Hillary will rise again!

Just heard on a news show that there's a strong and angry reaction from the left towards Obama and his recent support of right wing positions, and that Nader is polling 6%.  Analysts don't think he'll get 6% in general but say if he gets 2-3% he could be a spoiler.  I've heard nothing about the Greens; not even sure if anyone is checking their numbers.  I would suggest that if Obama fans don't want their beloved to lose, they let their candidate know, loudly, that he has to retract his support of Scalia and Thomas. But perhaps they don't really care.

Now Bill wants me!

Dear xxxxxx,

I have played so many roles at so many Democratic National Conventions. I've been there as a campaign worker, a governor, a keynote speaker, a nominee, a president, and a former president.

But no convention is quite like your first. There is nothing like seeing for the first time so many people in one place working toward one common purpose: electing the next Democratic president.

It's an inspiration, and you don't want to miss it if you have a chance. So I hope you'll take Hillary up on her offer and contribute by midnight tonight for a chance to attend the Denver convention in person. You'll get to see Hillary speak on Tuesday, and Barack Obama -- the next president of the United States -- on Thursday.

And I hear Hillary and you will have a chat -- I'll make sure to stop by.

Enter before midnight tonight for a chance to see me, Hillary, and Barack Obama at the convention in Denver next week!

Join Hillary in Denver. Contribute today.

I know you've always been there for Hillary, and she needs you now as she works to pay the small vendors who helped us during the campaign. Hillary's not going to stop fighting for the issues we all care so much about, and she's going to need you all the way.

And if you contribute before the midnight deadline, you might have the chance to join Hillary and me in Denver next week for a truly exciting and historic convention. You're going to get to see an amazing display of Democratic unity in person -- you don't want to miss it.

Contribute before midnight tonight for a chance to join me and Hillary in Denver next week.

Thanks for all the support and help you've shown to Hillary. I can tell you that it means the world to her.
 

Me again! 

How do I tell these people it's not about them, it's about universal health insurance (and electing the first woman president).  I could care less about Hillary's debt and even less about talking to her or Bill.  It appears, regretfully, from reading various political threads that with most voters, it has little (and in some cases nothing) to do with platform and positions.  It's about personality.  Save the personality stuff for concerts and films; remember it's your future you're voting on in November, and not how the candidate looks in a suit or how many soaring phrases he can fit into a sentence, and it's not even about how the candidate's wife dresses.  Really, it's not!

Shirley, don't be confused!  I had a single focus this year and it was universal health care, which I believe to be the most important domestic issue in this country, and also the most moral. We're a disgrace in the world with respect to how we treat people who are sick.  That being said, if Obama had advocated mandated universal health care (he didn't), all other things being equal (and they are), Hillary's gender would have pushed me into her corner. Women are the most despised group in the world (older women, in particular).   A woman in the White House would have demonstrated to the world that women are equal partners of men (more than equal, in my view) and her accession to the WH might have caused some long needed changes.  It's not true, of course, that a woman in high office is necessarily good for women, or humanity (remember Margaret Thatcher), but Hillary Clinton has a long history of defending and promoting the rights of women and children.  But to address your question which deals with her being the general election nominee, I can't say I would have voted for her.  I still might have voted third party, since in New York the Democrat always wins and IMAO it's vitally important that third parties build up their support for the next presidential election.  But no matter what, I would never vote for McCain.  He's policies are far away from what I want for this country, and in all the things that matter most to me.

Speaking of separation of church and state and the recent pandering of politicians to the Christian right.  (How can one call himself Christian and support the death penalty and also be against choice?  Haven't figured that one out no doubt because I'm cursed with a logical mind!)   Here's an example of McCain's recent pandering:

Huffington Post: 

The blogosphere is abuzz right now over the discovery that a POW story told by John McCain (R) at Saturday night’s presidential forum is eerily similar to one told by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his famous book The Gulag Archipelago which chronicled his time in a Soviet labor camp in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Here’s what McCain told Saddleback Church’s Pastor Rick Warren last night -- according to the unofficial transcript released by the church:

It was Christmas Day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes, and those days we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other although we certainly did. And I was standing outside for a few minutes, outside my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute and with his handle [sic] on the dirt in the courtyard he drew a cross and he stood there and a minute later, he rubbed it out and walked away. For a minute there, there was just two Christians worshiping together. I'll never forget that moment.

Now check out how what Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago:

Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation. The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair.

On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him. He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union.  He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

Solzhenitsyn slowly rose to his feet, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Outwardly, nothing had changed. Inside, he had received hope.

Isn't it odd that McCain and Solzhenitsyn would have experienced such nearly identical events during their respective captivities? And note that Solzhenitsyn’s event happened well before McCain’s but wasn’t published until after his release.

But the coincidences get even more troubling.

First, know that McCain is a very big fan of Solzhenitsyn’s and is fond of referencing him.

In McCain's 2007 book Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them McCain devotes an entire chapter to Solzhenitsyn and his experiences as recounted in The Gulag Archipelago.

In June 2005, after Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) found himself apologizing for likened FBI reports of military tactics used at Guantanamo Base to techniques used in Nazi Germany, the Soviet gulag and Pol Pot's Cambodian "killing fields,” it was none other McCain who blasted Durbin publicly, offering this bit of advice during an appearance on Meet the Press:

"Senator Durbin owes not only the Senate an apology -- I don't know if censure would be in order -- but an apology because it does a great disservice to men and women who suffered in the gulag and in Pol Pot's killing fields. Dick Durbin should be required to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago' and I think that he may have a better understanding that there's no comparison whatsoever. And it does a great disservice to the majority of men and women who are serving in Guantanamo who are doing the job that they're told to do and they're doing it in a humane fashion. To tar the American servicemen and women with a brush that applies to the gulag or the killing fields is a great disservice to the men and women in the military who are serving honorably down there."

Also, after Solzhenitsyn passed away a few weeks ago, The New York Sun published an excerpt from McCain’s own book (Hard Call) regarding Solzhenitsyn as an op-ed tribute.

Could these be pure coincidences? I suppose.

But a number of bloggers have pointed out a number of another eyebrow-raising discoveries. Top of that list is the fact that upon his release as a POW, McCain penned a 12,000 word reflection of his experiences for U.S. News & World Report. Yet, as one Daily Kos writer notes "[e]ven though McCain goes into a lot of detail in that story and mentions religion a few times, there is no mention of the cross in the sand story, even though it would have fitted in well with the whole narrative."

The writer also notes that in 1974, McCain spoke at a prayer breakfast with then-Governor Ronald Reagan and tells a stirring story about seeing words about Christ while a POW, but fails to mention the very relevant cross in the sand story.

Even more problematic is that McCain’s own account of that Christmas shows him moving from the prison:

In December of 1969 I was moved from "The Pentagon" [he means "The Plantation" camp] over to "Las Vegas." "Las Vegas" was a small area of Hoala Prison which was built by the French in 1945.

Furthermore, it seems that McCain's own telling of this story has now changed a good deal. Here's what Beliefnet.com’s Steven Waldman wrote:

McCain tells the cross in the sand story in his 1999 memoir, Faith of My Fathers:

"We both stood wordlessly looking at the cross until, after a minute or two, he rubbed it out and walked away. I saw my good Samaritan often after the Christmas when we venerated the cross together."

In his campaign ad in December, he adds mention of "the true light of Christmas":

"We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas. I will never forget that no matter where you are, no matter how difficult the circumstances, there will always be someone who will pick you up."

At the Saddleback Civil Forum:

"For a minute there, it was just two Christians worshipping together."

The story has gradually morphed from being about the humanity of the guard to being about the Christian faith of the guard and John McCain.

Finally, be mindful that this isn’t the first time this year that McCain has been called out for playing fast and loose with his POW experience. Recall this effort by McCain to change his POW story last month:

Here's what McCain said on Pittsburgh radio yesterday:

"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line -- of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron-mates!"

Here's what McCain wrote in his book, Faith of my Fathers:

Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron.

I did a Lexis/Nexis search about McCain's captivity and all of them showed-up naming the Green Bay Packers.

What is going on here? Did McCain lie to Pastor Rick Warren in a church this weekend about his POW experience in an attempt to kiss-up to Evangelicals who are already very concerned about his bona fides on faith and religion? Could there have been a worse venue and context for such a lie?

But the big question is whether our feckless national media will even bother following-up on this troubling development as they did with by promoting the GOP-pushed meme of exaggerations by Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry’s Vietnam War experiences in 2004 as the Swift Boat liars peddled?

I suspect American journalism is in such a sorry state these days that they won’t bother devoting equal time and resources to something so potentially explosive in 2008. I hope I'm wrong...

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Did McCain Steal His "Cross in the Dirt" Story At Last Night's Forum From Solzhenitsyn? "

Update: Turns out that the first instance of McCain being called out for this was in 2005 by the right wingers over at Free Republic...

Me Again: No doubt McCain's supporters will claim this is a coincidence (Hah!) in the same way Obama's supporters insist he's sincere, despite his constant moves to the right.  Obama has now gone all out in a negative campaign, with the excuse that the other guy started it, which is not true by the way.  If I remember from my very Christian upbringing, believers turn the other cheek.   Pandering is the politician's religion--they have no other, and all this religious talk makes me gag.   I'm an equal opportunity poster when it comes to politicians.  They're all creatures of the nether world.

Interesting Poll:  When asked if voters would prefer a Democrat to a Republican as president, Democrats win by 12.  When the same voters are asked if they prefer Obama or McCain, Obama wins by 5.  Hillary may not rise again, but if she doesn't, McCain has a very good shot at winning this election! Woe are we. 

Susie--if I remember correctly, Hillary has some less than upright brothers, as did Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.   I prefer not to think that Hillary or Bill is hoping that Obama will lose or helping it along (Obama has been rather effective in doing this himself--regretfully so), but as I said in my earlier post, all politicians are visitors from the nether regions, Hillary not excepted.  But she would have gotten us health care!

Susie--sure hope you're right about health care. 

I was thinking about your last post.  Would it be possible that Fiorina, on behalf of McCain, is approaching Hillary behind doors to ask her to be his veep.  Sounds crazy, I know, but remember that Kerry asked McCain to be his veep.  That would be interesting if he asked, and even more interesting if she accepted.  I don't think I would like it if she said yes. What a fool Obama is in not realizing that Hillary is his best bet to win in November.  The male ego never ceases to irritate me.

Finally, liberals are waking up, but it's a bit late in the day.  One can only hope that something will happen to get Hillary the nomination.  From Zogby, yesterday:

Indeed, Obama's support among liberals fell 12 points, according to Zogby.

The Zogby poll also showed McCain with a 9-point edge over Obama on the critical question of who would best manage the economy -- an issue nearly half the voters said was their top concern.

Rosemary (a long one):

But the Republicans can use Hillary's words now, and they have already done so.  In fact, if she were the veep, her negative comments about Obama would be less effective, not more. But, really, none of that matters.  Republicans are not going to vote for Obama, period, so it makes no difference what Hillary said or didn't say.  Ralph Nader, this morning, said Obama had better pick Hillary, not because she'll make him a better president, but because Obama needs that quarter or more of her voters in November that are not coming over.  Hillary is a far better debater than Obama and he needs someone who can actually talk policy. (it appears that even the young voters are deserting Obama.  Speeches on "hope" and "change" get very stale after a while.)  In addition, the usual "nonsense" about why Hillary wouldn't make a good pick is because conservatives hate her (one of the reasons I like her!) and they would come out in droves for McCain if she were Obama's veep. They're already supporting McCain  in droves (especially after his recent faith-based interview).  Obama needs Hillary's blue collar voters.  (I'm not including liberals in that group, many of whom have moved over to the Green Party or Nader after Obama's recalibration of his positions on privacy, gun control, the death penalty, abortion, public funding, drilling, etc.)

Nancy Pelosi is completely ineffective as a leader (and I believe she's jealous of Hillary); when Pelosi speaks she drives a lot of folks to do the opposite.  She has that effect on people--a bit like you know who! LOL   I wish I could vote in California as I'd vote for Cindy Sheehan--running against Pelosi.  Cindy will be protesting at the Democratic convention.   

I was raised a Catholic, and the Catholic church is against the death penalty--what I find strange is that so many Catholics don't care.  I'm no longer a believer, but when I was, I adhered to all the church's rules and didn't make exceptions where they suited me, as so many Catholics and Christians do. They pick and choose looking for the rules that suit them as though they were eating a bag of M&M's.   My thought for the day!

An old friend, visiting us for the weekend, told me that her two daughters (who voted for Obama in the Massachusetts primary) were very disillusioned by Obama (because of his many changes in position) and might not vote in November.  I asked why they had voted for him  in the primary since his record in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate was very thin, and yet even there it demonstrated that he is a pol who picks his positions based on popularity, not principle.  She got angry at me, saying everyone doesn't have time, like you, to read up on every candidate and know their positions. "They liked what he was saying."  I held my tongue and didn't say what I was thinking, which is that she should be disillusioned by her daughters, since both are intelligent women, yet they couldn't be bothered to learn about the candidate they were voting for, beyond the fact that he looked "cool."  And one of them got an 800 on her math boards!  So much for intelligence if one doesn't use it.

I know a whole lot about the bible, but not the King James' (or Protestant) version.  The Catholic bishops have announced on many occasions that they are against the death penalty but politicians, no matter which religion, will break with their church if the issue will lose them votes.  How anyone can trust any of them is beyond me!  Mario Cuomo was the only one I can remember who stuck with his beliefs, one of the reasons he didn't in the end run for president.

I hope you're right about Hillary, but I doubt it, only because Obama's vanity is so overriding that I doubt he can bring himself to do what in the end would probably win him the WH.  And I can't think of anything I would love more than that she would refuse him.  But Hillary wants to be president and at the moment that's the only road she can see that will get her there.

And you do know that!  Remember, your cathecism.  God is all knowing! 

 I can't believe the advice Obama is taking.  Hitting McCain on the number of houses his wife owns is beyond foolish. It's not McCain's money; it's his wife's, and it's money she inherited. Obama has opened Pandora's box on this one.  McCain can now, in pay back, question how Obama got his house, in particular focusing on Tony Resko's part in it all.  His recent ad on this is on a par with his decision to give that speech in Berlin.  He ran a good campaign until Hillary dropped out.  I wonder if he changed his advisers after that?  

Obama's single claim to fame is that he made a speech against going to war with Iraq.  (It's a very weak claim in my view; otherwise I should have run as I made more than one speech and marched almost once a week for a year against going to war.)  Is it possible that today's announcement that the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq in 2011 (and from Iraq cities next June) has been caliberated to give McCain the White House?  Sure looks suspicious to me.

It gives McCain the advantage if this agreement is signed and it gets him out of his "100 years" of occupation gaffe.  Most of those who are voting based on the war just want it to end and don't much care who ends it so long as they see the end in sight. Obama's 16 months and the agreement being proposed pretty much coincide.  And since the economy is now the primary issue with the public, and McCain is polling better  than Obama on the economy, this whole thing smells very very fishy.   

Can't trust the Bush administration in anything.  If they thought it would win the Republicans the White House, no doubt they'd announce we're going to be in Iraq until the four horsemen appear. 

One more reason for Hillary to be VP.  Bill Clinton is so closely associated with good economic policies, and Hillary by extension.