Hillary

[P562045]

Will the Clintons ever go away?

Now with that Edwards is not such a good guy because he had an affair.

The Mrs. Clinton handler Mr. Wolfson says Mrs. Clinton would have won Iowa if Edwards was not in the race because of his affair.

Mr. Wolfson theorizes that the people that did vote for Mr. Edwards in Iowa would have definitely voted for Mrs. Clinton because the type of voters that voted for Mr. Edwards in Iowa were "older, pro union" voters. This is just the type of voters that just happened to actually vote for Mrs. Clinton in Iowa.

Mr. Wolfson clearly thinks that around two thirds of the Mr. Edwards voters would have voted for Mrs. Clinton and there is no doubt in Mr. Wolfson mind about this.

So let's see the results in Iowa were Obama 37.6%
Edwards 29.7% and Mrs. Clinton 29.5%

So let us put Mr. Wolfson theory to use.

Two thirds of 29.7% is 19.8%. So let's just add that to the Mrs. Clinton column. 29.5% plus 19.8% equals 49.3% for Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Wolfson forgot one little important detail in his analysis. Who would the other one third of the Mr. Edwards voted for? Let's see if I can finagle a win still for Obama in Iowa. Let's just give Obama all of the other one third of the Mr. Edwards voters and see what we come up with.

So one third of the Mr. Edwards voting percentage is 9.9%.

So Obama gets 9.9% added to his already 37.6% Obama actually got and that adds up to 47.5%.

So Mrs. Clinton would have won 49.3% to Obama 47.5% which equals 96.8%.

This doesn't add up to me though. There was a bunch of other people running in the democrat primary such as Mr. Biden, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Gravel, and last but certainly not least Mr. Richardson.

Could these five men have gotten more than 3.2% of the vote in Iowa?

I am only asking because if they could then Mr. Wolfson's numbers would not add up.

No way those five men could have gotten more than 3.2 percent because in reality they only got about three percent of the total vote in Iowa. Richardson and Mr. Biden got right at three percent of the vote between them and the others only got a handful of votes that equals less than .2 percent of the total votes.

And if Mrs. Clinton would have won in Iowa she would have had the momentum going into Super Tuesday because as we all should remember she started crying right before the vote in New Hampshire and she did win there in New Hampshire.

It appears to me that the Mrs. Clinton people blame John Edwards for her coming in third in Iowa and much more to the point Mrs. Clinton would have won Iowa if Mr. Edwards was not in the race at all.

First the results in the democrat caucuses in Iowa which were held on January 3rd of this year. That was over seven months ago.

Democrat Iowa caucuses results

Then the story about how Mr. Edwards cost Mrs. Clinton the caucus results in Iowa.

Mr. Edwards cost Mrs. Clinton Iowa story

I may have to rethink what I told myself just the other day. I told little old me that I would vote for Mrs. Clinton before I would vote for Obama or McCain for that matter. Maybe I should rethink my rational just a little bit.

[P562045]

So my last post go me to thinking.

Why did Mrs. Clinton lose the democrat nomination in the first place?

1. My last post reminds people that Mrs. Clinton could be a conniving witch if it means she would have won.
2. Towards the end Mrs. Clinton just basically ran out of money and she is still trying to get people to get her rich self out of debt.
3. She was definitely not the "change" candidate. She has been in the public eye since around 1992.
4. She could not win caucuses. Obama just cleaned Mrs. Clinton's clock in this area.
5. She lost a bunch of contests in a row after Super Tuesday and never really recovered after that.
6. Mrs. Clinton attitude about the process in the first place. It appeared to me very early on that she was just going through the motions because I am sure she had people telling her she would win no matter what happened and Mrs. Clinton did not really give voters reasons to vote for her and her reasons she did give were just not good enough reasons to vote for her in the first place.

So what do other people think were some other reasons why Mrs. Clinton did not win the democrat nomination?

I would never say never though. Others would be shocked if something weird happened in Denver latter on this month; but this process has been a little weird to say the least already.

Do the democrats have one last surprise for the people? Stay tuned because there is zero doubt in my mind that Mrs. Clinton still thinks she could be the democrat nominee come the 28th of this month.

[P562045]

Now wait a minute. Mrs. Clinton rational for Mr. Edwards not being in the race was because Mr. Edwards lied about his affair. And liars I guess according to Mr. Wolfson should not be in the race at all.

So did Mrs. Clinton ever lie or would there be anyone left on either side of the political aisle if one of the main criteria for people should not be in the race if they lie.

In this little scenario we would have absolutely no one to vote for come November 4, of this year. And that includes people running for congress as well.

[-mmm-]

Since Im sure this will interest some here...

The Atlantic has a story up about Hillary's downfall in the primary. Included with that is a bunch of memos from the campaign. I just have the links bookmarked for now, but I know I'll get around to read them at some point this week.

[P562045]

7. The Clinton "team" could not get along and so they probably gave her conflicting information and she couldn't figure out what to do by herself.
8. Mrs. Clinton was not really a politician at all. She could pander to select groups with the best of them including Obama and that McCain guy though but it just was not enough of the right groups apparently. I think her pandering turned more people away from her than she would ever want to imagine.
9. Obama got very little negative press during the primary "season"; and the Clintons including shockingly William got some unflattering coverage from the press. This is one of the most interesting things I remember from the primaries and caucuses. Why was the press mad at the Clintons in the first place?

[P562045]

You have got to love the Mrs. Clinton rational.

Mr. Edwards should not have been in the race because he lied about having an affair and a liar should not be running for president in the first place.

I have two words for Mrs. Clinton.

Gennifer Flowers

Edit: It has been so long ago. Her first name starts with a G and not a J.

[P562045]

I can not resist this story so sorry.

Mrs. Clinton was testifying in front of the foreign relations committee in the senate yesterday and said she described how she was going to be secretary of state by using the buzz words "smart moves".

What the heck do this mean.

This is coming from a person that voted for us to go into Iraq and use military force there.

Was this a "smart move" on Mrs. Clinton's part?

Now as we may remember Mrs. Clinton just last year tried to show she had a vast amount of foreign policy experience when she sat in a gargantuan amount of high level meeting during her husband's administration.

So would someone please list all of the great foreign policy successes during the Clinton years please.

A person may have to cut the list into at least two posts if not three because there is a character limit on each post though.

Every last little time William sent out a diplomatic team to talk to foreign country or the U.N. to do some kind of action that was so necessary. Bosnia comes to mind now for some reason.

Why does what I just described remind me of what I think Obama's foreign policy will look like?

Well it could be a lot closer to what Bush's foreign policy looked like except for that we greatly desire being out of Iraq by this June and Guantanamo must be closed as well.

When talking about the latter how is this going to be done in a very responsible way?

"She said the Obama administration hopes to remove U.S. troops from Iraqi cities and villages by June 2009, and redeploy some of those troops to Afghanistan."

Now we need to get more troops into Afghanistan because it is the central front on the war on terrorism. I don't know why Pakistan is not getting any troops though.

Mrs Clinton says, "She promised to use 'diplomacy, development and defense' to work with allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which she referred to as 'the central front in the war on terrorism.'"

I must ask the simple question is Afghanistan and Pakistan the only place in the world where we need to worry about the actions of terrorists. A person does remember what happened in the neighbor to Pakistan just late last November right?

Then just today Bin Laden is reported to have made an audio recording that he wants a holy war started again because of what is happening in Gaza. Now I must ask the question where the heck is Gaza in the first place. Oh wait it is much closer to Israel than it is to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This time the world has seemed to want to ignore this for some reason. I don't really know the reason why. There has been such inaction on this matter when it comes to the world's response that it actually frightens me somewhat. Have we lost our way that we no longer want to deal with something just because it is very difficult?

The sentence that just gave me chills when I read it, "Our fate is tied to yours in fighting the crusader-Zionist coalition, in fighting until victory or martyrdom."

This is reportedly Bin Laden talking about the conflict in the Middle East. I must say reportedly because as of this moment it is not yet confirmed it is Bin Laden but it most certainly is him.

The other reason that this gave me chills is it is incredibly simple the reason why some terrorists do the things they do.

United Kingdom story here

Then when discussing the actions of terrorist we must not forget what happened in late February of 1993 and in September of 2001.

Iran must not get nuclear weapons and there are several ways this will be achieved.

"Our goal will be to do everything we can through diplomacy and the use of greater sanctions,"

How the heck are there going to be greater sanctions against Iran. They are already being portrayed as the bad guys in the middle east because they even have a role in the violence in Gaza just as one example. So I guess sanctions are already in place because the world would not help a country that is so negatively portrayed right? Well I am sure that there are at least a few examples throughout history and we would not have to go to far back into history now would we? So I guess sending out the diplomatic police will solve all of our problems with Iran that I must point out persist to this very moment I am typing this. And heck no I don't think these problems are just going to magically go away to be quite frank about it no matter what we do.

I think this would be an excellent place for me to stop discussing about Mrs. Clinton's testimony in front of the senate foreign relations committee yesterday. I want to mention one other thing though.

Many of the reasons we are in the mess we are in now are directly the result of the actions of the president we have now. A bunch of rhetorical talk is not going to make the situation any better or worse for that matter. This very much depends on the actions of Obama alone really. He is the one that will be using the military in a certain way and we don't exactly know to be quite frank what the results of this will be for years to come.

I just love Mrs. Clinton's little dig on the Bush administration that I must repeat again she went along with when it comes to the matter of going into Iraq in the first place.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that she aims to 'renew America's leadership' in a world that has undergone an "extraordinary transformation" since the end of the Cold War and is now facing "great peril.'"

So how hard should it be to "renew America's leadership"?

Well come on all that really needs to be done for this to happen is when Obama is our president right?

Bush so lowered the bar on this matter what I just said is basically all that need to be done right?

Let's just hope Obama does not get so wrapped up in we must first fix our economy first and foremost. Oh thank you for reminding me we have a very difficult task ahead of us and just the wrong person to lead us moving forward.

Story Here

[P562045]

Wow my very post about Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton.

Never one to miss an opportunity or shy about pointing something out about Mrs. Clinton.

She finally went to Europe and said something very interesting.

Now does the European Parliament have a permanent place or not?

Just a question out of the blue I guess. I know that each of the countries in Europe take turns being the head of the European Union. That is why I asked the question.

Well anyway Mrs. Clinton was speaking in Brussels when she said this.

"It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy."

Now I know at least some about history of the world and I thought we are the youngest democracy when compared to Europe.

Well we could argue if we are a true democracy or not but that will have to wait for another time. Just one of the clues is actually in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm hungry.

Story Here

So another question to ask is why would Mrs. Clinton go to Asia before going to Europe?