Stephanie and Hillary

Tonight, I received the following email message from Hillary:

Yesterday, we lost a colleague, a friend, an inspiration, and a champion for all of us. I am deeply saddened by the death of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. She was my friend and my sister. She made me laugh, smile and fired up my spirit when I needed it most.

She had a light that shone for the world to see within her and a fighting spirit safely stowed behind her disarming smile. Stephanie had so much integrity and a fiery intelligence that enabled her to become a one-woman force for progress in our country.

Stephanie was a tireless worker, giving a voice to the voiceless and always combating injustice. Stephanie spent much of her life fighting for all Americans and to ensure that everyone had the most precious right – the right to vote.

All of us who were lucky enough to know her and love her can only strive to be as much like her as we can — to be as passionate, as loyal, as hard-charging, and as joyful every single day.

Stephanie was one of a kind, and we will miss our friend forever.

My family’s deepest condolences are with Stephanie’s son, Mervyn, her family, and her many loved ones, friends, supporters, and her beloved Ohioans. It is during this tough time that we look back and remember all the memories and blessings that Stephanie brought into our lives. If you have a thought, a story, a prayer, or condolences you would like to share, you can visit our website today so we can rejoice together in the friendship and love that we have for Stephanie. All the notes and memories we gather will be sent to her family on behalf of our extended family.

Send in your thoughts and memories about Stephanie.

Thank you,

Hillary

With that in mind, here is a lovely tribute to Stephanie Tubbs Jones by Geeklove:

Diane vs. Tweety: Diane wins!

Diane vs. Tweety

Diane Mantavoulos, co-founder of Just Say No Deal and number one instigator, went up against Chris Matthews on Hardball tonight.  Chris was actually *decent*.  Bravo, Chris!  I would say you can be taught but I have a feeling you will backslide sooner or later, probably sooner.  Anyway, Diane was disciplined and managed to fit in the caucus fraud issue.  More on than that in a minute.  Bonnie Erbe of US News and World report discussed what she’s found out about us.  Actually, I think we are a broader demographic than pensioners and forty somethings.  But one thing we most certainly are is able to detect BS when we see/hear it.  The Hopey/Changey message just isn’t resonating with us.

Anyway, I can’t embed the msnbc video into wordpress but here’s the link if you want to see how it’s done (if you get multiple video options, choose the one that says “The Hillary Factor).  Nice job, Diane!

Now, about the caucus fraud issue.  Tonight, Lynnette Long issued her caucusanalysis1, a 98 page compilation of eyewitness accounts and caucus procedures from all around the country. Don’t forget that we also have two films in production on the subject of the caucuses.  There will be a premiere party for the Audacity of Democracy in Denver on Sunday night.

Without the caucuses, Obama would not have been able to pull ahead of Hillary.  Well, that and withholding her FL and MI delegates from her total.  Never before have the caucuses trumped the bigger D and swing states in pushing one candidate so far ahead of another.  Their procedures were vulnerable to manipulation and Lynette has put together a manual of sorts of how it was done.

The process was highjacked and as a result, a weak candidate who gamed the system was able to nullify the votes of more than half of the Democrats who voted.  Those Democrats who were discarded would have made Hillary the nominee in any other year.  By the time the TX and OH primaries were held in early March, it would have been all but over and Barack Obama would have been giving his concession speech.  His inability to close the deal in the Big D and swing states is one of the reasons there will be no unity this year.  Those of us who have been shut out of the decision making process will exercise our power in November in order to make sure that the DNC gets the message that we tried to deliver in the Spring.

Our View with Patsy and Sugar on NQR

Sorry I haven’t been around much today.  I just got back from my kazoo lesson.  I’m learning some Bach cantatas.  The kazoo looks like an easy instrument to master.  Oh sure, but if you want to be world class, you’ve got to put in hours of practice.

Anyway, Patsy and Sugar of Sugar ‘n’ Spice debut their new radio program tonight on NQR.  They’re calling it Our View.  Don’t miss it and give them a call. Our View starts tonight at 9:00 PM EST.

Junk, meet boot

WKJM and the Cheetopians want Barack Obama to “go negative” on John McCain (as if he has been running a positive campaign until now.)

According to Real Clear Politics, the Obama campaign released an ad linking McCain to Ralph Reed & Jack Abramoff.

Brian Rogers, spokesman for McCain’s campaign, responds:

“Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail.

However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ’I don’t regret setting bombs… I feel we didn’t do enough.’

“The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?”

Not only is Uh-bama the least qualified candidate for President in modern history, he’s up to his eyeballs in Chicago corruption and dubious associations.  Talk about the worst of both worlds!

Issue-based campaigns are where you contrast yourself from the other candidate based on your positions on important issues.  Character-based campaigns are where you talk about honesty, judgment and experience.

Character-based campaigns are usually called “negative” because you want to portray your opponent as bad (at least in comparison to yourself.)  These type of campaigns are easier (and cheaper) when the media helps by acting as an echo-chamber because they hate your opponent (and her husband.) 

They don’t work as well when the media defends your opponent because they think he’s a straight-talking maverick.  Unfortunately, Obamanation assumed the media would continue to fluff Him the way they did during the primaries.  Oops! 

But Teh Precious has to run a character-based campaign, because he already conceded the issues by running as a “post-partisan” with vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” and then veering hard to the right in June.

So Obamanation is using Rove’s playbook.

But McCain is using Rove.  Talk about a mismatch!

Turdblossom must be laughing his ass off.

UPDATE:

Obamanation fires back this morning with an ad bashing McCain for being unsure of how many houses he and his wife own.

Karl Rove McCain’s campaign responds:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans? 

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

Wow!  That’s gonna leave a mark!

Bashing a Republican for having money is like criticizing a cat for having fur.  Has that line of attack ever worked?

But what do I know?  Go ahead guys, get down in the mud with the pigs.

Let me know how that works out for you!

(Cross-posted at Klownhaus)

Thursday: Hillary’s Loyalty to what is left

waiting to vote in Zimbabwe

Evidence, both demonstrable and circumstantial, continues to show that Barack Obama “wins” by suppressing votes for his opponents.  For him, it is not sufficient to count the votes and determine the winner.  The votes for his rivals must be intimidated from being cast in the first place, as we have seen in the caucuses.  Or they must be discouraged from showing up in the voting booth as a result of relentless perception management broadcasts that his rival is finished cannot win anyway due to “the math”.  Or the votes need to be stolen in the form of unearned and reassigned delegates.  Or they have to be swindled as in the case of delegates who are misled on the rules of the convention and do not know they have the right to challenge state tallies in what we can predict will be a carefully planned dance that will keep the delegates guessing the state tallies until the very last minute. From Heidi Li’s Potpourri:

A single delegate can contest state’s roll call result: On a roll call vote by states, the vote cast on behalf of a delegation may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of that state’s delegation within ten (10) minutes after the Convention Secretary’s announcement of the state’s vote. The votes of that delegation shall then be recorded as polled without regard to any state law, party rule, resolution or instruction binding the delegation or any member thereof to vote for or against any candidate or proposition. The Convention Chair may send a parliamentarian to the delegation to conduct the poll. At the discretion of the Convention Chair, the roll call may continue instead of waiting for the result of the polling.On a roll call vote conducted by telephone or other electronic voting mechanism, the vote of a delegation as shown on the video projection system may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of the delegation within ten (10) minutes after the delegation’s vote is shown on the screen.

We have heard over and over throughout the past two months that Hillary is bound by her loyalty from rocking the boat. It has been said that loyalty has blunted her personal ambition. It is loyalty that stays her hand from seizing the reins of power from a party that is rapidly transforming itself into a copy of its conservative counterpart.

Loyalty.

Why does this scenario sound so familiar? Ahh, yes, it is very much like the “unity” theme that the Obama camp has been clubbing us over the head with since they got away with murdering Hillary voters at the RBC hearing. It’s another form of emotional blackmail. It keeps Hillary in line by calling on some personal principle. But who is demanding loyalty but people who have none, either to the party or to voters? What kind of people would go this far to suppress the will of more than 18 million voters? What kind of people would subvert their own processes in order to prevent anything other than their predetermined outcome?

We have evidence that Hillary is not the kind of person to hit below the belt. It surfaced last week in the Atlantic piece on the 200 emails from her campaign. Throughout the campaign, we saw her “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative”. We have seen her demonstrate her loyalty when she graciously left the stage in June so that Obama could attempt to unify the party. But there are limits to loyalty. When an entity seeks to destroy the party and the voters that gave it their trust, then loyalty must be set aside even at the risk of seeming to be personally ambitious.

For eight years, half of the country has been held hostage to the Republicans who came to power and held it by suppressing voters, first in Florida and then in Ohio in 2004. Bush and his party has looted the treasury and deliberately undermined the efficacy of government. They have been successful beyond their wildest imaginations. And they got away with it because they called on the civility and integrity of others to stay their hands. Al Gore graciously stepped aside in 2000. Kerry did not challenge the results even though thousands of African-Americans were left out in the cold on election day. Pelosi did not pursue impeachment for fear of losing the collegiality of the Congress.

At what point does a politician go from being a target of emotional blackmail to being complicit in her own destruction? And what if that politician stands to lose not only her own power but diminishes the power of all of her supporters? Is the threatened media firestorm of accusations and lies more damaging to the process than the loyalty that holds her in check? The process itself is in danger of becoming nothing more than a sham seen in countries at risk in their downward spiral towards suppression, corruption and economic insecurity.

So, what is the cost of loyalty? And can a politician remain true to herself and her country by freeing herself from the faithfulness to her tribe? Only a leader knows the answer to that question.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence