Desperado’s Outpost

MSNBC is reporting this afternoon that a great number of superdelegates, possibly as many as 34, will commit to Barack Obama by Wednesday, including Jim Clyburn. Here’s the story:

“Buzz on the Capitol Hill suggests that has many as 34 of the undeclared superdelegates residing in the House will endorse Obama by Wednesday. As many as 18 of these 34 — many of them elected to Congress in the last four years — will come out for Obama tomorrow so he can edge closer to his magic number before the vote counting ends in South Dakota and Montana. The biggest Obama get in the House to date will come tomorrow when House Dem Caucus Chairman Jim Clyburn officially declares. “

This comes on a day when there is a deluge of related stories that point to Hillary Clinton at least suspending her campaign following tomorrow night’s primaries.

Bill said this earlier today in South Dakota:

“I want to say also, that this may be the last day I’m ever involved in a campaign of this kind,” the former president said at a town hall at the Milbank Visitor Center.

I thought I was out of politics, ’til Hillary decided to run,” he said. “But it has been, one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for president.”

Then came word that campaign staffers are to turn in expense receipts by the end of the week. From Mark Ambinder:

“Clinton Campaign staffers and former campaign staffers are being urged by the Clinton campaign’s finance department to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week. That’s a sign, to them, that the campaign wants to get its affairs in order soon. If Clinton were staying in the race, there’d be no real reason to collect these receipts now; she’d still be raising and spending money from the same primary campaign account.”

 

Then from Newsday a report that Bill and Hillary plan to “huddle”with friends and advisors tomorrow at their home in Chappaqua.

Then Politico reports that an e-mail has been sent to all big donors inviting them to an event in NYC tomorrow night for which she has booked a large hall at Baruch College.

It sounds to me like the fat lady (no, not a Hillary joke) might be at least clearing her throat and getting ready to sing. Maybe the Clintons and their supporters are finally ready to face reality. It’s over.

Since Scott McClellan, the latest Washington whore to sell his dignity and turn on his former friends and associates for a seven figure royalty check, is the hot topic in the aftermath of the release of his tell-all insider account of his days as White House press secretary, I feel compelled to comment, not about what he said, but about the timing and motivation of it.

Who cares what he has to say. After all, he was press secretary, not National Security advisor. He wasn’t in on any of the crucial decisions, he just repeated what somebody else put into his empty head.

McClellan’s motivation is obvious, money. Let’s face it, what he was before he was press secretary, and what he is in the days after he left the job, is a nobody. If he wrote a book praising President Bush would anybody notice? No. Just ask Ari Fleischer, McClellan’s predecessor, whose book was barely a blip on the radar screen.

No, McClellan had to write something that would grab headlines and give him his 15 minutes of fame. What better way to do that than to pile on an unpopular president in the final days of his administration. Surely McClellan is smart enough to know, or if not I’m sure his publisher is, that this book would make him a media darling and give him plenty of face time on the talk-show circuit to peddle this garbage.

Here are some interesting quotes from Mr. McClellan about other former members of the Bush administration who wrote similar books. On January 12, 2004 he said this about Paul O’Neill’s book “The Price Of Loyalty”:

“It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people.”

On March 22, 2004 McClellan said this about former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke’s book “Inside America’s War On Terror”:

“Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.”

So what changed Mr. McClellan’s mind between 2004 and today? I suspect the main thing that changed was into who’s bank account the check was deposited.

If McClellan really believes he was complicit in “propaganda” about the Iraq war, and not just a money-grubbing weasel, here’s what he would do, (from cqpolitics.com):

“If he were truly contrite about his involvement in a deceptive, propaganda-wielding administration, McClellan could demonstrate his sincerity by pledging that all profits from his belated truth-telling will go to charities supporting the families of American soldiers killed or injured in Iraq.”

But I don’t look for that to happen any time soon. Prostitutes rarely give refunds, or so I am told.

In closing, I found these words on outside the beltway.com which sums up the situation perfectly:

“If he thought these things were wrong at the time, he had a duty to fight to stop it and, if overruled, resign in protest and inform Congress. He didn’t do that. He gladly enjoyed the perquisites of power and is now cashing in by betraying the confidence of his former bosses and colleagues. He’s possessed of all the moral fiber of a jailhouse snitch.”

Amen.

In the days since Hillary Clinton’s monumental gaffe in South Dakota in which she referenced the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, many have defended her statement, saying she was merely citing historical perspective as a reason to stay in the race. Since in the same remarks she made a point of Bill’s 1992 run for the presidency as an example of a contest that was not decided until June, I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the 1992 Democratic Primary and see what actually happened.

As usual with the Clintons, you have to parse every word to get to the meaning of what they say. Hillary said that Bill didn’t win the nomination until the June primary in California. Technically that’s true, but it all depends on what the definition of “win” is.

In 1992, there were 3 major contenders for the nomination–Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, former Senator from Massachusetts, and Jerry Brown, former Governor of California. Tsongas won in New Hampshire with Clinton finishing second. Bill Clinton won nearly all the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the front-runner for the nomination. Jerry Brown then upset Clinton in Connecticut and Colorado.

On March 17, Tsongas dropped out after finishing a distant third behind Clinton and Brown in Michigan. On April 7, Brown lost to Clinton in Wisconsin and New York and was never a serious contender after that. Clinton defeated Brown in California in June to clinch the nomination, which by that time was a foregone conclusion.

To get a further perspective on the race that was really a no-contest after Super Tuesday, the final delegate count was Clinton 3372, Jerry Brown 596, Paul Tsongas 289. Clinton won primaries in 39 states compared to 6 for Tsongas and 3 for Brown. Hardly the nail-biter that Hillary would have us believe. But much like the sniper fire incident in Bosnia, Hillary’s memory gets a little fuzzy when it comes to historical facts.

If she wanted to cite a primary race that was decided late she could have used 1976, when Carter didn’t clinch the nomination until after he won Ohio on June 8, or 1984 when Mondale’s victory in New Jersey on June 5 gave him the victory in his primary battle with Gary Hart. Both of these are more recent examples than Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

What does all this mean? It tells me that Hillary Clinton is nearly as bad a student of history as she is a presidential candidate.

In an interview with Good Morning America, during which Barack Obama called the so-called attacks on his wife Michelle “low class” and “detestable” and warned the Republicans to “lay off my wife” he seems to ignore a basic reality of politics–when someone chooses to enter the political arena, whatever they say becomes fair game for the other side.

Responding to an ad by Tennessee Republicans in which they used Mrs. Obama’s remarks about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, Obama said this:

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do.”

But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable,” he said.”

The Obamas seem to have forgotten how those in their campaign “attacked” Bill Clinton for statements he has made while campaigning for Hillary. Lord knows I’m not one to defend the Clintons, but fair is fair. Bill was criticized sharply for calling Obama’s lack of experience “a roll of the dice”, for calling Obama’s opposition to the war a “fairy tale”, and for his comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson after South Carolina. Retired Gen. McPeak, an Obama co-chair, even compared Bill to Joe McCarthy at one point.

Cindy McCain’s lack of disclosure of her tax returns has been in the news as well. In fact the DNC has promised that it will continue to be an issue during the general election campaign.

When the Obamas complain about what they perceive as unfair tactics it comes across as whining, just as it does when Hillary laments about the alleged media bias against her. Again, if a spouse injects themselves into the campaign process, like it or not, their words and their actions are going to be fodder for the opposition.

My advice to Mrs. Obama is this; you’re in the big leagues now, sweetie (sorry ladies I couldn’t resist the temptation) either get a thicker skin or get off the stage.

You would think that after Republicans got their clocks cleaned in 3 recent special Congressional elections that they would have learned something. Like maybe return to the days when a Republican hallmark was spending restraint and smaller government. Like maybe follow the lead of their candidate for president, John McCain, and call for an end to earmarks and pork-laden legislation. You would think so, but you would be wrong. Apparently the addiction to pork is a hard one to break.

Last week’s passage of the $300 billion farm bill is a prime example. According to an article in RealClearPolitics by Robert Novak, here’s what the GOP (Gorging On Pork) elected representatives did:

“A majority of both Senate and House Republicans voted for a bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year’s, dooming chances to sustain President Bush’s promised veto. GOP leaders were divided, with Bush sounding an uncertain trumpet. Today’s Republican Party — divided, drifting, demoralized — is epitomized by the farm bill.”

And what of President Bush’s “uncertain trumpet” mentioned above. This is what Mr. Compassionate Conservative told Republican members of Congress:

“Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members “voted their districts” — that is, if the “aggies” supported the bill.”

In other words, the hell with what’s best for the country, just keep delivering the pork back home in the district. That’s exactly the kind of thinking that resulted in Republicans losing their majority in both Houses in 2006. As they say, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. I guess that goes for elephants, too.

There are a few Republicans in the House who get it, Jeff Flake of Arizona for one. He has constantly opposed Party leadership(?) on earmarks and pork. His reward? He has been kept off key committees dealing with the issue.

What about the Senate, any hope there. Nope. More Novak:

“Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but earmarked a tax provision benefitting horse farms in his state of Kentucky.”

Then to top off the week the Senate did this:

“Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses.”

So let’s ban earmarks as a symbolic gesture and then pass waivers for legislation that contains billions in earmarks. Good thinking GOP. I hope you enjoy your minority status in Congress, chances are good you’ll be there for many years to come, and might I add, deservedly so.

During a speech before the NRA on Friday Mike Huckabee made an attempt at humor that may end up costing him the VP nomination for which he was recently considered the front-runner.

While Huckabee was speaking there was a noise offstage which he quickly quipped was Barack Obama falling off a chair. The audience chuckled and Huckabee, he of the allegedly quick wit, decided to go for what he thought might be a bigger laugh. Wrong. Huckabee added this, “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

I there was ever a definition of deafening silence it was what followed that remark. 

Huck later tried to make amends with this apology:

“I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama. I apologize that my comments were offensive. That was never my intention.”

With one “off hand” (my word would be stupid) remark, Huckabee accomplished so much. He reinforced the stereotype of gun owners as deranged lunatics looking for someone to shoot. He gave ammunition , so to speak, to the anti-gun people who will no doubt use this clip to say, “see we told you so.” He injected a racial overtone, intentional or not, and he probably ended his hopes of being McCain’s running mate.

Very few times has someone done that much in the process of only saying 12 words. Nice job Huck, we’ll look for you on Last Comic Standing.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Apparently this has become the theme of the Clinton campaign in the last few days. Hillary and her surrogates have been playing to the lowest common denominator of racial division in effort to prove her more electable than Barack Obama by virtue of her appeal to white voters, and in the process implying African-Americans are neither hard-working nor intelligent.

In an interview with USA Today (via Hot Air):

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Don’t think for a minute that her inclusion of the word “white” twice in the same sentence is just a coincidence. Hillary knows that the next 2 primary states of West Virginia and Kentucky have a relatively small black population and so she is playing to the baser instincts of white voters in those states.

And what about this “hard-working Americans, white Americans” line? Is she implying that African-Americans aren’t hard-working? Again, these words, as with all Clinton words, are carefully chosen to appeal to white voters by indirectly invoking racial stereotypes, in my opinion.

An article in Politico had this to say about Clinton pollster Geoff Garin following the Indiana primary:

“Garin brags, specifically and explicitly, about her strength with the white vote, comparing North Carolina’s white voters in North Carolina to those in Virginia. (The conversations have always been about these voters, but they’re usually referred to as “blue collar” or by some less specifically racial euphemism.)

We lost the white electorate in Virginia, started even in North Carolina among the white electorate just two weeks ago, and ended [with] a very significant win of 24 points among those voters,”

More racial division from the Clinton campaign, seeing not just voters but specifically white voters.

Then comes Paul Begala and his statement that the Democrats can’t win with a coalition of “eggheads and African-Americans.” Does Begala see no overlap between these groups? Are there no intelligent African-Americans in his mind? Intentional or not, it could easily be taken to mean exactly that.

I’m not saying that the Clintons are racist, but the words of Hillary and her supporters certainly seem to be designed to cause division between white and black voters. I guess Hillary’s quest for victory can be summed up in 4 words, by any means necessary.

I’m not quite sure when Hugo Chavez was elected to the U.S. Senate, but the legislation proposed yesterday by Democrats in that body regarding government regulation of the profits of private industry and the imposition of a windfall profits tax certainly sounds as if it comes straight from the playbook of the Venezuelan socialist dictator.

From the New York Times:

“Senate Democrats on Wednesday called for a temporary special tax on oil companies’ profits and a rollback of $17 billion in oil industry tax breaks as part of an energy package. The Democrats are also seeking federal penalties on energy price gouging and a suspension of oil deliveries into the government’s emergency reserve.

The proposed 25 percent profits tax would apply just to oil company earnings above what would be considered “reasonable” and only if those profits are not reinvested in expanding refinery capacity or renewable energy sources, according to a summary of the proposals.

The tax would expire after two years.”

First, a “temporary” tax? Yeah, right. When was the last time the government levied a tax and then later rescinded it? I’ll go out on a limb and say never. Secondly, “price gouging” as determined by who? Harry Reid? Chuck Schumer? Third, “reasonable profits”? Again, who becomes the arbiter of what is reasonable? Lastly, investing in renewable sources of energy. Does that mean more spending on things like the brilliant government idea of ethanol, which has driven grocery prices through the roof and led to a worldwide food shortage?

Here is the Democrat’s convoluted logic behind this scam:

“Democrats characterized their proposal as attacking “the root causes of high gas prices,” although it was not clear how their plan would appreciably affect high oil costs, set in a global market, or gasoline prices edging toward $4 a gallon.”

The reason they are not quite clear is because it will have no effect on gasoline prices. That’s not the point of the legislation. The point is to pander to voters by appearing to be doing something about gasoline prices while actually doing nothing at all. In other words, politics as usual.

Until our esteemed Senators devise a way to control the commodities markets, they will have little or no effect on the price of a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline.

Here are a few quotes from our Senators. Tell me if this sounds like capitalism or socialism to you. First Harry Reid;

“Instead of helping Big Oil make more money at the expense of average Americans, we are forcing oil companies to change their ways. We will hold them accountable for unconscionable price-gouging and force them to invest in renewable energy or pay a price for refusing to do so.”

Max Baucus:

“Repealing tax breaks for Big Oil will stop these companies from running away with more taxpayer cash while they’re already high on the hog,”

Chuck Schumer:

“Oil companies are racking up obscene profits left and right while American families are stretched to the limit by skyrocketing gas prices. It’s time for Big Oil to pay its fair share so Americans can see a little relief. The windfall profits tax will do just that, and help spur innovation in the process.”

Maria Cantwell:

“We need a cop on the beat to patrol the markets.”

In a capitalist system, forcing private industry to conform to government edicts, deciding which industries are high on the hog and which aren’t, determining what is and is not obscene profit, and patrolling markets, is not the job of the government. Even if it is an election year.

I tuned in to watch a town hall meeting yesterday on ABC and a softball game broke out. Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopolous, Hillary Clinton was allowed to give what amounted to a campaign speech in the guise of being questioned by a group of “average citizens” from Indiana and North Carolina.

Stephanopolous, eager to get back in the good graces of the left after the scathing criticism he received for his questioning of Barack Obama in the Philadelphia debate, teed it up for Hillary time after time Sunday morning, aided and abetted by a series of carefully scripted questions from the audience. The questions were submitted to Stephanopolous in advance of the meeting, and apparently they were also given to Sen. Clinton so she could prepare an equally scripted answer.

The major area of interest to me was the continuing promise to punish “big oil” through a windfall profits tax.

Sen. Clinton had this to say:

“My longer-term plan is, yes, to put an excess profits tax on the oil companies above a certain level of profit.

You see, I really believe we’ve got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I’m on record as taking on the oil companies.”

To start with, to me the concept of government “taking on” private industry in this country is wrong. Also, I would like to know what Mrs. Clinton defines as “excess profits.”

Hating the oil companies is an easy political ploy in these days of $3.50 a gallon gasoline, as record profits are reported by Shell, Exxon/Mobil and BP, but a word conveniently left out of the equation is margin. What is the profit margin of the oil companies. This from CNN:

“Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others…but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?”

This also from CNN regarding the benefits of big oil:

“Instead of bemoaning the amount of profits that oil companies make, people might have been better off investing in more energy firms.

Exxon Mobil’s stock is up 15% in the past year. Shares of oil services giant Schlumberger have soared 36%. And deepwater oil driller Transocean’s stock has skyrocketed nearly 80%.”

Anyone with a 401k or an IRA invested in mutual funds more than likely has shares of oil and oil-related companies in it. Think about that instead of just what it costs to fill up the tank.

What about creating jobs? CNN again:

“I looked at the annual reports for the largest 25 energy companies in the S&P 500 and found that 20 of these firms had more employees at the end of last year than they did at the end of 2006. So the oil boom is creating jobs.”

So before Sen. Clinton or anyone else jumps on the bandwagon of punishing the oil companies, it might be a good idea to look at all the benefits to the economy that oil companies provide instead of just what the price at the pump is today.

With all the controversy continuing to swirl around the Obama/Wright relationship, an important question remains. What did Obama know and when did he know it? There have been many different versions of an answer to this question from Senator Obama, ranging from never hearing these sermons, to them being taken out of context, and yesterday when Obama said this was not the man he met 20 years ago.

A focal point is Wright being “uninvited” to the announcement of Obama’s presidential candidacy. In an interview with the New York Times, Wright had this recollection of the disinvitation, from RealClearPolitics:

“Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

The Rolling Stone article was from the February 22. 2007 issue and was entitled “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama”, a title later changed to “Destiny’s Child.” It contained excerpts from a sermon by Reverend Wright called 10 Essential Facts About America. Here are some of the “facts” mentioned by Wright:

Racism is alive and well. Racism is the American way.

We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians, and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.

Here was the Reverend’s closing line to the sermon:

And, and, and… in light of these in fact God has got to be sick of this s**t!

In the debate in Philadelphia, when questioned about the disinvitation, Obama said:

“I’ve discussed this extensively. Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans.“

So if Senator Obama knew enough about Wright’s statements to uninvite him to his presidential announcement, why did he later say he never heard such statements? Here is a fact of my own, these words are nothing new. They reflect who Rev. Wright is and who he has always been. It all comes down to honesty and believability. Obama can’t uninvite Wright to his presidential announcement because of his words and then turn around and say he never heard those words. It only proves Wright’s statement that Obama is a politician doing what politicians do, and that, summed up in one word is, lie.