USpolitical.com

I am guessing that Hillary Clinton steps aside “unexpectedly” sometime this week. As the pressure grows and more and more voices express concern at her desire to continue at the expense of the democratic party, I think she’ll throw in the towel and begin plotting for 2012.

She may be waiting until a decisive loss makes it literally impossible but I’m thinking that she will get out at a time she can somewhat slip away with at least some grace.

This is a great article by Roland Martin at CNN.com on the Michigan and Florida “issue.”

But the DNC should protect the integrity of its rules process. If it acquiesces, how many states will pull the same trick in four years? The precedent would have been set, and anyone else could make the same argument: Please, please, give us another chance, even though we brought this on ourselves.

No. Enough. Let’s end this madness and tell Florida and Michigan that they had their shot. They blew it. It’s time to move on and let the people who know how to play by the rules get on with this process. They made their bed. Now sleep in it.

I have personally phrased it as follows, “Michigan and Florida played chicken with the DNC and lost.  End of story.”

Huckabee has finally left the race, but not without a final drop of hypocrisy.

“We kept the faith,” he told his end-of-the-road rally Tuesday after John McCain clinched the nomination. “I’d rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place.”

This is a fine tradition for Mike Huckabee.

Act the part but do the opposite.

Again and again:

HUCKABEE: I’m just saying I won’t have to fake it at all. Senator McCain knows I have nothing but the highest respect for him. I think he does for me. Our relationship has been cordial.

I don’t have to go and, behind the scenes, apologize or hope nothing gets brought up that’s been said in the past. We have a good, clean record. And I see no reason not to keep it that way.

CAVUTO: You don’t like Governor Romney, do you?

HUCKABEE: It’s not a matter of not liking him. I was disappointed in the way that he ran his campaign, where he attacked Senator McCain, he attacked Rudy Giuliani, he attacked me.

Let’s see, Romney pointed out that, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee RAISED taxes $500 million, increased spending more than 50%, charged Mexico $1.00 per year for rent on the consulate office there, and fought to give illegal immigrants in-state scholarships and tuition breaks. Since all those things are true of Huckabee’s record, how is that an attack? And was it really necessary to, once again, personally attack Romney by implying his support of McCain is phony? The man’s not even in the race anymore and Huckaphony still can’t stop attacking him.

Seen the the 2 “sleeping children” ads that both Clinton and Obama have released?

Here is Clinton’s:

And then Obama’s response:

And here are John Dickerson’s thoughts over at Slate.com about Clinton’s ad:

The ad asks which candidate has faced the extended pressure of a crisis that might prepare him or her for the far larger pressures and crises he or she will face as president. I love this question and am glad the Clinton team raised it. The problem is that they’re not so great at answering.

The most interesting and telling part of it is the link to a telephone conversation the author had with the Clinton camp. The conversation was so very revealing about how inflated Clinton’s “experienced” image is.

More obvious to a critical viewer is how they cherry pick “credible experience.” There is this aura of experience that surrounds Clinton due to her time in the Senate and before that the White House. “Day one” anyone? However, despite a few years in the Senate, indeed on the Arms Services Committee, I think the White House claim is, as Obama points out, hard to follow. The Clinton camp attributes her time there as “credible experience.” Yet on things like NAFTA, that isn’t the argument, rather, she was not a part of the administration nor its policies. A very gaping double standard.

Obama at the same time is still struggling to define what would justify military action in the future while neglecting those same justifications in the present.

I actually think that McCain has a fair chance against either of them this fall.

Here is the excerpt from an article at CNN.com:

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq today. Obama had said in a debate Tuesday that he’d strike al Qaeda if it established a base in Iraq. McCain responded that al Qaeda already is in Iraq, and Obama countered that al Qaeda came to Iraq only after the U.S. invaded.

So Obama admits Al Qaeda is in Iraq…but what do we do now Barack?

Perhaps I should lighten up my rhetoric.

With Romney bowing out of the race I am caused to ponder the thoughts of Hugh Hewitt and others who encourage republicans to coalesce around McCain now to prevent a democrat entering the White House and retreating from Iraq.  Also the pivotal issue of supreme court appointees will be huge in the next 4-8 years.

While I am anxious to forgive and forget in order to have someone new to cheer for, I am reminded of McCain’s very contentious campaign style.  His inaccurate assertion of Romney’s position on the Iraq war and then just this week his misleading comments about Romney “attacking” Bob Dole.  I think about immigration and am surprised that this is the person we are going to nominate.  However, the voters have spoken and its time to plan for the future.

Even while calling Romney a flip-flopper, McCain himself has changed his own positions in an even shorter amount of time it would seem.  Taxes first of all, and then immigration.  If he indeed intends to secure the border first, then he’ll have my support on that matter.  Not sure what his plans are for the people already here, but they probably haven’t changed since last summer.  However, he is at least saying we will secure the border first which is a step in the right direction.

So, here is my first reconciliatory post regarding McCain.  I wonder what I’ll be writing in 6 months.

Politicians & Veterans - Two Very Different Things

This story at Townhall.com reignited my feelings about injecting military service into political discussions.

In a letter released by McCain’s campaign Monday, Dole wrote Limbaugh: “I know that you have serious reservations about Senator McCain.”

…

Asked about Dole’s letter on the FOX News’ “FOX & Friends” Tuesday, Romney, who has tried to portray himself as a genuine conservative alternative to McCain, responded: “It’s probably the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me. I think there’s a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is bit like Bob Dole’s race. That it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice.”

McCain lost no time in jumping on Romney’s critique of Dole.

“I think he should apologize,” McCain told reporters aboard his campaign plane. “This is no way to end his campaign, by attacking a genuine American war hero.” Dole was wounded in Europe during World War II and lost most of the use of one arm.

This is so reminiscent of Huckabee clamoring for Romney’s removal of “negative” advertising that addresses McCain’s political positions, not his character or integrity. Romney is addressing the political positions and actions of John McCain, the politician.

Sunday, on NBCs “Meet the Press”, Huckabee criticized the tone of the Romney campaign as desperate.

“Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign. He’s attacked me, and, and yesterday–or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain,” Huckabee said. “Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I’ve said on many occasions, I’ll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he’s an honest man. I believe he’s a man of conviction. And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line. John McCain’s a hero in this country. He’s a hero to me.“

John McCain’s supporters have long advocated a policy of highlighting his heroic POW status. That is exactly what I would do were I supporting a candidate who served honorably in our military, particularly as a POW. However, when discussing a candidate’s political positions, the discussion of war heroics ends there.

For McCain to call for an apology for Romney’s politically oriented comment is frankly, dishonorable. When someone has placed oneself into the political arena, there is no special treatment. Period.

Let me spell it out.
Romney the politician is criticizing McCain the politician because Dole the politician injected himself into the political sphere on behalf of McCain. Now McCain the politician is claiming that Romney the politician attacked Dole the veteran.

It would be a flawed argument indeed if individuals with military service who then inject themselves into public political discourse were somehow “special.” But of course, no one is claiming that, McCain is simply twisting the story to suit his purposes. Shame on McCain again.

I don’t know what to think. Hugh Hewitt keeps on looking ahead to future contests.

Now at the middle of the contest John McCain is poised as the front runner for the republican nomination. However, McCain is so far removed from what a republican should hold near and dear, it is bizarre that he would ever get nominated. However, he is obviously tremendously popular among voters. The only comfort I can take is that I heard that many exit polls indicated that he won among people that care about a candidates’ character and Romney won among people that care about issues. I wonder if they poll people on their intelligence as well…. ( I should add that Huckabee is no doubt splitting the conservative vote…thus denying Romney a chance to overtake McCain)

If McCain were elected president, I hope the people that voted based on character enjoy McCain’s “character” as he imposes liberal ideals diametrically opposed to the republican party.

Heaven help the republican party that might nominate a pro-illegal immigration, pro-government, pro-tax, pro-global warming, flip-flop name calling hypocrite that has been endorsed by most major liberal newspapers. (We’ll not mention the unpredictable temper in detail in this post.) It is really silly. I wouldn’t go as far as Ann Coulter, but it is humorous to think that McCain & Clinton wouldn’t have much to debate other than Iraq, and then, Clinton would just be lying through her teeth.

Check out the latest California polls trending in Romney’s favor.

Romney is up by 8 in the most recent Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll.

The democratic debate was being rerun on CNN and I watched for a bit and realized that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain cannot control their faces at debates.  This is in all seriousness.  They both smirk and smile while opponents make points or rebut claims.  It is as if they are childishly relishing the chance to spring their next sound bite at the moderator & audience.  Now I say they cannot control them.  I may be wrong and they instead are trying to follow Al Gore’s first try at a national debate with George Bush back in 2000 when he was so obnoxious his deliberate gasps and breathing were audible over George Bush’s responses.

Obama & Romney on the other hand seem to have a dignified air about them that lends them a much more distinguished and presidential look.

Judge for yourself.  I took some screen grabs from the last debate for each party and these images really capture the behavior of each candidate.  I find it humorous how similar McCain & Clinton are in terms of smiling & smirking when their opponent discusses the issues they disagree on.  These aren’t random grabs.  If you watched the debates you know how true this is.  The extended smirks and smiles are indicative of the personalities that McCain & Clinton embody.  It turns me (and hopefully others) off.

Here is Hillary:

And then McCain: 

And to contrast…

Here is Obama:

And here is Romney: