Clintons for Obama......

Obama and the Clintons are banding together....you must have heard Clinton's new ad for Obama recently.  Suddenly, the hard feelings are gone and they're UNITED BIG TIME.  Here's a bit from the linked article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Once a tense rivalry, the relationship between President Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton has evolved into a genuine political and policy partnership. Both sides have a strong incentive in making the alliance work, especially in an election year.

For Obama, Bill Clinton is a fundraising juggernaut, a powerful reminder to voters that a Democrat ran the White House the last time the economy was thriving. For the spotlight-loving former president, stronger ties with the White House and campaign headquarters mean he gets a hand in shaping the future of the party he led for nearly a decade.

Obama's re-election campaign has put Bill Clinton on notice that he will be used as a top surrogate, further evidence of how far the two camps have come since the bitter days of the 2008 Democratic primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton, now his secretary of state.

Here's the most important bit:

"It makes absolutely clear that, to the extent that there were different wings of the Democratic party, there is now one wing of the Democratic party," said Chris Lehane, a Clinton backer. "And it's the president's party."

Yup.........meanwhile, Conservatives are suggesting Gary Johnson or some guy from The Constitution Party named Virgil Goode should run and really good Conservatives will write their names in or something?

Republicans think, Republicans examine, Republicans weigh....and then they eat their young.  Even in a year when they KNOW their vote will put Obama back in the White House and further solidify America's slide.  Even when they know that the Supreme Court's in peril.....They even think America deserves that!  
Democrats will not criticize each other in public, they come together.......winning is everything to them.

It needs to be that for us, too.  Particularly this year.  I don't really want another "I'm voting my conscience and you aren't" conversation here, please..I think there's not much more that can be said here about that, we GET IT...please..........What I am curious about is this:

Is this unholy alliance between the Clintons who seemed to despise the Obamas in 2008 (and the feeling was mutual) all about Hillary in 2016?   Or just Democrat ideology and that it MUST come out ahead no matter who's in charge?  And how effective do you think Bill Clinton's campaigning for his new best friend will be?

Z

Bill Clinton takes over the presidency again......

Bill Clinton seems to have taken over the presidency for a while! 
Take a look at this the video of Obama telling the press, at a press conference, that he's been keeping the First Lady waiting for half an hour, so he's leaving and Bill's taking over to answer questions. 

Don't want to make MICHELLE mad!! 
Obama leaves a press conference to be with Michelle at some Christmas party.........WHAT?  Except, this was NOT a scheduled press conference...read THIS amazing article......the 2 presidents met in private and then had to look for reporters to talk to........had to get someone to unlock the conference room doors!
I don't know...I suppose things come up, but this seems, well......unseemly, to me!
BY the way, is Obama feeling a little impotent these days....?   Read THIS.  He brought in Clinton to sell the tax plan to Democrats!  WHAT is going ON? 
Imagine if Bush had done this and how the media would have reacted instead of how they did? 
"Obama said it was a "terrific meeting" and then yielded to Clinton. The voluble former president took center stage, and Obama left part-way through his remarks, saying he had holiday parties to attend."
Here's what I think they'd have said if Bush had done what Obama did:  "BUSH leaves press conference on taxes to stand by impatient wife Laura at holiday party, is the tax plan so unimportant to him?"  You could make bet on that.  
  
geeez

Clinton fondles Couric!? (ya, well it's a cheap title but it got your attention, right?) :-)

Terry McAwful (McAuliffe), Mick Jagger, Bill Clinton with his hand on Perky Katie Couric's head.
All in a box at the World Soccer Cup in South Africa.........
GOT A CAPTION FOR ANY OF IT? Heh!
z

Hillary was fired............

Please READ THIS....you may not see it elsewhere. Apparently, Hillary Clinton was fired because ''She [Hillary] was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'' This is according to "Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working

on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy´s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation

– one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman´s 17-year career."

Some of you (including me) find FreeRepublic's news questionable......but this information was there and was sent to me by a friend. I Googled it and, sure enough, it's on other sites....nothing in the mainstream media, of course. Is it very important? Probably not, in the scheme of things, but this guy sure found the character of our Secretary of State troubling. (Of course, I'm SURE the mainstream media will get around to covering it...this information came out in 2008......just GIVE THEM TIME :-)
American Thinker had it this year....oh, and Drudge carried it in 2008, and World Net Daily covered it, too. "Darned those truthful Conservative sites", huh? Where is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

It's so easy to dismiss it with "She was young!" but the allegations are pretty tough, aren't they? I like to think she's changed, but I blogged this because I think character is so important and it worries me that she showed such a lack of it...
z

Sestak was not eligible for job that was offered.

READ HERE...I won't write more because I want to keep this short in order for more to see the video/post below (it's so important, particularly this weekend) but I had to post this...some news, eh? (thanks FairWitness)

Time Magazine and Sestak/You won't want to miss this!

Time Magazine has published an article I read with amazement, even though it's in Time Magazine....it's by Michael Grumwald and he has it so wrong and he puts in so much biased conjecture that even I was surprised.
Here's where it gets MORE INTERESTING...Click HERE and read the article if you've got a few minutes, it's not too long and you'll get the gist of his 'reporting' in the first few paragraphs...but, THEN READ THE COMMENTS SECTION!!!!! I am stunned, delighted, and hopeful. Time Mag is not a Conservative magazine so you will be shocked to see what its commenters think of the Sestak situation and Grumwald's writing. Do yourself a favor, it'll give you a lift!

UPDATE: Most of you have heard by now that this morning's story is that this was all CLINTON! HE is the one who offered Sestak something....but, wait....why didn't they just say that immediately when all this came up? AHA, I just saw this statement at the very end of my linked article: "One thing is clear, though: If White House officials weren't at least a little worried, they would have released this information at some other time than the Friday before a holiday weekend." Why, indeed?

ANOTHER UPDATE: From THIS ARTICLE:

"White House Counsel Robery Bauer on Friday rejected claims that Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a top administration job in return for dropping his Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter.

In a memo released by the White House, Bauer says his office has "concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in law," and runs through the various potential positions that have been reported to have been offered to Sestak, who defeated Spcter for the Senate Democratic nomination earlier this month."

Is this it? Does America just say "Oooooh, I SEE...the White House rejects any claims of impropriety" ?? Did that happen for Bush? Did it happen for "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton? REALLY? is that it? Or does the White House think that's that?

z

When Liberals talk, do words also have 'consequences,' Mr Clinton? (and don't miss two FABULOUS videos I link to below)

Here's an AP article on Yahoo Headline news:

WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying "the words we use really do matter."

The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn't trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. (Z: any purpose to identifying McVeigh the murderer as an ARMY VETERAN? Isn't that like when some nasty person kills an abortion doctor and they identify him immediately as "Christian" even if he only taught Sunday school once thirty years ago? But, we're silly if we complain, right? "No bias here..move on" )

"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold — but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.

"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have." (Z: don't look now, Mr. Clinton, but a lot of very good, smart constitution-loving Conservatives are feeling a little impotent in influencing the hideous stances of your party lately...'the more influence you have.....'? WHAT influence? You finally admitting that the Tea Partiers ARE wielding more influence than you like people to think?)

Clinton made the remarks at events sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the upcoming anniversary of the bombing.

He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers. (Z: Has anybody seen hundreds of people looking to kill Obama, or calling him Hitler like they did Bush?... or wishing Biden dead like they did Dick Cheney? Anybody seen conservative celebrities going to Europe and trashing our country and president to large crowds? NO? Hmmm....and Clinton thinks what's happening now is 'rancorous?', 'threatening?')

"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said. (Z: I give up! WHO? "MANY PEOPLE who are DEEPLY DEEPLY TROUBLED?" What, for not agreeing with OBAMA?)

He also alluded to the anti-government tea party movement, which held protests in several states Thursday. At the Washington rally, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota railed against "gangster government." (Z: they're not anti all government, they're against THIS government's actions)

Clinton argued that the Boston Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. The current protesters, he said, are challenging taxation by elected officials, and the demonstrators have the power to vote them out of office.

"By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing," he said. "But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City."

Z: SO, now we are slammed for peaceful protests, right? If there are really only "dozens" of protesters at the Tea Parties, as CNN put it early this week, why are they so worried? Oh, I remember, because they're thousands, not "dozens"....And, those are 'protests', yes, but what about when liberals destroy buildings and have to get locked up by the hundreds after smashing the areas around political conventions, etc etc etc., Bill Ayers, the Black Panthers, the SEIU beating up Black Republicans, the guy who shot at Eric Cantor's offices........

Clinton's disingenuous...you all see that. BUT, it's very effective! Americans who don't question his words think "Oh, man, those AWFUL DEEPLY DEEPLY TROUBLED nuts have to be stopped....it's CLINTON, after all...and HE'S RIGHT!" Don't think for a second this kind of talk isn't aimed at those American voters.........It's very effective...very cunning............very disgustingly biased and as hate-mongering as any tea partier could dream of being, in my opinion.

Please let me know what you think of Clinton's words....then, do yourself a favor and watch the video below this post, a very short answer from a Black Tea Partier, AND, then go over to Beamish's CRANK FILES and catch Andrew Breitbart's AMAZING, ROUSING, PATRIOTIC, and TRUE SPEECH.............I PROMISE, you will NOT be sorry. CLICK HERE.

Maybe there are some really GREAT THINGS happening in America? Maybe THAT's why Clinton's so 'fearful'? :-)

z

Caption Day

"He thought he was in charge then, too?" Got this today and couldn't resist posting it.......It IS funny! Got another caption? Keep it nice (ish)!

z

BUY MORE CHINESE?

Hillary Clinton in China: "Because our economies are so intertwined the Chinese know that in order to start exporting again to its biggest market, the United States had to take some very drastic measures with this stimulus package," Clinton said.

"We have to incur more debt. It would not be in China's interest if we were unable to get our economy moving again."

Clinton added: "The US needs the investment in Treasury bonds to shore up its economy to continue to buy Chinese products." (didn't we once say BUY AMERICAN?)

(Old picture, old plans?) z

Activists are SHOCKED! (good or bad?)

Activists are 'shocked' at Hillary's stance on human rights in China:

"Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet.

"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing."

RuhRoh. Put aside the POINT of this (human rights) for now, how fast do you think she'll cave to her buddies, the 'activists' who are 'shocked'? Did they really think EVERYTHING Obama's administration would do is payback? They supported him, so he's got to play their game to our possible peril? Do you think this stance will last?

Of course, if Hillary STILL doesn't understand that the 'global climate change crisis' is something she REALLY needs to learn more about before putting human rights second to it, then that IS a problem. But "economic crisis"? "security crisis?" Yes, I think we might want to put those in front of Tibet for a while...at least until some of these crises are dealt with, or at least negotiations with China, NO?

OR does this mean we're caving into them because at least we HAD the human rights situation hanging over them for negotiation purposes...? OR did our Left make it so that OUR human rights have been painted to be so inferior (Gitmo, Haditha, etc.) that we don't have any moral authority on that anymore?

What're your thoughts?

On a personal note, I think I might forgo wearing RED in CHINA....what about you? (heh)

z

Just saw this picture.

You know how I ask for captions sometimes?

THIS one? Oh, please...DO NOT DO IT!!

This one...I'm not asking............. (much!)

(okay, but keep it clean!)

"Clinton Foundation's Secret Donor"

Here it goes...The Clintons refusing to give the details............How long will we go for this?

Hillary was confirmed..it's a done deal. Could somebody show this information to the Republicans who confirmed her? (Then also tell them I'm not paying my taxes on time this year because Geithner didn't!!)

Isn't THIS a happy little post!? I can't help it, folks. The times are getting scary. IMAGINE what the media would have done about Bill's foundation money OR Geithner if these were Republicans!?

Yes, this post is angry and accusatory but what is going on here? Why the unfairness? How can we have gone this far from doing the right thing? Since when do we get a Secretary of State whose husband won't tell exactly what foreign countries are giving his foundation money? Shouldn't we ask? Would we not be a healthier, safer country were our media to at least ASK?

z

Hillary Clinton

So, listen....if Mrs. Bush had said that she's given enough evidence that her husband's charitable foundation "will not be in the atmosphere" when she becomes Secretary of State, do you think the senate or the media would give it a pass? Check out the link and the video in the link.......Mrs. Clinton is obviously very confident she's given enough information, and here's a clip from the article:

"The AP reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation. The AP obtained three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests; all said their donations to the Clinton foundation had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's previous work on their issues.

"Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor," spokesman Philippe Reines said."

Will this be treated like Obama's been treated?....If the spokesman says it, it MUST be true?

Do you think this will go any further for Hillary and the senate will demand more information and better details of future donations to the foundation? Or is she scot free of any impropriety and could we be hanging out to dry if she does act in interests other than our own for the cash? Or for history which included payback of any kind?

Anybody think she's a really terrible nominee, or do you think she'll be fine. I have mixed feelings about it, myself.

z

Is Hillary REALLY the best nominee for Secretary of State? Check this out from Germany's Die Welt.

Sometimes I feel like our government's one big house of prostitution. It's all Pay AND Play, huh?


Who do you think would have been a better nominee?

z

Welcome to Life with the Clintons...must be quite a cozy place!

Can you picture what the Clinton breakfast table conversation sounded like this morning when they opened their copies of the New York Times? That breakfast room is awfully close to the knife drawer, don't you think!? Here's a snippet from the linked article:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton's globe-trotting business deals and fundraising for his foundation sometimes put his activities abroad at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and could cause complications if President-elect Barack Obama picks her to be secretary of state.

Yes, fellow bloggers, sometimes there IS divine justice. You think SHE was madder or HE was madder? Or, does it REALLY 'madder'?!

z