The Clinton firewall - Here we go again Part 3

I have long wondered does anyone ever learn from someone else's mistakes. As we all know, former President Bill Clinton has stated that Sen. Hillary Clinton needs to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania in order stay in the race and blunt the Obama juggernaut. Since Super Tuesday, Hillary has lost eleven straight contests. Super delegates are either defecting to the Obama camp or backing Obama. Earlier this week, former Presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut announced his endorsement for Obama. A few days later, Democratic Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, a staunch Clinton supporter, announced that he would be voting for Obama in the national convention because, according him, his district voted 3 to 1 for Obama. The truth is that another prominent African American from Lewis' district and an Obama backer is considering challenging Lewis for his Congressional seat. In fact, Lewis knew that Obama carried his district by an overwhelming margin, but he did not choose to endorse Obama until he discovered that he might be facing a challenger for his Party's nomination. This is just political expediency at work.

The real question right now is whether Sen. Clinton has learned anything from the Romney and Giuliani campaigns. Both former Massachusetts governor and New York mayor made heavy bets on winning certain states to stay in contention. Rudi Giuliani made his first and last stand in Florida. Even before Florida hold its primary, everyone I know and talked to argued that Giuliani did not stand a chance in Florida after McCain won both New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain, at that time, won two of the four primaries with Mike Huckabee winning Iowa and Romney in Michigan. That is part one. Mitt Romney staked everything on California after winning only Michigan and Wyoming. Romney is part two of campaign firewall and must win states. Both men lost and then endorsed Sen. John McCain. I mean doesn't anyone realize that staking your presidential hopes on winning one state is stupid, but less two states. Hillary now believes that she can do what Romney and Giuliani failed by winning Ohio and Texas.

As I have previously stated in the earlier entry that Hillary really should consider conceding before being humiliated at the polls. On Sun. 24 February edition of NBC's Meet the Press, NBC's political director crunched the numbers and it is sobering. In order for Hillary to stand a chance of catching up to Obama's pledged delegates, she needs to win over 65% in both Ohio and Texas primaries. The polls currently show Clinton holding a slight lead in Ohio and tied to loosing the Texas primary. Just to complicate Hillary's mathematics, Texas is the two-step state. Two thirds of the delegates will be decided in the primary and the remainder in caucus on 4th March. Given the strength of the ability of Obama ground game to win delegates in caucuses, Hillary has a damn near mission impossible. In other words, in order for Hillary to win Texas, she needs over 70% in the primary just to overset the Obama ground game.

While Dodd made his endorsement, I saw a wave of articles calling for Hillary to quit. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson wrote last Friday a piece entitled If Obama 0 for 10 saying that if Obama had lost ten straight wouldn't Democrats of all stripes be calling on him to quit. Earlier this week, Newsweek had a similar piece saying that it is time to pack up. In case, their arguments were not strong enough. These two weeks alone, Hillary was completely indecisive on her campaign posture. In the Texas debate on Thursday, Hillary seemed fairly conciliatory in her closing remarks towards Obama. Two days, she attacked Obama's mailing by calling them tactics out of Karl Rove's playbook. Now she is flip flopping on her position regarding NAFTA. Now, the world hardly sees Bill Clinton on the campaign trail stumping for her. What is going on? Has Bill Clinton learned that he has lost the edge in giving stump speeches? Or has the Clinton campaign figured out that he is doing her more harm than good?

Frankly, the question is how much more pressure or how many more losses it takes before Hillary learns that it is all but over. With two must-win states on Tues. 4th March, one must think it is going to be nearly impossible for her to pull it off unless she knows something the rest of us do not.

Obama 10 & 0 after Super Tuesday

After Super Tuesday, 5th February, Sen. Barack Obama gained significant momentum on the campaign trail by winning 10 straight primaries in different parts of the country. As for Sen. Hillary Clinton, she gave the world lame excuses for why her defeat in some states does not affect her campaign. In Iowa, she said it was a small state. In South Carolina, she said that Obama's victory was expected as there was a large African American population. In southern states like Alabama, she dismissed that defeat on the grounds that it was in the South. She then claims that states like Utah and Missouri as unimportant as they are traditional Republican states in the general elections. She calls states that hold caucuses like Washington State and Nebraska, as unsuitable terrain for Hillary.

Funny, she has won an early caucuses state, Nevada. In fact, former President Bill Clinton told the press about the campaign's intention to fight the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union regarding their strong arm tactics to force their members to support Obama after he heard horror stories from some members who were sympathetic to Hillary. Furthermore, the Clinton campaign went to court to stop caucuses from being held in casinos in a blatant attempt to prevent those union workers supporting Obama from going to the caucuses. That lawsuit was filed on the pre-text that it would be sending a bad signal to young people about gambling. I say give me a break. This is Las Vegas; casinos in Vegas are like Starbucks in New York or cornfields in Nebraska. Everyone knows what Vegas are famous for.

Hillary's assertions about her inability to win in the South are complete trash talk. She won convincingly in Arkansas and Tennessee. One would expect her to win in Arkansas given her and Bill's deep ties when they were First Family. However, that does not explain why she won Oklahoma or Tennessee. At the same time, she does not dismiss those victories as unimportant or strategically insignificant because of the location of those states or the fact that Republicans have dominated these states in a general election.

Speaking of strategically insignificant states, strictly in the context of this primary season, Michigan and Florida came to mind. These were two states that held their primaries early and the candidates agreed not to campaign there and both Obama and former Sen. John Edwards even took the trouble of taking their names of the Michigan ballots. The National Committee in response stripped these states of their delegates. Hillary agreed early on that Michigan and Florida should be punished for not following the Party's primary calendar. Yet, once she has won those states, she now opposes the idea of stripping of their delegates because they are "major states". She openly said that she will fight for the delegates from Michigan and Florida to be seated and voting in the Convention. This is the biggest U-turn I have seen since Bill Clinton admission of having sex with Monica Lewinski.

I frankly expected her to say in those victory speeches that she was honored to have won and thank the voters for the victory, but she is saddened that the state party has chosen to disenfranchise the voters in this fashion by having the primary ahead of schedule. More importantly she would not accept those delegates as she had earlier made a pledge supporting Howard Dean's decision to strip them of their delegates. She could have told her supporters in those states that, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so famously said this lady is not for turning.

She has lost 10 straight contests in various parts of the country. I am convinced that her key supporters are Latinos and Asians like what happened in California, New Mexico and Arizona. I really do not know where she will find the sort of coalition that could defeat Obama. Frankly, I hope she will quit the race should she loose Ohio or Texas. Even if she wins both states by very narrow margins, she should still quit as whatever remains will not be to her advantage. It is time that she shows some grace and clears the way for Obama to bring the Democratic Party togather to fight Sen. John McCain. Bear in mind, the Party is ill-served by having a badly wounded nominee going into the general election like Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or a divided party like what happened with the Republicans in 1976 after Gerald Ford narrowly defeating then former governor Ronald Reagan.

Pakistan Votes - On Reflection

Today Pakistanis vote for a new parliament and possibly deciding a new Prime Minister. It is important to remember that these elections were delayed by six weeks because of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It is important to reflect on the significance of her death. Her party, the Pakistan People's Party, claim that religious extremists carried out the assassination because they resented everything she stood for - a Western-educated woman representing modernity, women's power and cosmopolitan thinking. To the Bush Administration, she was the force that could stabilize the regime of Pervez Musharraf.

That I fear is a trust sadly replaced. Perhaps it is better that we never know what a third Bhutto government would mean for Pakistan. However, I know friend who is very familiar with the politics of that region. In the Islamic world, Pakistan has arguably one of the most politically active armies. There have been four military regimes since her independence from Britain. Four of her twelve presidents are generals. Each has taken power from a perceived corrupt government. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are known to be corrupt. Benazir Bhutto's husband has the nickname of Mr. Ten percent because he skimmed 10% of all government contracts. Consider this, the job of Prime Minister of Pakistan is not known for being well-paid. So how were Benazir Bhutto and her family able to survive in high-priced London and Dubai with the accumulated compensation of a Pakistani Prime Minister for over ten years? More importantly, she lived in some of the nicest West-end districts of the City such as Mayfair and Park Lane. Thus, the allegation of corrupt by her husband must have some element of truth, especially with a nickname like Mr. Ten-percent. In fact, the President of Pakistan had fired her, despite being appointed by her to his position. It is practically unheard of that a head of state, whether a Governor-General or a President, would fire the prime minister who appointed him or her.

In October 2007, she returned to Pakistan vowing to fight the religious extremists and support Musharraf's stance in the War against terror. The truth was, during her tenure as Prime Minister, she often relied on the religious militants to counter her lack of control over the Army or the Inter-Services Intelligence, the country's intelligence agency. When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in 1996, she was Prime Minister of Pakistan. She supported their raise on the pre-text of stability for Afghanistan and in the name of trade in the Central Asian countries. She was also the Prime Minister at the time when the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988 and the vacuum in Afghanistan's political structure occurred. In the early 1990s, it was widely known that Pakistan and Iran were engaging in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported what is now known as the Taliban regime, while the Iranians backed the Northern Alliance. So it really was not the case that Bhutto would have done more to fight religious extremism in Pakistan. More importantly, since Pakistan's independence from Britain, I believe that no democratically-elected government ever had too much control over the border tribal regions near Afghanistan. A Commonwealth High Commissioner visited to the North West Frontier region of Pakistan in the late 1990s with a full fledged Army escort when Sharif was Prime Minister. We are talking about soldiers armed with automatic rifles or machine guns and tanks just to guarantee the ambassador's safety.

Shortly after her assassination, the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune published a piece by acclaimed writer William Dalrymple about Bhutto's support of religious extremists in Kashmir during her tenure as Prime Minister. In fact, Dalrymple says that Inter-Services Intelligence recruited and trained thousands of young jihadists to fight the Indian Army in Kashmir. In fact, some of those jihadists later joined bin Laden and his terrorist group in Afghanistan. More importantly, Bhutto defended this policy in the name of fighting repression in Kashmir in 1994. Hamid Gul, her head of the intelligence agency, admitted that Pakistan was sending jihadists into India in an attempt to tie down the resources of the Indian Army so that the people of Kashmir have a chance to rise up against India. He went on to say that it was "the national purpose of Pakistan to help liberate them."

If Bhutto was the ally of the West in the fight against religious extremism, why did she and her military support one of the most oppressive and extremist regimes? Given her history of support for religious extremists, what made this Bush Administration believe she was right person to reinforce the shaky Musharraf regime? I am not sure that Bhutto could have given the necessary political support to ensure the Musharraf regime could stay in power. Even if she could stabilize his power base, I doubt she will have the political will to fight the extremists as she has pledged during her brief return, given her past track record in office.

Perhaps in death, Bhutto may be able to unite the people of Pakistan against the religious extremist elements in the tribal regions. As a martyr of democracy and modernity, her party may have a stronger will to continue the fight against militants in those regions that seek to put the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan. In fact, the news of her assassination prompted her political rival Sharif and his party, the Pakistan Muslim League, to pick her cause against religious extremists. This I believe is a good sign for Western civilization that the major opposition parties, namely the Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim League, and this government is united. If she was alive and elected, she would be unable to contain the monster she, to a large extent, created because her rival, Sharif would have defended them with the religious right.

Bill Clinton says Obama ignores the Clinton legacy. Er.. which legacy of which Clinton?

Former President Bill Clinton said in Texas that Obama's America would require eliminating anybody who did anything good in the 90s or stopped anything bad from happening from being President. Sadly, Bill Clinton fails to understand the grist of Obama's position. Hillary Clinton held no elected office in the 90s and Bill Clinton spent the 90s with his pants down and a woman hidden under his desk. Bill Clinton clearly forgot that his legacy is Ground Zero in New York City. That is why Sen. Barack Obama very graciously stayed quiet on that subject.

Remember Bill Clinton vetoed a Republican legislation authorizing law enforcement to wire tap people and not phone numbers. Clinton also forbids the CIA and the FBI from sharing information concerning people who intend to do America harm. This meant people like the hijackers on September 11th could plot outside the country and execute their fiendish plans within the country. The first World Trade Centre attacks happened under his watch. They knew that foreign extremists intended to attack America, but Bill Clinton choose to make the US intelligence community unable to respond to those threats by cutting their funding and hampering the security apparatus. Now he has the gall to claim that his presidency made good things happen and stopped bad thing from happening. This really could not be further from the truth.

Frankly, the only good thing that happened during his Presidency was the market boom of the 90s. Even that he could not take credit for. The truth is that the so-called recession was only a minor hip-cup due to the length of continuous economic growth. Besides, the stock market boom did not take place until the Republicans took over Capitol Hill in 1995. Wall Street loves Washington gridlock.

Anyway, why is Bill Clinton talking about his legacy at his wife's campaign rallies? As Obama so correctly argued who is running for White House. Bill or Hillary. Bear in mind, Obama raised that question in a debate every time he reminds Hillary of an error of fact that Bill Clinton made about him or his positions at her campaign rallies and she just side stepped it by blaming Bill for saying it. Perhaps, the truth is that Hillary is running for the White House so that Bill could have eight more years in the White House. This time, it will be Bill Clinton doing the work of the President while Hillary takes the credit. At the same time, a male White House intern will have his pants down with Hillary. The rest I will leave to your vivid imagination.

Speaking of Hillary's legacy in the 90s, the only legacy I remember of Hillary is the landslide defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections. Shortly after taking office, Bill Clinton named his wife to lead a White House task force on healthcare. The result was the federal government taking over the healthcare industry or, as critics called it, Hillary care. It was so unpopular that many Congressional Democrats who supported it and was up for re-election in 1994 lost. It brought in twelve years of Republican control on Capitol Hill.

In an attempt to respond to every criticism from the Obama camp, Bill Clinton ends up talking about his Presidential legacy. The fact that Bill Clinton talks about himself demonstrates the desperate need of bolstering up his wife's lack of credible foreign or national security experience. Specifically, her vote to authorise the war in Iraq and her refusal to admit it was wrong. Obama was right when he said that being President means making the right judgment on the first day, not showing off one's Washington experience with a history of making the wrong decision. The truth of the matter is Hillary Clinton has spent most of her life waging class warfare. Her idea of reward for success is higher taxes and more pork in the budget. She is about returning to the politics of right wing conspiracies instead of uniting the country to face the challenges of the future like health care, religious extremism, global warming, nuclear proliferation and raising the American standard of living.

Obama to Clinton: Roses are Red, Violets are Blue and your super delegates are mine too

Today the New York Times and the Associated Press are reporting that Congressmen John Lewis and David Scott of Georgia respectively are defecting from the Clinton camp to the Obama camp. It was not that long ago Senator Barack Obama told various news organisations that super delegates should reflect the wishes of the Democratic voters instead of backing the establishment candidate just because she is the establishment candidate. That message is resonating with some super delegates. The bigger question is will the super delegates persuade Hillary to quit? The better question is when will former Sen. John Edwards endorse Sen. Obama?

It is not surprising that super delegates are thinking about defecting. After all, the mac daddy of American liberalism and the lion of the Democratic Party, Senator Edward Kennedy, announced that he would support Obama on the eve of George W Bush's final State of the Union Address. The Kennedy endorsement provides every super delegate more cover to support Obama than a 3-ft thick wall of lead could ever provide in nuclear fallout. In case the Kennedy endorsement was not enough, Obama now has the lead in pledged delegates after winning eight straight primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday.

The pundits are right. Many super delegates are looking towards November and weighing the best match up against Sen. John McCain. Once Obama showed that he currently enjoys a lead in a hypothetical match up against McCain compared to Clinton's roughly tied match up. More importantly, they figured out that, if the Republicans want Clinton as the nominee, they really should go with Obama instead. After all, all the polls show that men would support McCain over Clinton in that hypothetical match up compared to a roughly equal split when McCain faces Obama. The Democratic base is just as happy with Obama leading the ticket compared to Clinton as leader.

I could hear Hillary's order of the day to Bill especially and other senior campaign staff, plug those leaks. No, not leaks to the media. But rather the leak of super delegates from Clinton to Obama. Camp Clinton knows full well that means Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are the must win states or go home. Right now, it is tempting to consider conceding the nomination to Obama given some of the serious problems they have. Money is hard to come by, super delegates that once endorsed her wants to back Obama, campaign staff firing and he is cleaning the floor with her. It would be fitting for Clinton to concede the nomination in San Antonio in front of the Alamo. This was, after all, the place that the rebel Texans made their last stand against the Mexicans. In fact, I know what I would say, if I were Hillary Clinton, on the eve of the Texas primary in front of the Alamo with defeat looming. But I doubt she will have the audacity to use it. If she does, Obama can pounce all over her by citing this was a speech given the current occupant of the White House in September 1999.

For those of you who do not know the story, sports commentators called the American victory at the 1999 Ryder Cup in Massachusetts the Comeback of the Century. The American Captain, Ben Crenshaw, asked then Texas Governor George W Bush to rally the troops on Saturday night. They were trailing the Europeans by four points, but no team has ever rallied from more than a two point deficient to victory before 1999. That Sunday morning, Tom Lehman led the first of seven consecutive singles victories for the Americans ending with the 45-foot putt on the 17th green heard around the world. It is the most appropriate speech to give under those circumstances.

However, the truth is it is far more fitting for her to concede the nomination in front of the Alamo with promises that she shall return to fulfill her dreams of becoming the first woman president. The general theme would be something like I may have lost this battle, but I have not lost war, or I will continue to fight the good fight, or perhaps answering the famous question of her candidacy - this is not about America's readiness for a woman president, but rather is America ready for Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I cannot answer that question by saying that Hillary Clinton is just a candidate for the presidency who happens to be a woman the way most people talk about Obama as a candidate who happens to be African American.

Dream ticket - it could backfire

There is way too much speculation concerning a dream ticket for the Democrats with the looser being the vice presidential nominee. In fact, it is utterly unviable when one put any serious thought into it. My personal experience has been it does not lived up to the hype. Many years ago, as a secondary school student heavily involved in the Model UN in Hong Kong, I know teachers who talked about the dream team for a certain conference. It was the conference that catapulted me and a very good friend then overnight from a novice to the next big thing. Teachers I knew then asked me after the conference whether the conference in question have been a greater success if my friend and I were teamed together. The answer is no, absolutely not. In fact, being teamed together damn near destroyed the friendship.

So much for personal experience. Hillary Clinton would make a great running mate in theory. This is the first realistic chance to see a woman take the Vice President's oath of office. Furthermore, after serving eight years as Vice President, she would only be 68. She would still be younger than John McCain, the Republican presumptive nominee, and Bob Dole, Republican nominee in 1996, when they ran for President. At that time, she can further validate her claim of Washington experience with the resume to prove it. If she is elected, she would still be younger than Ronald Reagan when he was inaugurated. Reagan turned 70 two to three weeks after inauguration. As for Obama, it would also be a historic moment.

The real reason why the looser should not become the running mate is because there is too much ego from the Clintons. If Sen. Barack Obama wins the nomination, it would be almost akin to Gerald Ford being Ronald Reagan's vice president. The idea failed because Ford, as former President, demanded a greater role in the Administration than most Vice Presidents would normally get. In the case of Hillary Clinton being Vice President, the problem is what role, if any, would Bill Clinton, as former President, play in this Administration. Assuming Hillary Clinton accepts the vice presidential slot and wins in November, Bill Clinton in all probability would be advising Hillary behind the scenes with Hillary telling Obama what he should do. I doubt it would be in public, but most likely in Cabinet meetings thereby undermining Obama's authority. No president in his or her right mind would accept a Vice President dictating his policies. The egos of the Clintons would probably doom the enterprise in a matter of months.

Reagan entertained the idea briefly in 1980. Both Reagan and Ford knew it would not work. Reagan did not want his authority especially in foreign policy undercut by a former president. Ford would not and, probably, should not accept a job that did not respect his status as a former President. Ford knew it would never work.

As for a Clinton Obama ticket, what would be Obama's role in that case? I seriously did not see Obama having anything to do in the West Wing. Obama's role would be comparable to that of John Garner or Henry Wallace during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In fact, one commentator said that Garner and Wallace were just there just in case. President Hillary Clinton, assuming she wins the White House, Bill Clinton would be the principal adviser behind the scenes. As former President, he knows the job inside and out. I think the Clintons have no interest whatsoever in grooming the Vice President for the job. Hypothetically Hillary Clinton serves two terms and Vice President Obama runs, the biggest question would then be what has Obama done as Vice President? The only real answer is nothing apart from presiding over the Senate and showing up on Sunday morning talk shows pushing the Administration's policies. Come to think about it, Hillary could just send Bill to talk to Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert and all those Sunday morning talk shows.

Apart from George Herbert Walker Bush, or Bush the Elder, the previous incumbent Vice President to successfully run for President was Martin Van Buren in 1836. Since then, every other incumbent Vice President who ran namely Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000 failed. Since Herbert Hoover's election in 1928, there has been five governors or former governors, three incumbents namely Truman, Johnson and Ford; one general, Eisenhower; one senator, Kennedy and one former Vice President, Richard Nixon and one incumbent Vice President namely Bush the Elder. The last time a Senator with significant Washington experience to become President was John F. Kennedy in 1960. He served 6 years as a Congressman before serving another 8 years as Senator. Americans generally do not like Washington insiders running the country. If history is any guide, it does not bode well for Obama to take the Vice Presidential slot.

The Clintons: Disinformation, Distortion and Disservice

It is shocking that Hillary Clinton said that it took a Clinton to clean up the mess of the first Bush Administration and it will take another Clinton to clean up the mess of the second Bush Administration. The first part is complete baloney and the second part remains to be seen. The presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush or the elder Bush was a success in foreign and national security policy. The foreign policies challenges following the Reagan Administration could only be compared to the challenges following World War Two. The first Bush Administration had to ensure a soft landing for the waning and collapsing Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They took out a drug dictator in Panama and ended the dream of regional hegemony of an Arab aggressor in the Middle East.

I never liked the Clintons because they are capable of saying anything and doing anything necessary to win including resorting to lies and distortions. Bill Clinton told Charlie Rose in December 2007 that for him the lack of national security experience was less important than a good national security vision. He now argues that national security experience is paramount since his departure from office. The truth is great presidents historically have little to very limited experience in that facet. Reagan, John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt come to mind rather quickly. Reagan was the former Governor of California in 1980. Roosevelt was New York Governor. Kennedy served as the junior Senator from Massachusetts. All of them faced major national security policy issues from World War Two to the blink of nuclear war to ending the Cold War without sparking a new global situation. People forget that the Reagan Administration brought the Soviet Union to blink of collapse and the first Bush Administration had to manage that very collapse without sparking a world war or returning hard-line Communists to power. This was not an easy assignment and no amount of experience could prepare a new president for those challenges.

If Hillary’s idea of mismanagement by the first Bush Administration was a reference to the economy, that was also baloney. The economy was strong, but had a minor case of hiccups. In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned the economy was fundamentally flawed and needed restructuring. By the time he came into office, the so-called recession was over and a period of unparallel prosperity was beginning. Every economist in America credited Reaganomics for the near twenty years of near continuous economic growth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 1000 points when Reagan took office. Twenty year later, it sat at almost 11500. To put all this in perspective, when the Persian Gulf War started on 17th January 1991, the Dow Jones had fallen below the all-important 2500 support level. Bill Clinton did not fix the economy; in fact, he inherited a great economy.

The only mess Bill Clinton inherited was 12 years of deficient spending courtesy of Tip O’Neill, Jim Wright and Tom Foley. People forget that both Reagan and the elder Bush submitted a balanced budget to Congress most of those 12 years, but Congressional Democrats like O’Neill, Wright and Foley called every one of those budgets dead on arrival. The Democrats then rewrote the budgets to fit their spending priorities and went to the White House for the President’s veto. Afterwards, the White House and Congress had to hammer out a compose that kept resulting in a budget deficient. The Democrats then kept blaming the White House. Reagan was way more skillful at deflecting the Democrats charges and rightfully put them back in its proper place – at the feet of Congressional Democrats. Unfortunately, the elder Bush was significantly less skillful. Had the elder Bush resorted to the Reagan playbook of deflection, Bill Clinton would not have stood a chance of winning in 1992.

As events happened, Bill Clinton became the President. The Congressional Democrats still could not balance the budget in the first two years. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton names Hillary as the head of every White House Task Force from health care to whatever. In fact, Hillary’s universal healthcare package ended decades of Democratic Congressional control. It was the Congressional Republicans under Newt Gingrich and Contract for America that clean up the mess made by the Congressional Democrats. Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget because he and the Congressional Republicans could not agree on what non-mandatory expenses to spend the excess funds on. Milton Friedman told Charlie Rose on Boxing Day of 2005 that America fares best under a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. He was right, if one measured the strength of the American economy by the surge of the Dow Jones from nearly 4000 in January 1995 to that peak in 2000.

This is the biggest reason why I am an ABC – anyone but Clinton. They spread disinformation or misinformation, distort the facts and it is a disservice to the country for their personal gains. Bill Clinton was never good for America. The first bombing of the twin towers happened on his watch. He knew that bin Laden was out to destroy America and he did nothing. Several governments had bin Laden in their custody and asked Washington whether America had any charges for that man. When CNN’s Richard Quest visited Berkley, one female student correctly argued that it is not a question of having a woman for President, but rather it is a question of whether America is ready for Hillary. I say no. The proof that America is not ready for Hillary is evident when Republicans are screaming for Hillary to be the nominee. I think America is ready for a President who happens to be of African descent. The Republicans are scared of Obama becoming the nominee.