only about a week when 9/11 occurred.)

A great unanswered question of that time is this: Why didn't GWB blame the failures of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for 9/11? No one knows the precise answer. However, it appears that Bush -- unlike people such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- didn't want to play the blame game. Instead, he gave Bill Clinton a pass so as not to divide the country.

As we've seen, Mrs. Clinton has no such concerns about dividing the nation, or any real grasp of her husband's role in letting 9/11 occur. Instead, she has the old Democratic strategy of divide the nation -- calling Iraq GWB's war -- in order to conquer as her Party's nominee. The phoniness is as transparent as it is malicious.

A cynic might ask: What else is new?


Tomorrow, I'll be writing on the phoniness of Barack Obama, who never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Mrs. Clinton but at times comes perilously close. Obama said today, "We are at a defining moment in our history." That's not really profound. Rather, it's in the category known as cliches. He's good at them.

On TV, he just said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up." I guess that's why he's running for President. He wants to start at the bottom. The emptiness of the man's rhetoric is truly awesome.

SUPER TUESDAY THOUGHTS

Thanks to my frequent visitors, many of whom I've mentioned before. But a special hello to the visitors from Rome, GA (I used to live in Athens, GA) and from Jefferson, MD, which I've never visited but hope to someday.

Super Tuesday is unfolding with speed and ferocity tonight, but not a whole lot is clear yet. If Senator McCain wins California, he seems almost certain to win the nomination. If he doesn't win California, well, he'll still probably get the nomination but the battle will continue in MD, VA, and DC -- and then on to Texas and Ohio on March 4. I can't imagine how hard it all is on the candidates because it's exhausting for the rest of us!

I get a kick out of Hillary Clinton talking about her "35 years of experience." Ten of those years she spent as first lady of the great state of Arkansas and then eight years as First Lady of the U.S. That brings her down to 17 years of experience, most of it spent keeping a close eye on her wandering husband.

I continue to support John McCain as the best available candidate for the presidency. Mrs. Clinton right now on CNN is telling us we need "someone who will be ready on day one!" The problem is that we live in fear and trembling of exactly what she'll be ready for. The way I see is that Hillary Clinton is ready to be First Lady in perpetuity, while John McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief.

OBAMA: BAD FOR AMERICA

Note: On my main blog site, which you can reach by clicking on http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com, you can read today's (Monday's) column, which is: "Barack Obama: Bad for America." The one accurate thing Bill Clinton said about Obama's "vision" characterized it as "a fairy tale." Bill Clinton saying something accurate? "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in awhile." Please visit and bookmark my main site. Thanks!

The Clintons' Racist Campaign, Payoffs

Bulletin on SC Democratic Primary: Right after the New Hampshire Primary, I sent my friend Adam a note about Hillary Clinton's "strategy" to win the nomination. I said she would build on her identification of herself as the "female candidate.' I predicted there also be an emphasis -- subtle though it might be -- as the "White" candidate. In short, she would try to marginalize Obama as the candidate of Black people. That is exactly what her campaign, mainly through the efforts of her husband, attempted to do in South Carolina. They didn't succeed. Am I claiming the Clintons ran a racialist campaign? Yes.

As John King of CNN noted tonight, the Clintons "paid top dollar" for the support of a leading Black minister in SC. His support (and the money he handed out) was designed to win SC for Mrs. Clinton. They should have saved their money. Bill Clinton was a famous user of "walking around money," payoffs given to individuals who claim to be able to control the Black vote.

Tomorrow (Sunday), I'll tell a true story about Lester Maddox, a notorious racist and former Governor of Georgia. "Walking around money" was not exactly a foreign concept to him (or to most politicians of the day, including Jimmy Carter) in Georgia, where I lived for seven years.

NOTE: After January 30, this blog will contain links to my main blog, which you can find at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Please visit there and bookmark the site. Thanks.

I responded today (Sunday) to a e-mail from one of the "conservative" groups. It was making the point that Senator McCain was "wrong" on immigration and was therefore not a "conservative." Here's my response:

I recently wrote a couple of columns about immigration, relying mainly on articles in The Economist, a very prestigious publication, which disagrees strongly with you on every point you make about immigration. To say that immigrants, legal or illegal, depress the economy is ridiculous, although it's a widely held view among members of the far-right.

The Economist points out that foreign-born immigrants in America have won most of the Nobel Prizes in this decade. It also notes that 40% of the engineering and science PhDs in America are immigrants. It notes that 30% of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants. Somehow you "forgot" to mention these points, perhaps because you haven't taken the time to inform yourself on the issue.

As for low-skill immigrants, they pick the lettuce and the oranges, serve as nannies, clean the johns and make the beds at hotels and motels, and put up roofing when the temperature is 110 degrees.

Perhaps Senator McCain might raise these points -- most of which will come as news to people who detest Mexicans -- in the answer to one of your very loaded questions. The notion that immigrants, legal and illegal, don't play a positive role in the American economy is laughable.

It now appears that Republicans and conservatives will play little or no role in resolving the issues related to immigration. Last night, in one of the reddest of Red states, South Carolina, more Democrats voted for Obama than Republicans who voted for both McCain and Huckabee. Eighty thousand more people voted in the Democratic primary than did so in the Republican primary. The implications of that are extremely ominous for the GOP. If the Democratic candidate could be competitive in a state like SC, there's no way we can win the general election.

Somehow people who spend a great deal of time expressing their distaste for Hispanics are living in a parallel universe, one far-removed from the realities of American politics.

As frequent visitors to this site know, my emphasis is on practical politics -- on winning elections. Why? Because if we position ourself in such a way that we're likely to lose, we will have little or no say on important issues.

People who emphasize "ideological purity" on single issues don't understand the way the system works. An idelogical stand that turns off large groups of voters makes no sense.

The arguments made in our time against immigrants, legal or illegal, are the same ones made in the past about OUR ancestors, almost all of whom came here from other countries. There are 40 million legal Hispanic immigrants in our country. If we somehow indicate to them that we don't care about Hispanics, they will never vote for our candidates.

That would mean Republicans probably would lose several crucial states, including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Also, it would continue the situation where we are not competitive in huge states like California and New York. In short, it's a recipe for perpetual defeat.