She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.
Similarly, John Kerry’s claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders — who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia — but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn’t president on Christmas 1968.
In Hillary’s defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.
Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.” (What if she’s sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. “It proves I’m human.”)
The reason no one claims Hillary is being “swiftboated” is that the definition of “swiftboating” is: “producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying.” And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media’s honorary Republican.
In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are “swiftboated”; Republicans are “guilty.” So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn’t being swiftboated; she’s just lying.
Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary’s uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.
I’ve always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.
A funny thing is happening. While Hillary and Bill Clinton appeal to superdelegates to override the will of the voters and back Hillary, the superdelegates are doing just the opposite.
The latest delegate count posted on realclearpolitics.com shows that Hillary’s lead among superdelegates, once a comfortable 60 votes, has now been cut almost in half, to 36 delegates. The latest tally has Hillary leading among superdelegates by 247 to 211. So, with 57 percent of the superdelegates decided, Hillary’s lead is shrinking.
In fact, Barack Obama’s total delegate lead has swelled to 163 votes among elected delegates and 127 among all delegates. With 1,614 votes, he isn’t far from the 2,025 he would need, without Florida or Michigan, to win the nomination.
Of the remaining 566 delegates to be selected, Hillary should enjoy a slight edge. She’ll probably win Pennsylvania (158 delegates), Indiana (72), Kentucky (51), West Virginia (28), and Puerto Rico (55). Obama will likely win North Carolina (115), Oregon (52), Montana (16), South Dakota (15) and Guam (4). If this turns out to be so, Hillary would lead in states with 364 delegates, while Obama would prevail in states with 202. But even if we assume 10-point wins for each candidate in each state (and the margin will likely be much tighter), all Hillary would get from her states is 36 more delegates while Obama would get 20 from his — still leaving Obama with a lead of 147 in elected delegates.
At that point, Obama would have about 1,900 votes, within spitting distance of the 2,025 he’d need to win. Hillary would have to win the remaining superdelegates by a top-heavy margin of 2:1 in order to win (steal) the nomination from Obama, who will have won the most elected delegates.
Even if we factor in possible do-over primaries in Florida and Michigan, the nature of the proportional representation process is not likely to change this outcome significantly. Hillary might get an extra 20 delegates if she wins both states, but she’s not likely to get more.
Can Hillary carry the remaining super delegates by 2:1 when she is carrying the ones who have committed by only 247 to 211? Not very likely. The pressure on these delegates to vote as their states voted will be very intense and few are likely to stand up to it.
Remember that these superdelegates are either elected officials in their own right, which means that they need to get re-elected, or party officials in the various states whose ears are very close to the ground. Particularly in caucus states that Obama carried heavily, they are not about to antagonize the party activists who backed Obama by undercutting their will and switching to Hillary.
In fact, the track record of the super delegates so far indicates that they are abandoning Hillary and signing up with Obama as his delegate lead mounts.
So even if the Clintons try as hard as they can (and they will) to steal his election, their chances of doing so are getting increasingly remote.
A little more than a week ago front pages across the country joined 24-hour news networks and the World Wide Web in declaring that Sen. Hillary Clinton had forged a dramatic comeback against Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination.
But how could that be? Didn’t Clinton take three of the four states voting for nominees on March 4, including the two biggies, Texas and Ohio? Well, yes and no.
Clinton did win Ohio by a significant margin and as a result received 74 delegates to Obama’s 65. But in Texas, while Clinton did indeed win the primary, Obama handily won the caucuses which that state also uses to determine allocation of delegates. They finally ended up counting the caucus votes on Tuesday. When all was said and done, Obama had captured 99 delegates in Texas to Clinton’s 95. And, as the political analysts keep telling us, it’s all about the delegates.
In the other March 4 contests the pair split the small states, Obama taking Vermont. while Clinton won in Rhode Island. Add up all the delegates from the four races and Clinton walked away with 187 to Obama’s 181. That’s right, for all the hoopla and breathless talk of a Clinton revival, she gained only six delegates, according to figures compiled by CNN.
Since then Obama has won two more states — Wyoming and Mississippi — capturing 17 of the 28 delegates up for grabs. Put it all together and you find that since Clinton began her “comeback,” Obama has increased his committed delegate lead by two. There was no comeback.
Monday Howard Wolfson, the supreme spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a pronouncement by telephone conference call: “We do not believe,” he said, “that Sen. Obama has passed that key commander in chief test.”
This point was apparently made to disqualify Barack Obama from the No. 2 vice president job that he says he would never want and Hillary Clinton herself brought up last week and has talked about several times along with her husband but now they’ve decided the Illinois senator hasn’t passed the commander in chief test that he’s never taken and no one knows what it is anyway.
Which got us to thinking. What do you suppose a commander in chief test looks like? What do you have to know how to do to become commander in chief? And how, by the way, do we know whether Sen. Clinton has passed or even taken the commander in chief test?
Her campaign has not released Clinton’s commander in chief test, which….
fits because she hasn’t released her recent years’ income taxes either or the vast volume of documents from her first lady days that she says constitute so many of those 35 years of valuable experience that qualify her to be commander in chief.
So the entire world is left to guess what exactly is on Hillary Clinton’s commander in chief test. Which may be what her campaign wants. Because, in point of fact, if you think about it, Obama and John McCain are actually a tad bit closer to being the commander in chief since Obama leads in popular votes, states and Democratic delegates and McCain has already locked up the Republican nomination, unless Ron Paul really turns it on here in the next few weeks.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today called on Barack Obama to “join me” in ensuring that Michigan and Florida delegates are seated.
“If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote,” Clinton said during a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington.
“The nearly 2.5 million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process — and I think that’s wrong.”
Clinton repeated her campaign’s proposed solution: Either honor the votes as cast in the two states’ primaries, or hold new primaries.
Obama’s spokesperson was not immediately available to respond to Clinton’s remarks.
Clinton won the Michigan and Florida primaries, but the Democratic National Committee is not honoring the results because the states broke party rules and held their contests early. Neither candidate campaigned in the states and Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot.
Obama’s campaign has said that the states’ delegates should be evenly divided between the candidates because the states broke the rules.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign compared rival Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Clintons’ chief nemesis of the 1990s.
Clinton herself declined to comment on the comparison, made by her chief spokesman in a conference call with reporters and also in a memo distributed by the campaign.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.”
The worst insult that a Democrat can lob against a fellow Democrat is to compare him to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was obsessed with uncovering Bill Clinton’s sex life.
Obama has waged a tenacious but circumspect campaign that is beyond reproach. Hillary has more scandals than a dog has fleas, but Obama has refrained from using any of them against her. If Obama was a sex-obsessed misfit like Starr, he would have questioned Hillary’s sexual orientation. But Obama is a gentlemen, who would never play the gay card against his opponent.
Barack is not mining the mud that the Clinton’s wallow in, he is simply asking Hillary to release her tax records.
You would think that Hillary was a paragon of virtue, but she is the opposite: A politician who will do anything to gain power. In the last few weeks she has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Barack Obama.
By comparing Obama to Starr Hillary is attempting to portray herself as a victim. A bully always paints himself as a victim: Everyone hates me, that’s why I took that kid’s lunch money.
Hillary is not a victim and Obama is not Ken Starr. Hillary’s machinations are so transparent; I hope voters are not deceived. A Hillary administration will plunge this country into scandals and malaise.
Barack Obama headed into Tuesday’s primary in Mississippi, a state he is tipped to win, mocking talk of a “dream ticket” headed by his rival Hillary Clinton.
Obama, who leads by about 100 delegates after 45 Democratic contests, ridiculed the Hillary camp for arguing that he is not ready to be commander-in-chief, but could be her number two. “If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?” he said, drawing laughter from supporters at a rally on Monday in Columbus, Mississippi.
Obama said Hillary’s team was “trying to hoodwink you.” “With all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Hillary. I’ve won more of the popular vote than senator Clinton. I have more delegates than senator Clinton,” he said. “So I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place.”