opinetree

Today, as part of our special week covering candidates with the shadiest of contemporaries, we fall upon Hillary Clinton. In an April debate, she said all of her "baggage" had been "rummaged through" for years. But her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers may not be so well-known.

Flash back to the middle of the 1980s. Madonna's "Like a Virgin" was gracing the charts, and Hillary was about to end her own celibacy in the area of schmoozing with Islamists. At the time, she was serving on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to (surprise) the PLO.


I'll remind you that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was officially recognized by the government of the United States as a terrorist organization. But Hillary didn't see a problem with this, or as she would have you believe, she didn't know. In much the same way Obama had no idea his preacher hated America, Hillary had no idea her foundation was giving money to terrorists.

Now flash forward. It's 1996 and Hillary is First Lady. After failing to shove her healthcare plan down our throats (and after Bill succeeded in shoving his...well, you understand), one of her notable initiatives was an "outreach program" to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. Her Muslim mixer was described by terrorism expert Steve Emerson in the Wall Street Journal as follows:

"Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence."

Which groups were these? The American Muslim Alliance (AMA), and none other than our good friends at CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Both groups attended a reception hosted by Hillary that same year, and both groups have had their funding tied to Hamas. In other words, Hillary has Israeli and Arab blood on her hands. Or pantsuits, as it were. Emerson again says of these groups:
The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the 90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. He was also, according to Emerson, "the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads." This is a man who took the credit when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire in a Jerusalem mall.

Flash forward once again. It's 2000, and Hilldawg just can't wait to get her Senate seat (from which she will later launch her ultimately unsuccessful bid for the presidency). Guess who held a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton? The American Muslim Alliance. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the Massachusetts chapter of the group, said "we must support all who have Muslim interests at heart." Dick Morris described how her staffers attempted to conceal the source of the funds:

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq. I hope also that she will maintain her husband's policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy."

Meanwhile in Gaza, local Al-Aqsa Brigade leader Abu Hamed noted that:

Labels: Election 2008

As I reported last week, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be visiting New York City at the end of this month. Naturally, given his holocaust denial and repeated threats to destroy Israel, Manhattan's Jewish population isn't too pleased. Several Jewish organizations are planning a "Stop Iran" rally to coincide with Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations.

Among the confirmed speakers slated to appear at the rally were Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and author Elie Wiesel. However "Clinton officials" soon learned of Palin's scheduled appearance, and decided that while a Democrat speaking at an anti-Iran protest was fine, a Republican speaker suddenly turned the rally into a "partisan political event."

Needless to say, Hillary is taking her ball and going home:

"We are pleased to inform you that the keynote speakers at the "Stop Iran. Now!" Rally are confirmed to be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor Sarah Palin and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel," read an e-mail from a leader of a Jewish group planning the event.

But the curtain came down on the comedy sketch-turned-reality before the duo ever hit the stage: Clinton officials soon said they had not been told Palin would be on hand - and that her presence, which made the event a political one, would mean the absence of the New York senator.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

The McCain/Palin campaign released a statement in response to Hillary's decision to put concern over potential awkwardness above speaking out against a man who hangs homosexuals and stones women:

"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat."

In fact, by saying "to hell with it," Clinton has made this a political event. Why wasn't it a political event when Obama and McCain appeared together at ground zero to commemorate 9/11?

Of course, she could just be worried about sniper fire.

Labels: Iran

She...she did it. I didn't see this coming, and I'm pretty sure Obama didn't either.

Hillary won 3 out of 4 states up for grabs last night. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I saw it coming -- a tidal wave of Clinton rhetoric. A chorus of Obama gospel. Back and forth, on and on, with no end in sight. Hillary at the very least prolonged her campaign, and at the very, very most, struck a turnaround blow to Barack that will catalyze jumps in the polls.

On the other side of the spectrum, while his base was watching American Idol, McCain clenched the GOP nomination.

Obama took Vermont early, and with it his 12th victory in a row. This kid has been throwing knockout punches. As the Clinton and Obama campaigns claimed "voting problems" in Ohio, Hillary took the state. Some analysts are saying she could win the next 16 straight contests and still lose to Barack, but she will undoubtedly steal some of his Obamamentum.

Labels: Election 2008

There was a curious op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, and it struck me as the most blatant example of stereotypical racism I've ever seen in the media. Orlando Patrick is alleging that the now-infamous Hillary Clinton "3 A.M." campaign ad "had a racist sub-message."

In case you missed it, here's the video:
What was racist about the ad? There were only white people in it, of course. Patterson blames the attempt at a racial divide on Hillary's low polling numbers in Texas among whites, and compares Clinton's daisy ad to the white supremacist film Birth of a Nation. He states:

Keywords: "as I see it." This is important, because Orlando sees only what he wants to see. What else would he write about?

I have no idea what Obama would have to say during an urgent call from a world leader, but I can probably take a bet on Hillary's response being "Bill, it's for you."

Labels: Election 2008, Media

Barack Obama is being accused by the Clinton campaign of molding one of his key arguments around speeches by Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign. The contention made by both men is that their rhetoric amounts to much more than empty yet inspiring words. But did he "plagiarize?" You be the judge.
Well, he did choose most of the same quotes, with the exception of "Ask not what your country can do for you..." from JFK's inaugural address. This is because Obama's motto is the opposite: "Step right up and tell me what your country (ahem, government) can do for you!"

It seems Governor Patrick was following the Obama formula of Hopes + Quotes = Votes. I had never heard of Deval Patrick, but then again, no one had heard of Barack Obama before he announced he was running for president. Some of us are still wondering exactly who he is.

While the speeches are very similar, it seems a few things are going on. After being propped up and given life (some would argue by the Clintons themselves), Mary Shelly's Obama is slowly being exposed to those who pay attention as the empty-promises-anything-for-a-vote politician he is. This is one reason why many can't wait to see him debate a Republican. But give the guy a break, at least until the convention.

In the YouTube generation, follies like these can circle the globe in moments. Someone should have told Hillary that before she used this "borrowed" line:
And how many of her lines have come straight from Karl Marx? She's built on "borrowing" ideas because she doesn't have any of her own. The consensus seems to be that the Clintons are grasping at straws at this point. Are we about to see Hillary go negative? Is the Wicked Witch of the East River going to unleash her army of flying monkeys?

If this is the best dirt her team of campaign excavators can dig up, we are probably witnessing the spiraling downfall of Hillary Clinton – a downfall which will be undeniably exquisite.

This story is getting way, way, way too much play. The facts have come out, and it's the opinion of this writer that Obama didn't "plagiarize;" you're witnessing the last act of a desperate woman (and her husband.)

Labels: Election 2008

The rock star Obama has stolen the show. Amid fainting girls and cheering masses, voter turnout was higher than Barack in high school. Upon reading an ABC News article detailing exit polls from the Wisconsin primary, the following truths have been revealed to me:

Really? Maybe because they were too busy sitting on their hands, frozen with the knowledge that no matter what happens, they're pulling the GOP lever in November. Or for readers in Florida, impregnating the GOP chad. Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians should understand that politics is never about purity, but always about choices.

And speaking of choices, you don't seem to have many. You have to recognize your future is wrapped up inside a bitter little pill -- one which you're eventually going to have to swallow. There are seemingly two doses at this point: President Obama, or President McCain. When the moment comes, Conservatives better swallow with some semblance of unity or they're done for.

McCain gave no one the surprise of their life as he shuffleboarded into an easy victory.

I think this is one of the most accurate sentences I've seen in the media in a long time. Too bad it goes without saying. This spells the end for Hillary Clinton. Liberal voters are just squirming for "change," and to them, playing a game of National-Twister with the compass needle of American destiny seems infinitely more appealing than giving McCain four years at the helm. It's a scary thought for me too.

Hillary put all of her eggs (including those hatched with her "husband") into the "experience" basket instead of the "change" basket. Obama didn't have this option...obviously. This mistake has been primarily responsible for her collapse, and now she's going down faster than a lightheaded Obama supporter. And on the subject of fainting, is Barack the new Beatles?


Hillary's experience is meaningless if not an obvious indicator that she is not to be trusted with power. This we all know. But her support seems to be dwindling, having gone the way of the Dodo. Or rather, the way of the Rose Law Firm billing records. Remember that, girlfriend?

In the end, Barack Obama blessed the blissful with another victory:

• More women voted for him. (51-49)
• More whites voted for him. (53-46)
• More white men voted for him. (59-38)
• All age groups under 65 voted for him.
• All education levels voted for him.
• All regions of the state voted for him.

I imagine every one of those bullet points as a nail in Hillary's coffin.

Labels: Election 2008

During a speech in Florida, Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans would launch racial attacks against him in an effort to "make you afraid of me." His exact words were: "They're gonna try to make you afraid of me. They're gonna say, you know what? Hes uh...he's young and inexperienced, and uh...he's got a funny name. Did I mention he's black?"

I've obtained a video, but you'll have to excuse Wolf Blitzer and his CNN cohorts. Watch.
Did Barack Obama forget when Jeremiah-gate exploded, and McCain refused to comment on Barack's pastor or the church? When everyone in the media couldn't say enough about how controversial the reverend was (and is), McCain said nothing. By hitting the mute button, he looked foolish in the eyes of conservatives and those outraged by Wright's anti-American statements. But in doing so, he refused to give Obama any ammunition.

Obama also must be forgetting that it was a Hillary Clinton staffer who sent the photo of him in African/Muslim garb to the Drudge Report, and that Clinton herself could only give a tepid repudiation of the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor. Barack is essentially saying that Republicans are racist, and that his "blackness" is the only reason people are afraid of him.

And that's another thing: How has he determined that he is black? He could just as much say that he's white, couldn't he? After all, he mother was white, and he was raised by white people with "Kansas values." So when did White + Black = Black?

If he was smart, he would use his own mixed racial identity as an analogy to the ways he will transcend the lines of race and culture - the cornerstone of his position on racial issues. He would say, "I'm not black, and I'm not white. I'm an example of why the question of white or black is an irrelevant one. Don't look at my skin color. Don't try to put me into a category or assign me a group identity. I'm a person like each and every one of you."

But of course, attending an America-damning Afro-centric church for 20 years kind of negates that strategy (and his entire premise of racial transcendence). If Obama has proof that the Republican Party and/or the McCain campaign plans racial attacks on him, then let the messiah show us. But if he doesn't, then Obama is guilty of his own race-baiting (the accusation he is throwing at Republicans) and should apologize.

Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania, Video

First off, do you remember Barack's infamous Gaza phone bank? Here's a refresher:


Now, Ken Timmerman has written an excellent article on some of Obama's shadier campaign contributions, from folks like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro." Sure, Obama isn't required to identify contributions of less than $200, but given that McCain does it voluntarily, along with the fact that Obama claims to be all about a different type of transparent politics (and has famously been helped by small/grassroots donors), it's a little odd that he hasn't released this information.

Timmerman agrees:

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good" from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You."

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 - still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad," from "Nando, NY," gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You," just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX" and that his profession was "VCVC."

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Also worth noting is this excerpt from the Economist:

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

So the Messiah is bringing in heaps of cash from foreigners who may or may not be citizens, as well as equally large piles of money from inside the country from untraceable phantoms who make up identities and break up their contributions into smaller amounts, for which the reporting requirements aren't as strict.

Change!

Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania

I'm not going to write about Hillary's Bosnia lie. After all, she "misspoke," didn't she? This is simply the latest, and it's being treated as though it's the first dishonest thing this woman has ever done (or ever been caught doing). Let's go down the list:


She said her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. She was in bed watching it happen on TV.

She claimed she was named after the man who famously conquered Mt. Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary. However, he didn't climb the mountain until five years after she was born.

She claims that she didn't know her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

She attests that taking the White House "gifts" was a clerical error.

She didn't know her staff would fire the travel office staff (after she told them to do so). I believe the exact quote was "Fire their asses."

She alleges that she didn't know the 2000 Peter Paul fund-raiser in Hollywood cost $700,000 more than she reported.

She lied about her support for NAFTA.

She claims she was instrumental in the Irish peace process, and also attests that she was the one who urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

She claims she played a role in the economic recovery of the 90's...as First Lady. Mmhmm.

She lied about the billing records from the Rose Law Firm being in her possession. She was caught red handed.

Oh, and she thought Bill was innocent when the Lewinski scandal hit the wires. Does that count? Why are you surprised about another whopper (with cheese) from this calculating demagogue?

Labels: Election 2008

This week, a Hillary Clinton campaign advertisement surfaced as unexpectedly as my lunch did after viewing it. Enjoy.

There are no words.

Labels: Election 2008, Video

Just another sad example of the utter garbage you often get when you send your children to college. Here are some choice words about Sarah Palin from Professor Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago's Divinity School:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

But I'm sure Hillary Clinton speaks for America's women, right? A woman whose entire career was (and let's hope it's past-tense) rooted in being married to a powerful man? Isn't feminism all about breaking down traditional barriers on your own, attaining positions of leadership previously reserved for men, and being strong enough to keep a family together while still having a career and aspirations?

Also, according to Wikipedia, Ms. Doniger was born in 1940. Does that picture look like a 68 year old woman to you? You aren't ashamed of your age, are you Wendy? Sorry, but your hypocrisy is much more palpable.

Update: If you read the comments in response to her column, the negative reactions are winning by about 500-1. Among my favorites:

It is clear that modern feminism isn't about women at all. I have known for years the ugly secret is that the leaders of "the feminist movement" are a bunch of lesbians who hate men. It's fine to be a lesbian, but it's not okay to denigrate those who don't agree with you. The reason I had the light bulb come on about liberal think [sic] is that they really are NOT open-minded. They have small boxes they put everyone in, and will be outraged if you dare try and escape. It's really sad, but also gratifying to see this type of stuff coming to fuller light.

Also, Charles Nelson Reilly called. He wants his glasses back.

Labels: Sarahcuda

Rational-thinking Briton Gerard Baker writes in the Times Online today that the reason the presidential race is so close is because there is a "yawning gulf between what [Barack Obama] says and how he has acted." He's right.


It's a pretty sober column, and worth reading in its entirety, but here are some excerpts:

This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice.

It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that.

This is of course true, and explains why Barry is so immensely popular with Europeans, young and old alike. Obama and the rest of the American Left are essentially the arbiters of egalitarian values; values which seem to work just fine for Europe, but which are distinctly un-American. However, Baker says this isn't the only reason to be nervous about Obama:

Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr. Obama.

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.

Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance.

If you're an Obama voter, yet still possess some capacity for rational thought, this could be devastating. If I were John McCain, I'd be loading my cannons with this ammunition. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, and one that I'm glad someone outside the United States is mentioning: John McCain, as insufferable as he can be at times, is the only person running for president with real reform experience, and a resume full of uncomfortable positions which went against his own party's interests. Or, to put it in terms Mr. Obama can understand, "change from the politics of usual."

Of course we know Barack Obama had the number one most liberal Senate voting record in 2007, and has never broken from his party on the Iraq war, abortion, redefining marriage, health care, taxes, immigration, or any issue of importance to the American people. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist who, until just a few years ago, no one knew existed. Baker continues:

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the "culture wars" in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.

So it seems Obama does break with his own party, but only to run even farther to the left of them. Gerard sums up his analysis with the following gem:

The fact is that a vote for Mr. Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

As I've said before, as the Hope-ium and Dreamamine highs slowly wear off, and the enlightened and anoited drift back down to Earth, Captain Change doesn't seem quite so bulletproof anymore.

Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania