The Tipping Point in Texas

Comment: Comment: Hillary Clinton Goofs Again
A Commentary by Dick Morris

Who was it that defined neurosis as repeating the same mistake again and again, and expecting a better outcome each time? That is really what the Clinton campaign is doing in its post-Chesapeake primary strategy. Now Hillary defines Obama as the candidate who makes speeches, while she is the one who provides answers and solutions.

Why is Hillary embracing this new line? Its not that she has any great record of solutions or answers of which to boast, but rather that she wants to highlight Obama's lack of a legislative record. Once again, she and her campaign geniuses are making the same mistake they made when they decided to use the experience as their defining difference with Obama. Its not that she had much, but they sensed an opportunity to highlight that he had even less.
Of course experience not only didn't work. It backfired massively. By co-opting the experience tag, Hillary bought into the status quo and left Obama to be the agent of change. A candidacy that could have excited tens of millions of women, the first serious prospect of a female president, became merely a boring part of the status quo, shorn of its novelty.

Hillary's claim to be the solution-person won't work either for the same simple reason: She hasn't passed any...she hasn't walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.

As a first lady, Hillary's sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband's presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill's administration welfare reform and the balanced budget deal was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there...

Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer's care givers and another to expand veteran's health benefits, a paltry output for six years service.

In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.

He hasn't won the nomination. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Then and only then will it be over. I would lose respect for Hillary if she dropped out now. There is still hope AND she still have a chance. Obama has been getting a free ride. One more thing if people really like his xerox speeches, they'll love the xerox results. Hillary won Massachusettes for a reason even though the deck was stacked with the support of the Governor, John Kerry, and the Kennedy's (Caroline and Teddy) for Obama. Sound like change Massachusettes didn't believe in.

Comment: Hillary Clinton Goofs Again
A Commentary by Dick Morris

Who was it that defined neurosis as repeating the same mistake again and again, and expecting a better outcome each time? That is really what the Clinton campaign is doing in its post-Chesapeake primary strategy. Now Hillary defines Obama as the candidate who makes speeches, while she is the one who provides answers and solutions.

Why is Hillary embracing this new line? Its not that she has any great record of solutions or answers of which to boast, but rather that she wants to highlight Obama's lack of a legislative record. Once again, she and her campaign geniuses are making the same mistake they made when they decided to use the experience as their defining difference with Obama. Its not that she had much, but they sensed an opportunity to highlight that he had even less.
Of course experience not only didn't work. It backfired massively. By co-opting the experience tag, Hillary bought into the status quo and left Obama to be the agent of change. A candidacy that could have excited tens of millions of women, the first serious prospect of a female president, became merely a boring part of the status quo, shorn of its novelty.

Hillary's claim to be the solution-person won't work either for the same simple reason: She hasn't passed any...she hasn't walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.

As a first lady, Hillary's sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband's presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill's administration welfare reform and the balanced budget deal was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there...

Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer's care givers and another to expand veteran's health benefits, a paltry output for six years service.

In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.

Re: " All support "comprehensive immigration reform" -- Washington speak for Amnesty for illegal aliens."

First of all they are not "aliens." They are human beings and who are you or anybody else to say they are out of this world. They are native to Mexico, which is part of North America.

Secondly, they have been pushed off their land because of NAFTA. They are not "illegal." It's sickening to criminlaize poor people. They are hungry and looking foir work. We need to get honest about the effect NAFTA is having on the US and on Mexico. Instead we get meaningless, inflammatory rhetoric.

The leaders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties are moving us closer and closer to Socialism, away from our Constitution (the true Test of American Patriotism). Both major parties pushed through the Patriot Act (a direct violation of our civil liberties) allowing the Federal government (and the lawmakers) greater access in to our personal lives. We have welfare, medicare, and medicaid, all basically federal government subsidies for Americans as a socialist distribution of wealth and commodities. Then, we have the continuation of undeclared War (a direct violation of our Constitution), allowing the President (or socialist leader) the ability to unilaterally decide whether our country (our Americans) go fight in another country using military resources and costing volunteer military lives.
The very core values of America that the founding fathers of our country laid out for us are being destroyed, and our nation is moving in a perilous direction. The American people need to Wake up from their Slumber, and start helping educate their fellow Americans that we are not Socialists, but in fact we are a Nation of Patriots (people who live by and die for civil liberty as well as individual rights).
Our country sorely needs a third party that will rejuvinate and unify the 40% of Americans that usually don't vote, to overcome the two party system of the Socialist Democrats and Socialist Republicans. Individuals always care for other individuals through charity and good deeds, the Federal government steals from individuals to line the pockets of the Corporations and maintain power for itself, leaving whatever remains recycled back to the American people.
Stop sleep walking into Socialism --- Wake up and fight for our Founding Fathers core values of freedom and equality for all! Freedom from the Federal government intervention! Freedom from excessive taxation!

"There's only "a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties, and they're fighting over that dime! "
Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee --
1. All voted to continue funding the Iraq War.
2. All support "comprehensive immigration reform" -- Washington speak for Amnesty for illegal aliens. They want their big corporation buddies to be happy now don't they with their cheap labor. Meanwhile we pay higher taxes to offset the burden that would put on Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare. If you subsidize something you get more of it, the more we subsidize illegal immigration the more we will get of it, and the more illegal alien families will be affected and hurt.
3. All wish to enact some socialist program or another for the "greater good" -- Translation, we want you to pay higher taxes so we (the federal government) can spend it in the way that benefits our special interest group. Obama (Health care insurance companies), Clinton ( Pharmaceuticals), McCain (Military industrial complex including all military corporations), Huckabee (Military industrial complex).
4. All are for reforming Washington and ridding it of government and lobbyist control (well so they say).
5. All support the Patriot Act (a direct violation of our civil liberties)

If all of you higher-level fellow Americans that care so much about the future of our country (and have no intention of engaging in futile internet arguments) have made it into college, then I have no worries about entering college. Why should I even bother to write this? Why, it's to improve my argumentative skills of course. It's also to point out that although you continuously insult your own selves- and each other- while hiding behind your grandiloquent computer text, real debate and chance to express the limited insight you have inside of you waits to be summoned. In other words, "If you don't vote for Hilary you're a sexist" and "If you don't vote Obama, you're racist" should not work. Why not discuss what each candidate has to offer for a change? How are their policies going to affect your lifestyle? How are they going to affect everyone's way of living??

It seems to me that this election is more like the grammys....than the grammys themselves. I'm in the process of writing my 11th grade research paper on the influence of Television on the public. I have no problem with finding information. I struggle to find which article to put into my paper. I mean, Obama in a cowboy hat in Texas? Trying to "sway the Latino vote". Blatant confession of just how much the media can impact the public. Hilary and her name-calling? McCain's relationship with a lobbyist? I hope this isn't going to be the case when i'm able to vote. My statement to make isn't "Wow when i'm able to vote i'll make the right choice". My statement is "Wow, when i'm able to vote I won't let the media impede my decision to pick the candidate that's best for this country." I hope the media doesn't impede me, just as I hope that it will someday be limited to the point that everyone knows who to vote for to help themselves.

But at the end of this day (and every other day since I wil probably not have returned to this web-page to see your replies) what I'm saying can have no meaning or value at all. It can mean nothing and will probably be snubbed by all of you for whatever reason. Hell, most of you won't have even read this post because of it's sheer titanic size. At the end of the day....this was just a way for me to organize my thoughts about the elections, and a way for you to hear the voice of a 16-year-old, semi-motivated student with limited knowledge of the candidates and the current status of the elections. At the end of the day, this comment won't change the election's outcome. Soooo....

Wish me luck on my research paper.

Hey HolyRoller,

The Clintons have their own "Dirt" Let's start with Monica's soiled blue dress.
Whooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Hillary expects to have any chance at getting the nod from the Super Delegates she MUST gain an advantage that has thus fare eluded her. She needs to go back to Clinton hardball. Obama is a very easy target. Simply pu, he is not what he presents himself to be.

Young and inexperienced, simply overblown with rhetoric and little substance, ties to an anti-American cult like "church" and "Rev."(not to mention his wife), Islamic sympathizer, Resko, Resko, Resko(another mohameed), illegal drug use, Voting record of Present,etc.etc.etc.

Novak reported some time ago about some "dirt" that she had on Obama..If true she better use it now. The GOP certainly will not be so politically correct.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the convention. Can't wait to see one of Hillary's NOW supporters whack one of the Obama mohammeds in the head with her Hillary sign.

Now thats entertainment. Burn baby

If you think Obama has no clue on how to solve the issues we are facing what do you think of president Bush? Go to his web site and read his 45 page plan. It is very specific and well thought out.

Posted By: Dr.Lamot @ 02/20/2008 7:53:40 PM

Comment: Times columnist Andres writes. He adds that, "despite her reassuring rhetoric" that her health care proposal is not a "government takeover" and contains no "new bureaucracy," Clinton proposes to "use the heavy hand of government" to require all residents to obtain health insurance. Her "near-religious zeal to force universal coverage strikes some as odd," Andres writes, adding, "Why compel someone to buy something he or she can't afford?" According to Andres, the "financial penalties for those who fail to purchase insurance ... stirs significant opposition," and Clinton "opened a political can of worms" when she said that she might seek to garnish the wages of residents who can afford health insurance but do not obtain coverage. "Improving health care is a salient bread-and-butter election issue this year," Andres writes, adding, "Compelling everyone to buy a product, whether he wants it or not ... sounds more like a mandate for defeat than a promise of political success" (Andres, Washington Times, 2/14).

People of color have been waiting for this opportunity all thier lives. They did not want to vote until now. I wonder how many of them voted for JFK? They seem to liken Obama to JFK. I still don't feel he is ready but if this trend continues well, you may not like him but he will command respect. Just like good old GW. I am a Hillary supporter. Maybe if her name was Harry and male, she may have had a chance. My concerns is even Edwards said that Obama's healthcare is a weak solution. Our citizens are in trouble. How many of you young people are ready to take care of your parents? I see a reverse trend of elderly being disadvantage. How about the housing foreclosures? We will need to wait a little bit longer for that to turn around. As for foreign relations, well I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if the other countries refuse to do business with America. Immigration, who knows. We know where the republicans are coming from, yet, people are willing to put all thier hopes that change will come. Unfortunately we need solutions for change to happen. He truly has no clue how to solve the issues we are facing.

cccc

Hillary Clinton Goofs Again
A Commentary by Dick Morris

Who was it that defined neurosis as repeating the same mistake again and again, and expecting a better outcome each time? That???s really what the Clinton campaign is doing in its post-Chesapeake primary strategy. Now Hillary defines Obama as the candidate who makes speeches, while she is the one who provides ???answers??? and ???solutions.???

Why is Hillary embracing this new line? It???s not that she has any great record of solutions or answers of which to boast, but rather that she wants to highlight Obama???s lack of a legislative record. Once again, she and her campaign geniuses are making the same mistake they made when they decided to use the experience as their defining difference with Obama. It???s not that she had much, but they sensed an opportunity to highlight that he had even less.
Of course experience not only didn???t work. It backfired massively. By co-opting the experience tag, Hillary bought into the status quo and left Obama to be the agent of change. A candidacy that could have excited tens of millions of women, the first serious prospect of a female president, became merely a boring part of the status quo, shorn of its novelty.

Hillary???s claim to be the solution-person won???t work either for the same simple reason: She hasn???t passed any...she hasn???t walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.

As a first lady, Hillary???s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband???s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill???s administration ??? welfare reform and the balanced budget deal ??? was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there...

Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer???s care givers and another to expand veterans??? health benefits, a paltry output for six years??? service.

In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.