Obama Campaign: What Polls? – Dems on Hillary Clinton’s Road to 2016 – Back Romney Best Option, Romney Should Switch Running Mate to Clinton – PUMA or Pragmatic?

Pictured Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney image Daily Beast – ArticleHillary Clinton and Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama

As the 2012 campaign turns – On the weekend Buzzfeed’s, Zeke Miller reported on the Obama Campaign in Wisconsin – Apparently the strategy is not to pay attention to the national polls, rather to focus on a few swing states:

Messina, who drove from Chicago to Wisconsin to be with Obama on his first trip to a state that appears to have come into play when Paul Ryan was selected to be Romney's running mate, predicted that the national polling will get even closer, but that the president's lead will hold in key swing states.

"I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward," he said. "What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign."

In Wisconsin, Messina said the GOP is stronger than they are nationally, but maintained that the Obama campaign still has an edge

Perhaps the national polls are all tied, but the internals may have something else to say – which is why some Democrats are looking for a path for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and coming up with some options that appear to be somewhat far-fetched, but then again, the Clinton’s, both President William Jefferson and now Secretary of State Hillary, are the most popular Democrats in the country.

This weekend, Bill Clinton weighed in about a 2016 run for Hillary – which has the media salivating – ABC News discussing the Obama-Romney Debate (You Tube Video Here) speaks about Romney’s recent debate experience as a plus, and notes that he has the most to gain in the upcoming debates, although he would be considered an underdog – that back and forth morphs to Bill Clinton’s response to a Hillary Clinton 2016 run, which said anchors note there is speculation on the Democrat ticket for 2016 – and Clinton’s smiles is an affirmation of a Hillary run.(ABC News)

The speculation and what might be considered planning, began after the Democrat Convention – when the Daily Mail broke the news that a top Bill Clinton Aide planned to vote for Romney to help Hillary Clinton take the White House back in 2016. That’s just one example, of course, so not much there, one would think, but then again, there were others. Perhaps the best case found was made on Tumblr by the blogger, Prairie Pride who suggested voting for Romney (secretly supporting) would be the best road for Hillary Clinton, from an historical perspective. He refers to overall party fatigue as the means to the ends, citing elections back to George Washington – his end note: Romney 2012 – Hillary 2016.

The most ridiculous scenario was found on Salon, and one has the immediate reaction – satire! Then again, this is Salon. Alex Pareene takes a different tactic – suggesting in August that Romney “dump” Paul Ryan as his running mate and nominate Hillary – (This is a writer who refers to the “Right-wing press). He writes in glowing terms about Hillary’s accomplishments, and not so nicely about Paul Ryan – he suggests this is a serious option because “Bob Woodward” told him.

Although, with Romney, a place in the administration or cabinet for Clinton might not be out of the question – considering, as Governor, his cabinet included both women and, yes, Democrats. Romney is all business, and if someone brings ideas to the table that are reasonable –his decisions are not based on political party, rather on what would work best for the people (of the Commonwealth) at the time. It remains to be seen if this will be part and parcel of a Romney administration’s tactic, but one might project he would operate on the same success model.

Of course, this Moderate Conservative Feminist’s dream ticket was Palin/Clinton – but….a Romney –Clinton – makes one think – it would in the very least unite the majority of the nation and is extremely utopian. In reality it would cause political mayhem in both parties, and that is not the road to the White House for either Romney or Clinton - given there are those power brokers in the party and the base of each party. Plan B appears the best bet.

Happy Monday – one final note: worth listening to:

Howard Stern on Obama voters –

Hillary Clinton 2012 V.P. – Unlikely – Positive Replacement for both Biden and Obama – USA Today Poll: 2-1 Obama Voters Likely Not To Vote - Analysis

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton - image: thegloss.com

The calls for President Barack Obama to replace the, at times, embarrassing, Vice President, Joe Biden are coming from both the right(Meghan McCain on Clinton as V.P. Replacement), and the center(Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board), however there are two factors that would not allow this public cry for President Obama to switch V.P.’s. The first is that the President is sticking by Biden (Examiner.com) and the second, it is more likely that Hillary Clinton would not accept the position. Reason suggests as she is not attending the Democrat 2012 Convention in North Carolina and, would better serve the nation on the top of the ticket, there is zero chance of Hillary Clinton trading places with Joe Biden - she is Presidential material. Of course, the later is this opinion, and has been since the race for the Presidency in 2008 came down to three candidates: McCain, Obama and Clinton.

How much does Biden matter? It depends very little, considering that few people can even name a Vice –President, and the general political think is that those that vote generally vote for the top of the ticket, with the V.P. choice of either party being designed more or less to “attract the base” or core group of political ideologists from one side or the other that actually get out and vote. Therein lays the problem for the Democrats this year. A new USA Today poll, conducted by Suffolk University suggests that 90 million voters will stay home this year, with 2 in 1 of those backing President Obama’s reelection. What is, perhaps, most interesting about this particular poll is that of those polled, over half are registered to vote, and 80 percent of those have the government playing an “important role” in their lives (USA Today). Blame the negative ads, blame the fact that both candidates are not some votes cup of tea, or the fact that they are simply not interested enough to get out and vote, the fact remains that if the top of the ticket is unlikely to motivate two in one necessary voters that rely on the government, something in not currently working in the administrations drive to “spread the wealth” and maintain a edge in voters at the same time. Apathy is most likely fueled by the economy – one never takes into consideration that those who are working for a living and seeing their paycheck disappear at the grocery stores, are no different than those on the EBT card or whatever form of assistance, finding their “dollar’ also shrinking. Apathy, translates in to a political nightmare, and this poll, by a large margin, gives clues as to the real State of the Union which are far from encouraging to the man currently in the Oval office. Which brings up another reason why Clinton might not accept the position (other than she should be President), running on a ticket whose chances are appearing slim, (disregarding polls that assume it’s close), would be a colossal waste of time and treasure.

2012 Update: WAPO/ABC Poll: Voters Worse Off Today, Primaries: Obama Challenged by “Other”, Clinton’s Favorability All-Time High–Missed Opportunity?

Too late? Mitt Romney - Hillary Clinton 2012 Contest - Possibly Less Boring than current projections and trends: Image: CNN

Today’s Headline from The Springfield Massachusetts Republican: “Poll: Voters feel worse off financially today than when President Obama took office”speaks to a recent Washington Post/USA Today Poll noting that, similar to the summer of 1980, the nations voters feel their dollar goes further than it did four years ago. The poll also indicates that a plurality of voters continue to believe it is the fault of former President George W. Bush – however, when one looks at the marginal’s: party affiliation is not on par with national averages, for example: the May 20th poll was comprised of Democrats: 32%, Republican’s: 22%, Independents: 38%, Other: 2%, No Opinion: 1%, (WAPO)while Pew research finds Swing voters (or independent, unenrolled, unaffiliated), over a period of 22 years, had remained actually dropped and as of April 2012 is at 23%,(Independent Voters.org) although there are indicators that those identifying themselves as unenrolleds has grown in parity with the major parties.

Rasmussen Reports that those identifying themselves as either Republican (35.1%) or Democrat (33.1%) (as of April of 2012), is on par with rolling three year survey – which would lead one to conclude the other third do not identify with either party. Given that a variety of surveys indicate there is a growing three way split in the electorate, the Washington Post/ABC Poll is somewhat biased. Polls, in general, are educated guesses based statistics and answers from random selections, which – to those who are not mathematicians are surprising accurate the majority of the time.

Who are the unenrolled? They identify by candidate or by party depending upon the issues facing the state and or nation at the time of any given election – and as of 2010, that includes “The Tea Party”, which would indicate there is definitely room for a third party in the United States.

This is very apparent in the recent Democrat Primaries where President Obama has been challenged by primary opponents, his vote tally is statistically lower than Mitt Romney’s on the Republican side of the primary schedule.(Yahoo News) For example: In Kentucky, “Uncommitted” received 42% of the vote, Obama 58%, in Arkansas, a primary challenger received 38.%% of the total vote against President Obama, and in West Virginia a prison inmate received 40% of the vote in the Democrat primary. (ABC News)

With Romney’s machine, now in cruise control, (the former Massachusetts Governor should officially clinch the nomination in the Texas primary at the end of May), both his organizational skills, as well as his fundraising and messaging appear to be right on target to a win in November, one that appeared almost impossible a year ago and throughout the primary process, which has, in retrospect, turned Romney into the most formidable candidate to challenge the President.

However, there may have been another challenger, one who, if they had run in the Democrat Primaries, would have bested not only Obama, a sitting President, but would have had every opportunity to best a Republican challenger – Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s favorability remains at an all time high according to Gallup polling, her current rating is consistent at 66% favorable. One can bet the house, had she taken her husband’s advice (according to the latest release by Edward Klein), she would be cruising towards clinching the Democrat nomination, and would have had the opportunity to make history as the first Women to be elected President.

During the 2008 election Democrat Primary, Hillary Clinton received the majority of the popular vote, but was denied the nomination through a process known as “Super-Delegates” at the DNC Convection. In this way, popular votes are cast aside, and Super-Delegates elect the Party nominee. It was Nancy Pelosi and her daughter, who cast the final votes to nominate Barack Obama as the party standard-bearer, in a stunning anti-feminist move by the left of center San Francisco Democrat. She insisted that Women would not suffer a setback if Clinton lost.(Bloomberg) Unfortunately, many believe that the country, women especially have suffered since then Speaker of the House Pelosi muscled the super-delegate vote for Barack Obama. This is evidenced by the overall polling of the President’s job approval and the continued high approval of one Hillary Clinton. One must ask: Is it too late for Hillary to pull an upset at the 2012 Democrat Convection in whichever state they finally settle on? Otherwise, at this point, the trends indicate Romney will enjoy a Reagan like election night victory.

Barack Obama’s Birthplace as Kenya Surfaces Again – Most Probable - a Persona designed for Personal Gain – Get Hillary to a Brokered DNC Convention

Actual Obama Birthplace or Fabrication for Personal Gain? - from Breitbart.com

The call them “birthers”, those who question whether or not President Barack Obama is eligible to even be President due to the possibility he was born outside of the United States –Kenya in fact.(Breitbart.com) According to the U.S. Constitution if that were the case, the President would not be eligible to be – President. That scenario is most unlikely – regardless of the fact that as a nation, we dig deep into our celebrities backgrounds – whether they be a bit player in a hot TV sitcom or a politician, anyone in the spotlight is subject to curiosity by “fans” or by those who are not fans – digging for dirt to find something wrong with that celebrity.

There is however, a trend in academia that has surfaced in the past few years – the most notable being example being one Ward Churchill, who claimed to be of American Indian ancestry to gain employment and tenure at the University of Colorado(New York Sun) and the most recent being U.S. Senate candidate in MA, one Elizabeth Warren, former Obama appointee, whose claim of American Indian Ancestry to gain entrance to and employment within the university system (See: Real Clear Politics: Cherokee Genealogist to Elizabeth Warren – Tell the Truth
It’s called beating the systems, if one claims they are from a certain background, they are able to obtain: student loans, jobs in academia and elsewhere – and yes, acceptance from the perspective of those who feel that today, that those who have certain backgrounds, deserve to have more benefits, better chances than others – who perhaps don’t appear to be as ethnic, or interesting. It is what it is – fraud.

While the race heats up for the 2012 Presidential contest, Mitt Romney has taken heat for pranks he played as a teenager in prep school, he’s being vetted to the extreme, but had Romney the character of any of the aforementioned, he may have found a Mexican relative, who was one sixty-fourth American Indian, and suddenly, he’d be a lot more interesting, although now, that story would be blasted about the headlines – Fraud! It’s the way in which the press in Massachusetts is handling the Warren fraud, all but ignoring the fact that her claims were made to gain “acceptance” (and a job).

Therefore, one can bet the house, that either wanting to sell a book, or say, get student loans, or for that matter, acceptance into prestigious universities to study law, being African-American and Kenyan, and Hawaiian (is there a native Hawaiian we may find in that background?), the young Barack Obama would have a narrative that would make him “gold” to publishers and Universities alike. That is, of course, until he decided to run for the highest office in the United States, and had to divest himself of the identity, most likely created by a vivid imagination, some truth with a dash of embellishment (i.e.: I was in Kenya, with my father, when I was five, so why not back up the clock and get into Harvard?!!), and a great deal of chutzpah.

The latest discovery (a pamphlet printed by Barack Obama’s literary agent, in order to sell books, giving a short bio of Barack as born in Kenya – see Breitbart link first paragraph), is again, a marketing piece, and the biography is most probably the same. One can bet that this was overlooked by the so-called “mainstream media” simply because they never looked past his being “African-American”, and of course, took him at his word. It would not have entered their minds, all trained in academia, to think that something like this would be a red herring, perhaps because so many had used similar methods to get grants, and jobs! In other words – no big deal, nothing to see here, move along, its commonplace to beef up one’s bio to get ahead.

Unless it’s fraud – and it goes to character – so many of our nation’s youth, no matter the ethnicity or race, have parents that work two jobs, they work one or two jobs, in order to attend college, and have for decades – if one was not born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth, and one wants to go to college, one might do anything, take fewer courses per semester, graduate later, lower costs, change schools, compete in Miss American pageants – of course, these are not ivy league schools, but, how important is that moniker in today’s society? Obviously, with the job market the way it is, a degree from Harvard is about as worthless as a degree from any third tier college.

Going back to character for a moment, if one finds the embellishment of a background to be an acceptable way to get ahead, and it involves grants, student loans, jobs that are not in private held colleges (see Ward Churchill), then those individuals show a character that is somewhat lacking ethics, especially at an age of reason where one should know better – or at least man, or in Warren’s case, man up and tell the nation or the state or the University President and Board: I did not think I would be accepted without being more “exotic”, then that may be excusable. Age is also a factor, if someone does something fraudulent in their teens and twenties, and is now older and perhaps wiser, then some may feel it goes to character. In fact, it does, but the character of that person at that time, perhaps not the character of that person forty or fifty years later. It is the fact that pushing something such as fraud/embellishment of a bio for personal gain/under the proverbial rug, later in life, not simply forgetting a prank that occurred at the age of sixteen, actually goes to recent character. One might suggest therefore, that publishers, colleges and universities, do more thorough background checks on potentially “interesting” students or applicants for employment, and save both the workforce, the state and in this case, the Office of the Presidency, a great deal of negative press, and frankly embarrassment.

Finally, the aspect of embellishment is purely hypothesis, however, what else would it be? Either the President of the United States lied about being born in Hawaii, or lied about being born in Kenya, for all the public knows, he may have been born in Kansas – someplace boring, not quite as exciting, and not as lucrative a background. In any event, those who have for years been calling for his removal, have not taken into consideration the Constitution and the ramifications of removing a sitting President – that being the line of succession. One would now have to be prepared to have V.P. Biden as leader of the free world, or should he not be able to serve, the weepiest Speaker of the House, John Boehner. One might suggest: let it ride – and get Hillary Clinton to a brokered Democrat Convention, if one has to drag her there, and by super-delegate, nominate her. The fact is, she won the last round, but was literally robbed by Super-Delegates, based on Barack Obama’s very interesting background – they owe Hillary Clinton and they owe the Democrat Party – my father’s party – and they owe the nation – at least that, if not more.


The Bumper Stickers, the Pins, the Tee-Shirts are ready to go - image irregulartimes.com

Batter Up – GOP 2012 - Ron Paul - Soars Too Close to Top in Iowa – Found: Racists, Bizarre, Newsletters from 1990’s – Next? A rant and analysis.

One of the many documents unearthed written under Paul's name - from yidwithlid.blogspot.com

As each candidate, in turn, gets too close to the top of the polls, passing Mitt Romney for the nomination, there is a sudden “problems” with each of the candidates character and/or their past that apparently makes them unelectable. To date, eliminated at the top has been Herman Cain, who found himself assailed by women claiming he was a sex fiend (and one man claiming to be his son) - all those Chicago based/Government employed accusers are quiet, not a peep out of them now that Cain is no longer on the campaign trail. As Gingrich soared in the polls, he was taken to the woodshed by his close friends, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann, throw in Ron Paul and one has a full set of candidates who apparently believe that the nastier and further from the truth opposition ads can be, the better. Newt Gingrich’s fall in the polls can be explained by these types of attacks, the most surprising from this blogs perspective coming from Ms. Bachmann, who stretched the truth thinner than a piece of plastic wrap in regards to Newt Gingrich record on Life Issues. Apparently, as a tax attorney, Bachmann must feel individual voters are clueless as to how to research bills, sponsored legislation and ratings from individual groups such as the NRA and Pro-life organizations. Gingrich is not on the top of the pro-abortion group, NARAL’s list, in fact, only one person has made the top of that list, and that would be President Obama. Hillary Clinton received a lower rating as she is not quite as abortion happy as the President.

Congressman Ron Paul, who, as New Gingrich started to fall from the spotlight ever so slightly (Pollsters actually disagree as to how far Newt Gingrich may be from clocking the heir apparent “Mitt Romney” – in some polls he’s ahead by 10 points, in others he’s now fallen behind) became a serious threat to both the national GOP and one Mitt Romney – not only in Iowa (where one cannot seriously expect Romney to win) and one in New Hampshire (where it is expected he would win) – Paul has something Romney does not, a ground game and one that is made up of more everyday people, Independents, Democrats, Students, Homemakers, Union Workers – those are Obama Voters and yes, Tea Party and Libertarian groups who otherwise might vote for: Newt Gingrich and possibly as a last resort Mitt Romney.

Time to dig for dirt on Paul: Opposition research unearthed newsletters available at Reuters, that paint a different picture of the kindly old Doctor who loves the Constitution and hates war, a man who delivers baby’s – not anymore – The newsletters obtained through Reuters appears to make the Congressman out to be not only a screaming crackpot, but a racist and anti-Semite to boot – or what is otherwise known is a man who was in keeping with his time – albeit from a conspiracy theorists point of view, along the lines of Jim Jones, however sans Kool-Aid. What is most disturbing is the manner in which Paul decided to make money on the side, selling political and financial advise through these newsletters, bearing his signature, which he apparently never saw.

Now, from a pragmatic point of view, generally speaking busy people never write their own drivel, they hire others to do it, say someone who’s in Congress or the Senate, or most businessmen from that era - usually writing was consigned to someone such as a secretary – who would have access to everything, including a signature stamp. This is how things were done, and are still done in businesses and in government today – if one thinks most of the elite write their own material, think again.

But what is irresponsible and obviously dangerous is that this went on for years, without Congressman Paul ever noticing that the materials going out under his name were not only erratic in nature but downright disgusting. That’s the big story, since Paul insists he didn’t write the newsletters, he allowed them to go out under his name – the proverbial “you know what” does roll uphill.

Mitt Romney should now be cleared for takeoff.

The man who the Obama Campaign wants to run as the GOP nominee more than any other due to the mountains of opposition research they have obtained and one who is, also, far from squeaky clean, given his “Ken Doll” appearance.

One problem, now that the GOP can dismiss Ron Paul, the other candidates are starting to rise in the polls (granted, out of literally hundreds of polling taking place) one did find Michel Bachmann tied with Paul and ahead of Romney in Iowa as of yesterday – Bachmann who had been near the top, and had taken a nose dive, apparently is being given a second look. What happens when the negative GOP candidates (Paul, Romney (and Bachmann is in that group) need to turn their attention now to Michelle?!

She’s already been assailed, survived, and is fighting for her political life – like a girl, which in this book, is a positive. The negative was the outright distortion of the truth on the part of Bachmann regarding Gingrich’s record. Although this blogger may think Gingrich is the best possible choice out of the bunch, it is also clear that there is an independent streak that allows for adjustments, when a candidate does wrong, they get zinged. Simple.

It is no secret that Romney is going to have horrific problems with the nomination. It does not matter how many Bushes’ he drags out of retirement, or even Bob Dole (who despises Gingrich for so many things, specifically as an opponent in the 1996 race against Clinton, one which Dole stood zero chance of winning).
In other words, this has become what is normal in American Politics, a cat/or dog fight to the finish.

With Mitt “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap” Romney, hoping against hope that this time, he’ll carry the day.

One might ask why this bloggers is holding out on Romney as last choice in the contest for ABO (Anybody But Obama) – simple, this blog is written from Massachusetts from the mind of someone who is less Republican, less Democrat, and extremely sick and tired of politics as usual in this nation. Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican if one does a great job, one deserves kudos, however in Romney’s case, one gets the impression one is not alone – which is why this blog has called, worse, begged, polling firms to take it to Massachusetts and match up the current field of GOP candidates. One can hazard to guess that Romney might not win Massachusetts.

Why the distaste for the way Romney Governed? He did Cross the Aisle – he has that to his record, however, he did so by abandoning his conservative principals, whereas on the serious candidate on a wish list – the following individuals did not: Sarah Palin, managed to govern and get things done in Alaska, by working with both Democrats and Republicans and kicking both to the curb when they placed party before people, Newt Gingrich, who is the villain of the piece, was in the same mold, only longer, as a legislature his push and pulled those Democrats and Republicans together, in the Congress and in the Senate, while waging a campaign to bring Bill Clinton to his point of view. He succeeded. Its history, one can look it up. The last individual on my list has never been in this race, but, one might note, there is always hope and that is one Hillary Clinton. She had a very interesting record as Senator, one which would disqualify her from an A Rating with most of the fringe groups and fringe members of Congress (Reid and Pelosi come to mind) – one has to ask, and be honest, would Clinton have allowed Reid and Pelosi to run them around? (She has a record too, one which is not ridiculous, but to be applauded).

Therefore, since two of the candidates that would be acceptable and run this nation with an eye towards fiscal conservatism, military strength, and would be able to cross the aisle to get things done, shoving members of their own party out of the way – that leaves one standing. Yes, Gingirch is pompous, because he’s smart, yes he won’t run negatives ads, because he is smart (in the long run, those negative ads will sink a candidate), and he hasn’t to date, done the one thing the pundits suggested: imploded. He’s kept his wits, and even manages a few zingers now again, especially against Romney, who, if he would debate Gingrich on negative Campaigning (which he refused to do), he would lose, he lost in the debates with Ted Kennedy when he ran for the Massachusetts Senate, and one can anticipate he will lose those debates should he become the nominee – in this opinion, if Romney is the nominee, obviously he will be the ABO candidate, however, those in the voting booth will have hard time decide ding which way to go, one Moderate or the other. It will make no difference - he will govern the nation just like he governed Massachusetts – again someone please poll Massachusetts.

The concept that Romney will be the given nominee, is a not yet determined, because first he has to get past the Carolina’s, and to the best of this knowledge, Fred Thompson is not available to run against Gingrich/Huckabee/McCain – so, the fate of the nation literally rests on the good people of the great state of South Carolina, followed by those states in the south and Midwest, that drove Romney from the race in 2008.

Ron Paul, it was fun while it lasted – maybe. Paul’s followers are ready to forgive, so if Paul pulls out Iowa and then New Hampshire (still a possibility regardless of the newsletter find), the individual who wins the South Carolina Race will be perceived as the most viable candidate, and that is still to be determined.

Trump and Clinton 2012: Trump to New Hampshire and Iowa Hitting the right Meetings, Hiring Staff, LA Times Makes Case for Clinton Run

Trump In on 2012 - image New York Post

What are the odds of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton being Top of the Ticket 2012 Candidates? If one is prone to placing a wager now and then, the opportunity exists in several off-shore sports betting websites. For example: Both Trump and Clinton are on the “board” on linesmaker.com with Clinton at a 15/1 and Trump (recently added) at 50/1. Most wagers are going to Sarah Palin who is at 10/1 and Barack Obama who is at 4/5 (the incumbent, one should note, always has the higher odds this early in the game, regardless of actual outcome). What are the odds of the American Public hiring a President who has either a “rock star personality” or has been involved in “entertainment”, appearing on Television shows? Those odds become fairly high, when considering the nation’s history since 1980 vis a vis Barack Obama and one Ronald “Death Valley Days” Reagan.

Therefore, all those pundits who operate out of ivory towers, use charts, or other props, and think Beltway, Beltway; Beltway just may be out of luck this time around. Obviously, rumors are rumors and wishful Monday Morning Quarterbacking is what it is, however, as to the actual who would the U.S. electorate accept (overall), one can bet it will be someone who is easily recognized as a celebrity of sort, someone who is in the spotlight, has been seen by millions of TV viewers and is both loved and hated at the same time. One just has to take a quick look at the GOP hopefuls who are polling at the top of the heap of “those who may step forward”, such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. Although Trump is only recently on the board, he’s in the same position, except for two stunning facts: He is, granted a “celebrity”, but he’s also a businessman with zero ties to traditional politics. That’s points for Trump.

Understanding that last night on the Fox Program “The O’Reilly Factor”, veteran journalist Bernie Goldberg dropped “the Bomb “that Trump is indeed, running for President, and he cited “sources”.

Perhaps they were sources such as New Hampshire’s WMUR, a must read for political junkies everywhere: Back in mid-March of this year, WMUR reported that Trump was heading to the Granite State to attend an all-important “Politics and Egg” Series in June. Further, Trump has reached out to New Hampshire foremost politico in order to “set up meetings” – named in the WMUR “scoop”, one Congressman Charlie Bass. Congressman Bass is a Republican Congressman from the 2nd District, who served 12 terms before being bested by a Democrat in 2006, and was reelected in 2010. How influential is Bass? Bass hails from an influential New Hampshire Political family according to all business.com, noted as The Clinton's or Rockefeller's of New Hampshire.

That aside, Politico noted back in March that Trump was actually looking to hire staff in New Hampshire.

There have been myriad reports on Trumps impending Trip to Iowa, (See this blog.)

Those sources alone would be enough to indicate that Trump is more than “thinking about” entering the 2012 race, he is “exploring”, interviewing staff and laying groundwork.


Will She? Clinton 2012 - image southasiaspeaks wordpress blog

Hillary Clinton’s stock is continuing to rise, as the numbers out on the President continue to plummet, a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times bluntly states: Why Clinton Must Run in 2012 and goes on to list the obvious reasons why Hillary must come in and salvage the Democrat Party. The blog, by John Phillips, states the obvious, and what has been obvious to almost every breathing right of extreme left to moderate Democrat that would vote for Clinton in a primary match-up. One need only search this blog for reasons why even a moderate Republican would find Clinton a formidable opponent and ready for “prime time” going back to 2007.

Although it is much less certain that Clinton would enter the race (although there are some valid arguments being med in favor of a Clinton run), Trump looks like a given. If he does not push the rest of the pack (Palin, Romney, Huckabee) to move up their announcement time lines) and begins to poll at least even with the aforementioned, come November of 2011 he’ll be a force that will be difficult to best. The 2012 Presidential Sweepstakes, the best of Reality Television from the GOP Primary to the possible DNC Primary to the General Election.

Donald Trump and the Obama Birth Issue – What gives? If Obama Cannot Seek Second Term, Will Clinton Take the Reigns?

Donald Trump has produced a hopsital birth certificate in order to prove that some such document can be found rather rapidly by just about anyone, including the President. As Trump pounds away on the issue of why Obama hasn’t taken the time to placate members of the general constituency as to their doubts about his eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency, it is almost as if, the Donald is challenging Obama to do so in order to shut up the bunch – either that or Donald Trump has something else in mind.

In pondering the usual and or not so usual the past few days, a video surfaced which has gone viral quickly, with clips from the President clearly stating he was born in Kenya. A copy of the video, now on YouTube is below – those that are sending it along in emails are warning that it may not be up for long (paranoid one would think – wouldn’t one?). It is an interesting amalgam of clips not only of Obama speaking out on his place of birth, but on his Muslim heritage. Frankly, the fact that a President is of Muslin, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic or name a religion, faith, should not even enter into the equation as every U.S. citizen, natural born or not, has the right to choose his or her own religion, and that religion is not, constitutionally an impediment to holding a higher office.

As there is little time left before Obama’s term is up and the 2012 elections are upon us, would it not be convenient, should another prominent Democrat be able to run in Obama’s stead, if he were found to be ineligible? During the 2008 elections, prior to supporting McCain, Trump supported both financially and in word, one Hillary Clinton: From the left Newshounds: Trump phones in Fox in praise of Hillary’s speech and ABC News’ on Clinton donors contributing to McCain after the Super Delegate Coup at the DNC – one of those Donors? The Donald

Granted, one can believe that Trump is seriously considering a run at the Presidency, and considering the current crop of no-one has announced, he is beginning to be taken seriously by those on the right, however, how much more so, if he, along with the disgruntled Kennedy family, get rid of Obama and make a place at the table for one Hillary Clinton.

Although farfetched, even to those who have degrees of moderation and sanity, it does smack of making one wonder – why an intelligent, world renowned business man would so intently focus on this particular issue, which , should it prove true would eliminate the President at this point, from running for reelection.




Video

Clinton Denies 2012 Run at Obama - Desperate Rank and File Hope She Will Reconsider, From Huffington Post, Tabloids Bloggers, Clinton #1 Choice

Hillary Clinton as depicted by Arabic Al Jezeera in June of 2008 - The Iron Lady of the Palace

Hillary Clinton 2012? Not so fast, according to news sources such as Politico who wrote on November 21st, ”Clinton won't run in 2012 - or ever” using Clinton’s own words, speaking on Fox News’s Sunday morning talk show, about a potential retirement from the public side of life. Of course, that was in November, and times have changed.

It is not so much that times have changed for Clinton (other than the day to day business of being Obama’s Secretary of State), it is that times have changed for Democrats, rank and file, who are now looking for an alternative, as the Commander in Chief appears hesitant, as basketball appears to take precedence over world affairs, and as there is no clear and consistent message being delivered at any given time on any given issue. It just may be a style of governing that has gotten the rank and file a bad case of the jitters over a run at a second term for Obama, it is the polls, which indicate that, as time goes by, anyone, and by that, any candidate that has a GOP sticker attached to their lapel, should be able to best Obama for the white house.

Although much fun is poked at the lack of a strong field in 2012, polling shows some interesting leads, specifically Mike Huckabee, who ran in 2008 for the GOP nomination. The press, by implication calls out the weak candidates, but, truth is only one or two to date have committed to a run and those would be, at present, the minor players. All of the alleged Heavy Hitters, Romney, Huckabee, Palin and yes, Donald Trump, all place a summer announcement on the table – they are most likely gauging how bad it will get before honestly assessing if they really even want the job. It takes time, money, and dedication, and one of them, stands better than even odds of becoming the next President. It is daunting under the current situation.

Dedication.

There is no one more dedicated to the American Ideals wedded into the Democrat Party than one Hillary Clinton. She is respected, she’s smart, she’s a force to be reckoned with, and Al Queda and the rest of those terrorists were terrified she’d beat Obama in 08 – She was dubbed on Arabic All Jazeera as “The Iron Lady of the Palace”, and Obama was considered a “movie star”. (See: this blogs “A Case for Rethinking The Candidacy of Hillary Clinton”)
After the she was robbed at the DNC Convention by a Group of Super Delegates that ignored the popular vote (which Clinton had), and push Obama forward as the Candidate (the party rules, not the peoples wishes) – it was evident that Clinton would go no further. The pain was felt by moderate Democrats who formed organizations such as PUMA (Party Unity My Ass).

Now, with the State of the Democrats, the rumblings have begun, a second term for Obama appears to be out of the question (Gallop’s conservative polling on his job approval, should it hold, and not go deeper into the depths of poll number, will allow him to pick up 10 states in 2012 – hardly enough to hold the White House for the Democrats.

The articles being:

The Huffington Post (or AOL) with a large share of voice on the web, for the 18 plus group – queries if Is Hillary Planning a run at Obama in 2012? the piece goes further giving reasons why Clinton should jump in to save the “the Party”
The Blog It’s News 2 Them” offers a piece on the tabloid Examiner Story whereby the Kennedy’s have allegedly Begged Clinton to run.

Colleen O’Connor over at the LaJolla Patch, perhaps gives the most compelling argument for Clinton to stay in and offers up a few tidbits that she just might – borrowing a phrase from Sarah Palin, O’Connor suggests that Clinton is merely reloading, and then notes that Clintons 2008 presidential team is certainly doing so.

That Clinton has not totally dismantled the framework of her 2008 candidacy, may or may not mean a hill of beans, but given the circumstances the nation and the Democrats now find themselves, it now appears to be money in the bank, should the crisis deepen.

Then there’s the right – or the semi-right in former CBS newsman, Bernard Goldberg’s piece from July of last year: “Wanna Bet?”
He lays out the case, (excerpt from article follows) which call him clairvoyant, is more relevant today than when it was written:

I’m climbing out on a limb. I’m jumping the canyon on a motorcycle without a parachute. I’m walking the tightrope without a net. I’m out of clichés. So here goes:
I know the next presidential election is more than two years off, and all sorts of things can happen between now and then. But I am predicting right here, right now, that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2012 – yes 2012 — challenging President Obama for their party’s nomination.
Is it a long shot? Sure. But it’s no longer crazy.
If it’s occurring to millions of Americans who voted for Obama, it must be occurring to Hillary Clinton too: The magic is gone. Barack Obama can’t walk on water no matter how hard his fans in the media tried to turn him into the messiah. And that hope and change thing? Well, it isn’t working out the way it was supposed to, either.

Read the rest of the article “Wanna Bet” here at http://www.berrnardgoldberg.com/wanna-bet/

One will quickly pick up on the reasons why, Clinton would be best suited to make a run at Obama, even more so now than a year ago. In addition, unlike Ted Kennedy who ran against Carter (when the going looked impossible and it was), Clinton appeals to a broad base of the electorate and that includes the Independents that Obama has lost.

Granted this is all speculation, and the brand may be too far damaged for a Democrat, even FDR returned, can stem the tide that has the brand so badly damaged that, at this point, any Republican can best Obama, but….could any Republican best Hillary Clinton? It could be that Clinton is, as she says, tired and about to take time for herself, she’s worked hard and long for the Democrat Party, with little in return but criticism and heartbreak and a ton of debt, that said, her inner “Goldwater Girl” cannot but help raise the flag high and consider the options on the table. The stakes are higher than they ever have been (at least since James Earl Carter was President), and it will take a moderate, to put this nation back together, one that understands fiscal restraint and specifically polls (giving the people more input), one that would more than startle those who would hurt us most (see article referring to Iron Lady of the Palace.)

She may deserve a break, but will she answer the call of the nation? Time will tell one thing is certain; she has a growing fan base. What to watch for as the consumer prices rise (food, fuel, anticipated 26% increase this year, gas upward to $5.00 per barrel) going into 2012, and indecisiveness continues to embroiled the United Sates into you name an issue, while France Leads Coalitions, and takes the mantel of World Leadership – Hillary Clinton – on a personal note: she would at the very least return honor and hope to my father’s party, but to be sure, it is not a job that anyone, but the most dedicated, would truly want to take – batting cleanup for the Obama administration.

Romney Looks at 2012 from Hawaii– Huckabee and Romney As Front Runners – Analysis Taxes and Paroles

Mitt Romney & Wife on vacation an island away from Obama - image mittromneycentral.com

The Sacramento BeeSunday news included a piece on former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, who is, coincidentally, on vacation in Hawaii at the same time as President Obama. Romney, who is touted as the “front-runner” for the GOP nomination in some instances, is a favorite of certain fiscal conservative groups, who “forgive” the former Governor for his Massachusetts Universal Health Care bill that was exported nationwide under Obama. Understanding that Romney’s vision of the Bay States version was not exactly the deficit ridden, mandate heavy, private insurance cost increasing behemoth that evolved once he left the legislation in the hands of a Democrat heavy State Legislator, it belies the fact that Romney, a savvy business man, must have foreseen the mess that would evolve once he left the Governorship to run for President in 2008. That aside, what is most often forgiven is the multiple “fees” imposed under Romney, including the “fee” for not complying with the State Mandated Program.

Although he initially opposed a “tax” for non compliance, he was fine with “fees” assessed on those that failed to comply” (Insurance Journal) . In any other universe a “fee” is a “tax”, unless one is looking for a “businessman” to run the country in 2012. When he first took the office of the Governor in 2003, then Governor Romney, hiked “fees” :

“If you own a gun or a boat, kill termites or teach horseback riding for a living or just want to learn to drive, you may have to pay more for a state permit.
Along with proposed budget cuts and reorganization plans, Gov. Mitt Romney sent the Legislature a four-page list of fees that would be increased to help balance the state budget. In all, the fee hikes would add $60 million in revenue next year. The proposed fee increases come on top of $290 million in fee hikes the governor imposed under emergency budget balancing authority given him by the Legislature in February that would be carried over into next year's budget.
While many of the fees hit businesses and special groups, few in the state would escape paying more for state services.”

The Fees (Tax increases):

“State college tuitions would be raised as much as 15 percent for in-state students
Free parking at many state parks, including Wachusett Mountain Reservation in Princeton, would give way to $2 parking fees, and a 15 cent deposit would be tacked on to juice, wine and other beverages that have escaped bottle deposits in the past.
At the Registry of Motor Vehicles, many fees would be raised.
Commercial license road tests would double to $40; drunken-driving license reinstatement would go from $300 to $500; learning permits would double to $30; a new $50 fee would be charged for emergency light permits; and the state would also bring in $507,000 by charging $2 each for bulk purchase of driver manuals by driving schools.
The Department of Public Health would begin charging a new $50 fee for all tuberculosis tests, to bring in $300,000, and hikes in license fees for hospitals, labs, radiation monitoring firms, and other licensed health-related businesses would bring the state an additional $3 million.

Elevator inspection fee increases would produce $3 million in new revenues, a hike in milk dealer licenses from $5 to $25 would raise $1.3 million.

Firearm registrations would triple to $75; fees for floats, piers and moorings would be increased 80 percent and boat registrations would go from $15 to $30 and $25 to $100. Surcharges on speeding tickets would double to $50 and current surcharges on drunken-driving violations would double to $250. “

(Worcester Telegram and Gazette, fee required for full article)

Which, the aforementioned may be why, those who are opposed to fees in states such as Iowa, the South, the Mid-West and places in between, failed to move then 2008 Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney past Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, who is often accused of “taxing” those in the State of Arkansas.

Additionally, he can be, of all things, Bi-Partisan! In a recent article by right of center blogger Michelle Malkin, she eviscerates Huckabee in her piece: “Malkin: Big Nannies of the Year”"

“Nanny State Republican Mike Huckabee, who used his bully pulpit position as Arkansas governor to campaign for Big Government-endorsed “healthier living” in public schools and private life, naturally sided with Mrs. Obama — and took a swipe at Sarah Palin last week for criticizing the White House usurpation of parental responsibility and rights. Huckabee scoffed at the idea that the feds are “trying to force the government’s desires on people.” But school bake sales are already under siege, and Mrs. Obama’s childhood obesity task force has already called for new and dramatic controls on the marketing of unhealthy foods. Did Huckabee miss (or does he agree with) Mrs. Obama’s officious rallying cry on child nutrition: “We can’t just leave it up to parents”?
God save us from more busybody bipartisanship in 2011.”

Ms. Malkin is either missing the point, or perhaps making a political point for the “fiscally conservative, fee happy Romney”. Governor Huckabee can be bi-partisan, when and if, it is in the best interest of his constituents, and asked for by his constituents. Apparently, addressing the issue of childhood obesity (health and strength of the nation’s future), is off the radar for certain conservatives, and any interaction with the “enemy” (i.e. a Democrat) is seen as treasonous.

That said, agreeing that parents should be the first point of defense for their children, the fact that many children in today’s society, depending upon the school district, are not offered “healthy choices” for school lunch, rather vending machines, and the like; with parents who may or may not be present and/or know what their children are ingesting must be considered. In the case of Huckabee - is not a question of “big brother”, rather a question of schools, paid for by the taxpayer, offering nutritious food for the students rather than “junk food”. Huckabee offered guidelines, rather than a mandate, including the parents in the process and ultimately changing the menus at schools to include more healthy “snacks” (from article: Star News via AP: “Arkansas Reaches Out to Overweight Kids, Schools help parents with fighting obesity” In addition he did not impose any lunch “fees”.

Of course, the two contenders have only hinted at a run in 2012, and have yet to announce, unless one can count Romney’s “hint” in the LA Times: “Running certainly seems to be on Romney's mind. His annual Christmas card showed a smiling Romney with his wife, Ann, and 14 grandchildren. The caption read: "Guess which grandchild heard that Papa might run again?"

Huckabee, Palin and a crowded field of “those speculated to run”, have repeatedly "coyly" dodged the questions of 2012 presidential runs. That said, as polls continue to show Huckabee gaining strength (CNN Opinion Research), coming in ahead of the entire pack of “contenders”. Not for nothing, the best polling (this opinion) group out there, Public Policy Polling has, in early polling, Huckabee ahead of Romney in the State of Florida.

As it now stands, the battle that may brew between Romney and the “fiscal conservatives” in the beltway, and Mike Huckabee, who is viewed as a more populist candidate, should they both decide to run, make this one very interesting fight in 2011-2012. Of course, this does not address the third front-runner, Sarah Palin, who, although currently “lagging” behind both Romney and Huckabee in a series of polls, should not be discounted. A great deal will depend on which one of the aforementioned has the rank and file, plus the “Tea Party, in full force behind any run at the Presidency.

A few facts:


Romney Pardons: He denied them all, including one for an Iraq War Vet, who when 13 years of age, (juvenile record) shot another boy in the arm, causing a welt, with a bb gun. The man was applying for a job and requested the pardon from Govenor Romney who refused. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his service to the nation in Iraq.”(UPI)

Huckabee Pardons: Although credited with pardoning one man by the name of Dumond, who continued to commit murder after his parole, his release and pardon was at the behest of the Parole Board, not Huckabee. The parole board “assumed” that Huckabee would have wanted the man paroled, as he had expressed some sympathy”. (Seattle Post Intelligencer) In fact, Huckabee presided over executions performed under the laws of the State of Arkansas which offers a contradiction of sorts to those who support the Huckabee as “soft on crime” theory CBS News. Or course, Huckabee did pardon, Rolling Stone’s, Keith Richards for a “parking violation” (Pittsburg Post Gazette”)

The point being that both Romney and Huckabee have made decisions as their respective State’s governors, which can either be excused and or not, depending upon one’s ability to face facts and dig a little deeper to look at the men (or women) who may hold the highest office in the land. One can, however, anticipate a colorful battle between these two “potential” candidates – what one cannot anticipate is how either will fare against one Sarah Palin, or should the constant speculation bear fruit, One Democrat Nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and Palin – Media Seek Roads Which Appear to Lead to 2012

One cannot help but notice the increasing articles speculating on both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton’s political aspirations and the 2012 General Election. For both women, it would be a natural progression of their political philosophy and individual patriotism that would lead to declare a candidacy for the Presidency in 2012.

Sarah Palin attends a conservative event and it is seen by US News as a “big step towards 2012 run for President”. Although Palin has repeatedly denied any such designs, and has stated her focus is solely on the mid-term elections, every move she makes indicates that 2012 is, in the mind of the media, “on the table.”

Hillary Clinton is being analyzed in the same respect. An article by the AP’s, Matthew Lee, wonders why Clinton might be avoiding the midterms, and that there are rumors of a run in 2016. (A departure from some pundits who are looking towards 2012, and rumors of Clinton being replaced as Secretary of State this coming year by John Kerry (D-MA).

What is telling is the jabs at Palin are becoming even more frequent, while Clinton is suddenly a target as well, with a recent article commenting on her hairdo at a United Nations event. The media’s ability to pick apart wardrobe and hairstyles, once a candidate is even remotely seen as a challenger, (must be a woman), is indicative that any runs may be, in the minds of some, sooner than later for both women.

Those of like mind (this blog included), seek clues as to what might happen after November 2nd, and which of the candidates, for both major political parties will emerge to run for the Top Job. Although many believe that it is too soon for a woman to take the office (those comments are privately made, and summarily dismissed as ridiculous by this blog), others might think the time is long past for the nation to be led by a Mother of our Country.

When speaking to a campaign official about Clinton’s options (off the record), the question of gender did arise, however, when offered the hypothetical of a Palin-Clinton contest in 2012, gender becomes a moot point, and the musings begin about the chances of each given their diverse backgrounds, baggage and the ability to relate to the Public.

2010 will be historical, there is no doubt, the Congress and Senate may see a major shift that has not occurred in decades, and 2012 is poised to be the year in which America’s have a choice between two of the most interesting women in politics – trumping all historical elections this nation has seen.

Hillary Clinton – No to Obama VP Rumors 2012 – 2012 Presidential Run Possible.

Recent musings by the Washington Post’s, Bob Woodward projected a possible switch of Vice-Presidents for Obama, from Biden to Hillary Clinton based on “"Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012,”..

Clinton did not take long to dispel that particular myth (see video below), denying any intent to run as Barack Obama’s Vice President in 2012. That does not mean, however, that Clinton will rule out a run for the Oval office in 2012. A recent Gallop poll shows Obama leading Clinton in a 2012 matchup by 52 to 37 % noting that polls taken this far out from an election may not be entirely accurate. For examples they cited early polling for 2008 showing Giuliani and McCain tied as well as polling showing Clinton clearly ahead of Obama. In the Clinton – Obama case, but for the Super delegates at the Democrat Convention, that poll would have been correct.

That said, this far out from a 2012 election, polling with a double digit deficit among Democrats or Republicans has little meaning – and circumstances now suggest that the Democrats could use some solid leadership, as well as a candidate that would appeal to more moderate to conservative independents and or Democrats who are not specifically “progressive”. Gallop goes on to point out that Obama has noted he may be a one-term president and given the current mood of the electorate, that is an increasing probability.

Therefore, who better than Clinton to fill the void and give the Democrat party some slight hope of retaining at least one branch of the Government in 2012?

With Ever Dropping Approval Ratings, President Obama Looks to Rally Support – at Universities – Students Recruited to Fill Seats

Bill Clinton on the Stump for the President - drawing crowds of 3,000 to defend Incumbants image huffington post

From Real Clear Politics :the Presidents approval rating, once again, hit a new low. Real Clear Politics, is not a poll per se, rather a combination of all polls taken in a given period. Therefore, there are high and low approval ratings (depending upon the pollster) averaged to come up with an “overall” approval. The combined “score” is now at a 44.5% approval.

With that in mind, knowing that the 2010 midterms are at stake and shortly thereafter, he must begin to campaign for the Oval office in 2012, he is taking to the road - in an “attempt to recapture Democrat Enthusiasm”. (New York Times). His first stop is the University of Wisconsin and the Times is heralding this particular rally as having the draw Obama was used to seeing at rally’s in 2008. The word “Thousands” and used in context with the size of the crowds.

Easier said than done, a recent rally held in Ohio was so poorly attended that Obama rally organizers were desperately trying to recruit students to fill the seats. Perhaps the Obama has a better following in Wisconsin, or buses standing by to insure the seats are filled with thousands, which said, perception is half the battle.

Losing the Battle:

Even the most popular Democrat President in recent history, one Bill Clinton, who is on the stump in “blue New England” for the most endangered species: Incumbent Democrats, managed to draw a “crowd” estimated at approximately 3,000 - the event: A rally for Barney Frank (D-MA) held in Taunton in the 4th District of Massachusetts. According to New England Cable News, Bill Clinton was able to draw 3,000 attendees to a Barney Frank Rally.
The rally was “advertised” well in advance by the local press as well as the Republican Challenger, Sean Bielat, who held a counter-rally. The AP jumped in as well: ”Barney Frank Denies Clinton Visit indicates weakness”. That said Bill Clinton in Massachusetts is akin to a visit by the Pope himself. In the past, the former President was greeted by large enthusiastic crowds (with the exception of his stump for Martha Coakley in January of this year, therefore to draw 3,000 at a rally for Barney Frank is hardly a success.

The aforementioned begs the question: With the man (President Clinton) sent out to rally the troops who feel Obama is poison draw crowds of merely 3,000, will Obama’s huge crowds materialize on their own?

Note: Barney Frank is seen as the architect of the mortgage meltdown (Freddie and Fannie); however, he is also most often aligned in the minds of the electorate with Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the later, being a bigger problem in some voter’s minds. With that in mind, can the ever popular Bill Clinton succeed when “guilt by association” is in play in all districts in New England? Also, if this is taking place in New England, known as “reliably Democrat” across the board, then how much more in states that swing decidedly down the middle?


The 2012 Democrat Candidate for President standing next to Obama? - image our vote

Bill Clinton must, at this point, understand that, although doing his best for the Democrat Party, there is little hope of recovery under the current administration. With that in mind, he must know that the public would have preferred another Democrat be president instead of the current occupant of the White House – one Hillary Clinton. A recent poll puts the former first lady in the number one slot of candidates who would come through a 2012 primary – by 62%. Not for nothing, Bill Clinton is a consummate poll watcher.

Obama Administration – Desperation Plan – Attack the Tea Party – Bill Clinton Takes a Different Tactic – Hillary, Palin and the Tea Party - Analysis

The New York Timesran an article yesterday here outlining the administration’s plans to air a national television campaign tying the Tea Party movement to the GOP, noting that the source was, as always, anonymous, and that the ad would air only on “cable”. Meanwhile, smart as a fox, and possibly laying the groundwork for his wife’s 2012 run at the White House, former president Bill Clinton believes that the “Tea Party is misplacing the blame” (NY Daily News). In a series of Sunday talk show appearances, Clinton argued that the Tea Party candidates have the right idea in that the public is tired of big government, but that it is “bankrolled” by “people” who would harm the government by concentrating power in the private sector. Seriously, on the one hand, Clinton, one of the few moderates left in the Democrat party, is giving credit to the candidates that either have Tea Party support, or are Tea Party originals, while warning of disaster if the government is reduced.

Both the White House, and a variety of cheerleaders from press, are missing one critical point – the Tea Party “movement” is not about the GOP – it is about the government period and primarily about fiscal conservatism, job creation and individual liberty. The GOP just happens to have some of the qualities Tea Party members are seeking – but it appears to be temporary.

In addition, examine who make up members of the Tea Party, some of them are far right, some of them are also Democrats, most of them are, more to the point, “unenrolleds” or “independent” status voters. Those voters who have never found either party overly appealing, or meeting part or any of their political ideology have finally found a “Party” they like. This is regardless of how many times a member of the Democrat Party or the Press cries “right-wing extremist” (note – Clinton, in his interviews, did not use that particular phrase). Interestingly, the New York Daily used the Clinton interview to segue into a criticism of Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell – who they are desperately tying to Sarah Palin, on the one hand, while leaving out the fact that she upset a Republican Incumbent on the other.

Clinton, one can observe, never went that route, leaving Palin out of it completely, although touching on O’Donnell – as a Tea Party Candidate, having to spell out what had happened as far as several “bombshells” dropped by the press in recent weeks against her, personally.

Bill Maher, a comedian turned “quasi news commentator” on Cable’s HBO network, “outed” O’Donnell recently for “Dabbling in Witchcraft” – in addition, she’s had a slew of financial difficulties and discrepancies in her bio. The dabbling in Witchcraft nonsense is exactly that, as the 41 year old O’Donnell was in high school at the time. In other words, Tea Party candidates who have had financial difficulties, and may have made some dubious choices in high school, are human.

However, Congressmen and women, who have made dubious choices with other people’s money (taxpayers), and happen to be Democrats, get a pass. Gone are the front page articles on Charles Rangel’s (D-NY), with the exception of his recent win in New York’s primary – one in which, on election day voting machines either malfunctioned or did not work (NYTimes). Rangel is up on a host of charges, likewise, Maxine Waters (D-CA) who funneled tarp funds to a failing bank which just happened to have her husband on the Board. Chris Dodd, (D-CT) decided to get out of the kitchen and retire before the financial disaster came home to roots, and Barney Frank (See Maxine) was in the ”middle” of the Water’s bank scam on the Taxpayer. It is the aforementioned that the "Tea Party Members" get.

However, to the majority of the press and the administration, The Tea Party is “extreme” and in aligning with the GOP, one should vote those Democrats back into office or suffer the consequence. Those consequences being the GOP would now include members of a fledgling Third Party (see analysis here Wall Street Journal)that would not bend on issues of taxpayers monies (the crux of the issue) being spent with abandon (a basic GOP tenant, which in that Political Party’s misplaced need to become more “appealing” to Democrats – acted just like them – see out of control spending in Congress held by GOP in the 2nd term under G.W. Bush.)

The problem, overall, is that those that live in Washington D.C. (and pressrooms across the nation) don’t’ get it. One has to wonder however, if the GOP’s Karl Rove did, especially when he went after Christine O’Donnell for besting an incumbent Republican. The GOP had a stalwart tax and spend semi-reliable Republican in Mike Castle and Karl Rove, knew that Castle was not ousted by a fellow Republican, rather a member of a Third Party running on the GOP ticket. One that, had not been “fully vetted’ by the “Tea Party” – you can’t blame Karl, who has to understand that the GOP is being used as a spring board for candidates that would be forced to run as a third party candidate. This is similar to the way that “Socialist Progressives” infiltrated the Democrat Party by running as – Democrats.

Karl need not worry overmuch – The Democrats are in panic mode, Clinton understands this, and also understands the need to be “kind” to those Tea Party Candidates, even though they are running as Republicans’ because, he understands they are not “right wing extremists” at all, rather they are American Citizens from all parties, all races, and all ethnic backgrounds who are taxpayers’ sick of being fleeced.

It’s a win for the Republican’s because, at the moment, they are identifying themselves with the GOP – and it’s a loss for the Democrats because they are not specifically the GOP, and apparently, only the members know that – those members reading the press and having voted for one Barack Obama.

Obama on the other hand if he does recognize the strategy and being a Progressive, is, in all likelihood, a bit perturbed as the independents that propelled him into the White House, have now formed a Party to remove him.

What of Sarah Palin? Palin is being tied by now by more than virtue of endorsement to Christine O’Donnell, which the press is trying to take advantage. The Altlantic article written by one Andrew Sullivan who apparently sees a correlation between the teenage O’Donnell’s “witchcraft” date (Bill Maher), and Palin’s attendance at a church where the pastor used the word “witchcraft” in a service in which Palin participated. Obviously, not familiar with biblical text, nor teenagers, and believing that the rest of the nation is likewise ignorant, he pens a rather ridiculous correlation between the two, with the conclusion that neither woman is fit for office.

The problem those press and politicians – (Obama and like-minded Progressives) (with the exception of one Bill Clinton and one Karl Rove, that actually may “get it”) that demonize both the Tea Party, Palin and of course, O’Donnell is that: One, the Tea Party is a separate movement and - Two, O’Donnell is her own person, regardless of Palin’s endorsement and made mistakes in her youth, mistakes and hard times, being something that happens to every single American at some point in their life.

Finally, Palin is a force to be reckoned with, her endorsements are not straight Tea Party, nor straight GOP, she sees something in these candidates that for, whatever reason, makes them better than the alternative. Palin, who came out of the GOP convention and immediately overshadowed Obama, both in the press (who quickly went to work “fixing that Progressive faux pax”), and in attendance at rally’s nationwide, is seen as one of the GOP’s front runners for 2012.

That is with good reason, as one has to examine the possible GOP 2012 candidates(at the moment – Mitt Romney failed to capture the south and the mid-west, Mike Huckabee, may be able to pull it off, although he will be characterized-wrongly as a “religious nut”, Newt Gingrich, always mentioned, Rick Santorum (former Senator – PA - makes Palin look liberal) – none of the aforementioned, let alone Palin have declared) - Palin may be the only one that can actually carry the states necessary to win the nomination.

One scenario which the press, in its blind ambition for the Progressive movement, sees as a victory for Obama, while, Bill Clinton, on the other hand, looks at Sarah Palin as the woman Hillary Clinton must beat in 2012 in order to win the White House for the Democrats.

Therefore, let the White House air those anti-Tea Party, GOP advertisements and they might as well throw Sarah Palin in the mix – unless it is run only on MSNBC, then the probability that this tactic will indeed have an effect on a base is certain – the problem for the administration is – it will be the wrong “base”.

Hillary Clinton 2012 Update – U.S. News Picks Up John Kerry (D-MA) Rumored as Next Secretary of State – PUMA and Palin Analysis

John Kerry (D-MA) image bokertov


An interesting blip in the September 15th web edition of US. News and World Reportnotes that John Kerry (D-MA), who will be up for re-election in 2014, is being considered as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State by the Obama administration. The article goes on to note that Clinton has been “hinting” at leaving the post, and as the mid-terms approach and the 2012 presidential campaigns will begin on November 3, if Clinton is to make a run at the White House, and try and save the Democrat Party from implosion, (and by that, the nation by kicking the Progressives to the curb), that announcement should come sometime before or immediately following the installation of the 112th Congress.

Kerry, who is likely to face fierce opposition from the renewed Massachusetts GOP, would likely jump at the opportunity. The Sr. Senator was most recently hounded by the local press for docking his newest “boat” in Rhode Island to avoid paying $500,000 in Massachusetts taxes and after the news broke, relented in time to avoid a Mass. Department of Revenue inquiry on possible tax evasion. Kerry was also one of the first “Democrats” to bring the first-term Illinois Senator Obama into the national spotlight at the 2006 Democrat Convention and also caused a stir among Bay State Dems by coming out early to endorse Obama over Clinton (who won the MA popular 2008 primary vote). Kerry’s chances of reelection after the routing of Obama favorite, Martha Coakley (then summarily shoved under the bus) by Republican Scott Brown in the January 19, 2010 special election are questionable, therefore a post such as Secretary of State would at least extend his public career until 2014.


Hillary Clinton - 2012 Democrat Nominee for President? image top news India

Does Clinton have the support, however, to win a primary? With the Democrats in Congress trying to distance themselves from Obama in the midterms, while being forced by DNC party leaders to find funds, even if it means breaking the law (see audio of Congresswoman calling Lobbyist for funds here), Clinton should have the support necessary to garner super-delegates and take the reins of the Democrat Party in a 2013 convention).

An interesting article on the Tea Party, published by a Clinton PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) supporter, post Republican Primaries is a must read. The article entitled “The Blood of Revolution” addresses the successes of the Tea Party during the September 14th Republican primary, and interestingly enough, gives “bona fides” to the Tea Party as a Movement by quoting Scott Rasmussen article in the Washington Examiner which the Puma article notes “explains the significance of the Tea Party Movement”. Although the article begins with a partisan jab at a list of GOP “Tea Party/Sarah Palin” successes by calling them “losers”, it goes on to accurately depict the movement as one of the people, calling the Tea Party a “revolution”. Also somewhat insightful is the paring of Palin with the Tea Party, as Palin’s popularity with the G.O.P. electorate (not necessarily party leadership who would back a Romney) make her the likely party standard bearer in 2012. These supporters are laying the groundwork now, for a Clinton vs. Palin match-up in 2012.


Sarah Palin with Supporters, image Hartford Courant

As Obama’s popularity among the important unenrolled electorate fades completely, and the Tea Party is drawing from an electorate that is mixed with Conservative Republicans, Independents, Moderate Democrats (thus the revolution), the fact that Palin is at the forefront and acknowledged as being so by Clinton supporters sets up a scenario for, what would be, a grounds breaking American historical event – the choice between one of two women for the top job in 2014.


Suffragettes 1920 not that long ago image constitutional conflicts


What is not necessarily understood about the oppression of women in the United States, (or more to the point, shoved under the proverbial rug) is the fact that until 1920, and the ratification of the 19th amendment women did not even have a voice in government. Palin, has given that voice to an unprecedented amount of conservative women his election cycle, by supporting candidates either backed by Tea Party activists (see Christine O’Donnell’s upset in DE) or GOP party favorites (see Kelly Ayotte’s victory in New Hampshire), while Clinton as a potential 2012 counterpart, has been a stalwart supporter of women’s rights throughout her political career (which incidentally began as a Goldwater Republican (see 2000 article Berkeley article that makes Clinton’s personal believes sound somewhat more conservative than Palin’s (Side note: the Berkley article, although condensed, is similar to information available in the book “”The Truth About Hillary Clinton” by Edward Klein which both conservative (Fox News Bill O’Reilly) and left of moderate’s tagged as a “smear book”, once read, actually invites the Conservative feminist reader to like and understand Clinton – which may explain the pundits aversion to the book on both sides of the aisle).

As a Conservative Feminist who agrees to disagree with friends that stand on the opposite side of the political spectrum (liberal feminists), a Clinton-Palin match up would ensure, regardless of the outcome, a win for women specifically, and the nation as a whole, the media and male establishment in the combined political party’s hierarchy will, undoubtedly do their best to undermine any chance of this occurring, but with confidence in the media (Gallop Confidence in Institutions) ranking right above Congress and Unions, 2008 may have taken the ability of that medium to effect the “masses”. In fact, judging from the growth of the Tea Party and events sponsored by individuals such as Glenn Beck one sees the more the media “tags” Tea Party members/events as radical, the more “revolutionary” they become. The next two election cycles will, in all likelihood, bring change to a broad spectrum of the political establishment in the United States.

Obama’s Gallop Numbers now at 49% Negative – Congress to Cut State Future Aid to State Food Stamp Programs to Fund Mrs. Obama’s Program.

Blue State Food Aid Programs - image McClatchy

The Hill Blog is reporting that the Congress is ready to cut state aid in the form of the food stamp program, in order to fund a pet project of Mrs. Obama’s, her health initiative (a laudable project, whereby children are taught exercise and the tenants of eating right.) The aid, which according to the Hill blog, is actually an increase in aid to states that would have been phased in over a period of time, (2014), will vote to take back that chunk of change and give it to this program. The cost of the program: $8 billion.
Also noted is that the Food Stamp program is the Democrats favorite fund-cutting measure used to finance other areas because simply, there’s not many options of places to cut. The AP is reporting that the bill, which passed the Senate earlier, notes that hunger advocates who had supported the bill prior to finding out the cuts were going to affect the food stamp program, are now opposed.

Meanwhile, over at Gallop, Obama’s numbers declined again showing a 42% approval with 49% disapproval ranking going into the November mid-terms.
That said, the latest news regarding the cut in state aid has had little traction in the news (yet, if at all) and Food Stamps, in cash-strapped blue states, are a staple. The First Lady, is being made out by some media outlets to be somewhat callous : The Examiner Headline for example reads: As First Lady returns from Luxury Vacation, Obama cuts Food Stamps to Nations Poor the blogs have elaborated on that theme. Is it fair, however, to attack Mr. Obama whose intentions are in the right place? (Regardless of the 20 some odd vacations the family has taken since August? (Exaggeration and sarcasm).

The reality is that blue state Food Stamp programs need to be overhauled. One might say, even, on a Canadian model (shocking!). In Massachusetts (and most likely elsewhere) those that receive food stamps are given a debit card, which is good for a number of items, including, lobster (no kidding), and are salable on the “open market”. This sets the state system up for possible fraud and waste of the taxpayers’ dollars.

A few years back, an acquaintance had fallen on hard times, living in Canada (It may have changed since, but he idea is valid), those who could not afford food, would go to the nearest church (this could fall under faith based initiatives), where their needs would be assessed, they would be given a list of what to buy, and provided with exactly that – at a grocer who was aware of what the needs were. This type of program allowed for individual dignity and a much needed hand up – while eliminating fraud.

One must be fairly certain that states offering this type of food stamp credit card assistance, have an ability to track purchases, - however, that said, fraud is able to continue. In almost every community in the nation, a food pantry exists, therefore, a better use of funds would be to stock the food pantries, (working with the local grocery chains), allowing for better monitoring of purchases – this would actually serve two purposes. 1) The First Lady could insist that no donuts be made available on the shelves of these pantries and write ht guidelines, and secondly, one can bet that less abuse might take place, cutting the costs of the program.

It should also be noted, that eventually, an inability to borrow and print money at will have to come to an end, and after signing a Bill supporting teachers unions (financially) that according to an article in the Hawaii Reporter,(Blue State) will end up cutting out social programs such as food stamps, one sees the writing on the wall.

As more social programs are cut, the onus will be on the American people to stock these pantries and to make sure those in need do not go without. The choices made regarding the teachers union bailout and the cuts in Food Stamps, may have been held off, until the nation was in a state of recovery – not rushed through a Congress about to change overseers in November. It does nothing but erode support for the Presidents’ 2012 reported comeback and move to the middle. Hillary, 2012, is looking more attractive by the minute.