Ah, Come On...Does She Really???

Hillary "exaggerates?" Stunning, isn't it?

Actually the only stunning thing about this "news" is that CBS News is actually "reporting" it, or characterizing it as they have.

See it for yourself HERE.

Many of us caught on to this problem of the Clintons back in the 1990's........

He Changed His Position Again..

Obama, that is. He's changed - - once again - - his position on whether or not, as President, he would pay a visit, have a discussion, and/or "negotiate" with the President of Iran.

Obama has been all over the road on the Iran question. In 2007, he sated in a Democratic Presidential debate that, as President, he would never consider using nuclear weapons in a conflict with Iran, only to change his mind a day later.

Most recently, he has been making himself appear "different" and "new," as compared to President Bush, by insisting that, as President, he will talk to all nations, friend and foe alike, with out "pre-conditions."

First, let's get some things straight. The U.S. has been "talking" with Iran for 30 years - - every administration since the days of President Carter has done this. That's nothing new.

But that kind of "talking" has happened through diplomats, envoys, and other representatives of the U.S.

It has also been the policy of every President since Carter's days to NOT speak directly to dictators, especially heads of state of nations known to be "terrorist nations." Carter understood why it was essential to not do that. So did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and the current Bush.

But Obama has insisted otherwise. Until yesterday, when he changed his mind again, saying that when he said he'll "talk to friend and foe alike," he didn't necessarily mean a direct presidential visit to the Iranian president.

As if 30 years of presidential wisdom isn't enough, Obama should read this article in today's Wall Street Journal, before any more talks about "talking."

"Why all the fuss about Hillary, now???"

The behavior that we're seeing now from the Clintons is nothing new, now is it?

Millions of Americans were disgusted with their "beat up your opponent, then claim that YOU'RE the actual victim" political gamesmanship for most of the 1990's.

Now, the Democratic Party has woken-up to this "long, national nightmare," and they don't know how to end it.

And what a rude awakening it is. During the previous decade the Clintons' favorite targets of nastiness were the Republican Congress, and rural Americans, and "right wing talk radio," and Matt Drudge, and "this vast right wing conspiracy." Today the Clintons' target is one of the Democratic Party's best and brightest: a young, very talented, very capable African-American Senator named Barack Obama. Imagine that - - a Black man that didn't ask for, nor need any help from Hillary or Bill. In fact, he's a black man who has successfully invaded the Clintons' turf....

Hey Democrats - - welcome to "our world" - - the world of the 1990's conservative American. How does it feel?

"...A dark soul?" Oh really???

I'm intrigued with New York Daily News' columnist Michael Goodwin, and his reference to Hillary Clinton as one having a "dark soul."

Goodwin's column is fine, so far as it goes.

My intrigue is found in the reality that, for some, the notion of either one, or both of the Clintons being people of this sort, is actually news.

For most of the 1990's, many Americans (obviously a minority of us back then) were put-off at the Clintons' dishonesty, tasteless manipulating of facts and rhetoric, and willingness to "use" and "wound" anybody in their path, in order to acheive whatever they needed to acheieve in the moment.

Only now, now that other Democrats are the intended objects of their nastiness, have so many people begun to pay attention to their nastiness....

Horribly Awkward....

....That's about the best way one can describe the moment when John McCain was asked about "the elephant in the livingroom" by Talk Show Host Ellen Degeneres...

The link to the video is HERE.

McCain's remarks were fine, so far as they went. The problem was twofold: A) He allowed Ellen complete control over how the "debate" was framed (as to be expected, she cast the discussion in terms of "fairness," spoke in terms of homosexual marriage being just another "civil right," and insisted that "we're all the same" - - heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships - - they are all "the same" - - whatever that's supposed to mean). And B) McCain looked horrified. He looked frightened. He didn't even look Ellen in the eye as he disagreed with her. He looked away at the points where he "politely disagreed."

McCain's position on the issue is more in line with that of a majority of Americans, than is Obama's position, or Ellen's, or Hillary's. But if our prospective President can't look Ellen in the eye and politely disagree with her....this is going to be a huge problem for the remainder of his campaign...

..I HATE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO," BUT.....

Jonathan Alter's latest writing in Newsweek Magazine says it all (see it right HERE). Hillary Clinton's focus on "the popular vote" in the Democratic Primary election cycle does damage to the party.



Do Hillary and Bill care? Of course not! And about that "I told you so" part of the show...I predicted these latest antics from the Clintons nearly two weeks ago - - click HERE to say my Townhall Dot Com column from May 11th.

Keep yours eyes on this scenario - - you likley won't see anything like it again in your lifetime.

...Woefully Unimpressive....

...That's how I am describing Barack Obama's behavior as of late. Seems like every time I see or hear of him, he's having another "how dare you?" moment.

He played this game when he reacted - - with a guilty conscience, no less - - to the President's address in Israel last week. He did a "how dare you?" with Senator McCain. And he issued not only a "how dare you?," but a threat of retaliation, of sorts, to anybody who would dare make remarks about his wife Michele Obama.

Michele can be high-profile in the campaign, and remain highly vocal, and tell the world of her embarrassment of her country. But you and I shall not dare to ask questions, nor be criticial.

Otherwise, "how dare you?"

...JUST TO MAKE OBAMA'S LIFE A LIVING HELL...

Don't look for our nation's sniper-fire dodging former First Lady (you know, the one who was practically president for eight years already and really shouldn't have to go through all this primary election scrutinizing stuff) to fold up her campaign anytime soon. Sure, liberal politicos and media pundits alike are saying that they're "just giving Hillary her space," and letting her "arrive at her own decision on her own terms," and so forth and so on.

And yes, mathematically, and practically speaking, Obama appears to be the obvious nominee. But Obama is also showing signs of volatility, when juxtaposed with McCain.

He has "issues" on foreign policy; he seems "unseasoned" at times with respect to his demeanor towards the executive office itself; and yes, rightly or wrongly, many people perceive him as being "a Muslim," and as having ties to terrorists.

All the more reason Mrs. Clinton will remain in the race and argue that, not only are she and her husband entitled to return to the White House, but that the party needs her now more than ever...

And, spiteful people that they are, Hillary and Bill can continue to be a thorn in the side for Obama...perhaps their greatest motivation for staying in the game.

The "Risky Business" Of Nominating Obama

Is an Obama nomination a risky thing for the Democratic Party? As a candidate, he certainly entails plenty of liabilities, along with his many assets. The very astute Ken Blackwell seems to think that Obama will ultimately prove to be a loser for Democrats in November, and lists several reasons why.

I've been talking about this alot on my show at 630 WMAL (weekday evenings 8-10pm Eastern Time), and as I've been filling-in at NewsTalk 92-3FM KTAR in Phoenix, AZ.

But the liabilities of Obama are likely to get worse - - and the fact that they are now being recognized at this stage in the game, supports my notion that the Clintons will stay in the race unitl the party throws them out - - and will continue to argue that, yes, only THEY can appeal to "white America," and, thus, Obama will be a disaster with non-black voters.

Stay tuned - - lots more on this coming up.

..But there's more to the story of Hillary's demise...

Time Magazine writer Karen Tumulty makes some salient points about how, and why, Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have lost what should have been an obvious, "inevitable" nomination for the presidency.

As pragmatic politics go, Tumulty offers some real, legitimate insights.

You can read it HERE.

But there's more to the story. Tumulty doesn't seem to address the harsh reality that both Clintons suffer from a justifiable perception among millions of Americans, that there is a gulf of distance between them, and "the truth." This is especially true of Hillary right now.

For better or worse, Americans expect politicians to lie - - at least a little bit, and at least occassionally. But most "lying politicans" don't perpetuate the same line over and over for e months, nor do must continue with that same lie even after having been "caught" by the press.

But Hillary did this very thing, with her now-famous "Bosnian snyper fire" story.

And both she, and former President Bill Clinton, have, as only they can do, skewed the facts, and construed half-truths about Senator Obama, on a whole slew of issues.

At this stage in our nation's history, Americans may appear to be quite relativistic with their moral convictions, and in some respects this perspective is warranted. But America still embodies some sense of right versus wrong, and the Clintons have appeared wrong far too many times within the past few months......

And this has hurt the Clintons' plans to return to the White House.

Silvie Sounds Off (And I Post A Very Self-Serving "Guest Blog" Entry....)

So, how self-serving can I be??


Extremely....

But honestly, I was humbled, and grateful, for the highly complimentary letter I got from Silive in Waldorf, MD. She likes the show. And she took some time to compose her thoughts about the show, and offered them as a "guest blog entry." So here it goes - - and Thank You, Silvie.


Austin,

You are quirky and clever and I think you've found your 'niche' in the sense that you've made your show a terrific combination of a serious political program mixed with pop culture and/or with curious news bits, which, as a listener, I thoroughly enjoy. That combination makes for a very interesting and listenable show. Keep it up like that, because it's great to hear you on the radio (I listen to you evenings on 630 WMAL).

I especially enjoyed your show last night (5/1/08) in which you had the discussion of the gas tax for the first hour, and the Hillary candidacy in the second hour. In between, you'd tell the listener of the new YouTube political pundit teen sensation, James Duke Mason, son of famous singer Belinda Carlisle. Throughout the show, you played Belinda/Go-Go's bumper songs (as well as snipets of her son's YouTube video in which he announces that Belinda is endorsing Hillary). I was "glued" to the show 'til the end. It was great radio and the mixing of both themes works well.

Best to you,
Silvie in Waldorf, MD

It's All About "Punishment..."

I rarely offer critique or evaluation of the work of other media personalities, whether it be good or bad. But I've got to offer big kudos to Bill O'Rielly of the Fox News Channel for his extraordinary interview with Hillary Rodham Clinton. O'Rielly created a sense of chemistry with Hillary like I've never seen any other media host do, and while providing appropriate and enjoyable moments of fun and levity (and yes, Hillary even seemed to have a sense of humor, too), he still managed to get at some profoundly substantive content.

Perhaps most telling was his line of questioning - - and her answers - - regarding America's energy policy, and her plans to change it. O'Rielly noted that Hillary is fond of criticising the "oil men" who are currently in the White House (Bush and Cheney); that during 8 years as President, the other half of "Team Clinton" (Bill) did nothing to move America towards energy independence; that Mrs. Clinton herself has repeatedly voted in the U.S. Senate to oppose nuclear power; that she has opposed drilling for oil domestically; and asserted that her recent plans to suspend the federal gasoline tax is hypocrisy, and "just politics."

Hillary insisted that "there's plenty of blame to go around..." but avoided discussion about governmental failures. O'Rielly nearly begged her to talk about nuclear power, drilling our own nation's oil, adn the like, yet she had essentially NOTHING to say about expanding energy supplies...For her, it was all about 'taking profits away' from oil companies, allowing Americans to sue OPEC (as if this is going to improve anything), and "changing American consumers' behavior" with gasoline consumption (translation: government should punish you for driving too much, owning a "big" car, etc...). In short, it's not about growing markets and expanding opportunities for Hillary; it's about using governmental power to "punish."

Get to the homepage, www.Foxnews.Com, and view this extraordinary interview for yourself.

Nice work, Bill (and hey, can I fill-in for you sometime? I fill-in everywhere...)