How will Hillary managed the budget?

Hillary wants to “provide” health care for all Americans. The poor thing can’t even pay the health care bills for her own staff. Clinton promised to cover health care insurance for her employees. But her most recent FEC report showed that some of the health insurance bills were two months overdue. Aetna was owned $213,000 in back payments alone.

The publicity over this has the Clinton campaign promising that the next FEC report will show those bills are paid. Of course that doesn’t do anything to change the fact that the bills weren’t being paid in the first place.

Hillary is also more in debt than any other candidate. Apparently she is not opposed to deficit spending. Her campaing is $8.7 million in the red. Obama owes the relatively small sum of $625,000. McCain owes $4.3 million with $3 million of that being a bank loan.

It this is how Hillary manages a budget of tens of millions what will she do when she has billions to command?

Hillary lies about lying.

It is increasingly difficult to take Hillary seriously when she continues to lie about this incident. She is now claiming that the was "sleep deprived" and that is why she misspoke. That she told the same falsehood on two other occasions is ignored by her. Here is a video tape of another time when she made the same false claim about sniper fire when she was in Bosnia. The whole story is a lie, fabricated by Clinton. Below is the video of one of the previous times when she made the same claim that she now blames on lack of sleep.



It should be noted that when Hillary first made this claim that the comedian Sinbad, who was performing for the troops in Bosnia when Hillary was there, said publicly that the claim was false. When Hillary was asked about Sinbad's comments she dismissed him because he was a comedian and she was implying that he was telling a falsehood for laughs. She was the one lying and she continued doing so.

If you want some idea of how Hillary sees herself consider this comment from a radio interview where she was asked about the porker she was telling. "I did misspeak the other day. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else." Occasionally?? She also claimed, "for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke." Somebody slap the woman and wake her up. The second video proves that this didn't happen just once and the press reports at least a third campaign speech where she told the same lie. One incident might be "misspeaking" but three times is intentional.

UPDATE - NEW EXCUSE: Hillary has a new excuse for distorting the facts. When reporters questioned her about her claim that this was the first time she "misspoke" in 12 years she lectured them to "lighten up" because she was joking. But that was my take on her health care plans! Remember that Hillary got into this mess for vastly exaggerating the facts. So how does she defend her self now? Here is her most recent comment: "Obviously I say millions of words every week. There is a lot mroe room for error when you are talking as much as I am talking."

So to cover up one exaggeration she comes up with another exaggeration. Hillary claims that in a week's time she speaks millions of words. At a minimum that is 2 million words since she used the plural of million. One week has 7 days each with 24 hours. If you never sleep or never shut up that gives you a maximum of 168 hours, or 10,080 minutes, or 604,800 seconds. That is 3.3 words per second for every second of the day without sleeping or shutting up. If the woman spoke only two-thirds of that time she is up to five words per second for 16 hours per day. Now I know it seems like she never shuts up but this really would be 300 words per minute for 16 straight hours per day, seven days a week. I don't think so.

And her constant use of the word "misspoke" is absurd. If she meant to say she flew out of Dulles but said she flew out of Dallas that is misspeaking. Saying you ran for cover from snipers is nothing like saying that nothing happened. That is not misspeaking. That is lying.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

The following video tape is rather humiliating to Hillary. She is so anxious to claim "foreign policy" experience that she exaggerates. Remember the first class bull she was spreading about her role in the Northern Ireland peace process? She claims she was instrumental in it and the record shows she did nothing. Now CBS unpacks Hillary's claim about being Bosnia and having to run for cover due to snipers. CBS was there and still had the film. Hillary's story was pure rubbish. Her handlers tried to cover up by claiming that what she really meant was that there were snipers off in the hills somewhere. Right!

Given my choice between Obama and Hillary I'd take Hillary, though neither one appeals to me. But Hillary is such a nasty character that I can't help but enjoy it when she is shown up this way. Watch the video for yourself.



Update: It appears the more Clinton's campaign tries to justify this the worse it gets. Her campaign staff claimed she really meant there snipers in the hills nearby. But Hillary herself had a different excuse. She claimed "we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire." So first we had sniper fire taking place and running for cover. Then we had sniper fire but somewhere else while moving quickly. But Major General William Nash, who welcomed Hillary that day said there wasn't even the threat of sniper fire. And the video of the event didn't show a hurried event as they moved indoors for safety. The reality is that the vist came five months after the conflict ended.

Elsewhere Clinton claimed she merely "misspoke" and to prove it she said that in previous descriptions of the event she said nothing about running from sniper fire or the threat of it. And in her overprice biography that was the case. But on the campaign trail, in two other incidents, she did describe it this way. In Texas she told a crowd the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside due to snipers -- that wasn't true. It appears she has made the sniper claim before so this hardly qualifies as misspeaking. I think she trotted out the calmer version of the story first to see if she got any flak. When it didn't happen she ratcheted it up a notch or two to be more dramatic thinking it was safe. Only she got caught. The first lie was a problem but the lies used to cover up the original lie only makes it worse.

Hillary's problem, when it comes to image, is that she doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to her character. She is too easily portrayed as a power-hungry politician who will do anything to get what she wants. And incidents like this only feed that image.

Ohio voters are stupid.

Voters in Ohio are stupid. Of course I'm not sure they are dumber than voters in other states. But I can attest that they are dumb. Exit polls of voters in the Democratic primary showed that 80% of these individuals believe that U.S. trade with other countries destroys jobs in Ohio, while only 10% think trade creates jobs. The rest either have no opinion of think trade has no impact on jobs.

Of course both Clinton and Obama played up the "trade is evil" mantra, even though I suspect neither one of them actually believes it. And Obama's people have all but told Canada that this is merely political campaigning and not to worry. I still contend that fear is the primary tactic used by politicians to control the voters and that includes real or imagined fears. Obama just outrightly lied when he claimed that "entire cities... have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements". Both he and Hillary promise to withdraw from NAFTA unless the treaty puts more restrictions on trade.

The reality is, that before NAFTA passed, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 6.5%. It is now 5.8%. So unemployment in Ohio is lower today than it was before the free trade agreement. On what evidence do these wanna-be presidents declare things are worse? If Hillary and Obama were anymore dishonest they could write scripts for Michael Moore.

Dan Griswold pointed out, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, that the Ohio Department of Development says that 283,500 Ohio workers owe their jobs to trade exports. And the two biggest foreign trading partners with Ohio are Canada and Mexico. These are jobs that would be negatively impacted by any anti-NAFTA moves. Griswold also notes that since "Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the U.S. economy has added a net 26 million new jobs. The average real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) of workers has climbed 23%. Real median household net worth has increased by a third." He isn't say this is all due to NAFTA but he notes this disproves the "getting worse" theory of the candidates.

Griswold points out the blatant hypocrisy of Hillary on this matter. She campaigns as a member of her husband's "White House". Hillary says that under the Clinton regime the economy was doing well. But, one of the major pieces of the Clinton economic proposal was NAFTA, which Clinton pushed for rather strongly. So which is it, Hillary? Is NAFTA the wonderful plan Bill said it was, and which helped create an economy, which you now point to with pride? Or was it a disaster leading to unemployment?

I can't see how Hillary can have it both ways. NAFTA was a key part of her "White House" experience. How can that experience be good for America if she is saying they pushed for a measure which destroyed jobs?

If trade from Ohio with Mexico destroys "jobs" then why isn't this true about trade between Ohio and Indiana? Why isn't it true between Columbus and Toledo? Would we create more jobs by preventing companies in Ohio from doing business with people in Kentucky? Would workers be more prosperous if we prevent business in Toledo from buying goods or services from businesses in Cincinnati?

There is no inherent difference between trade with Mexicans and trade with Hoosiers. If cutting down the number of trading opportunities we have is good for us, then the citizenship of the trading partners is of little relevance. Of course the fewer trading opportunities you have the worse off you are. Having one theater in town limits the sort of film you can see. Having one restaurant to pick from limits what you can eat. Every time you cut off trade with one group of people you make them, and yourself, worse off. If there is one utterly stupid opinion that people hold it is the idea that trade destroys jobs.

When it comes to this presidential election I don't have horse in the race. Actually I'm not sure anyone else does either -- more like asses than horses to me.

The virtue of supporting none of them is that I can be truthful about all of them. The downside of that is by the time I'm finished everyone is mad at me. C'est la vie.

The Clinton/Obama race is an interesting one only because we get to see just how vicious Hillary can be. My dictionary doesn't define bitch, it just runs Hillary's photo instead. The Clintons are known to be very nasty types when they don't get what they want. And Hillary is the worst of the two and she most assuredly is not getting what she wants. She expected Democrats to fall down at her feet in adoration.

One Hillary trick that is causing a stir on the blogosphere is a television commercial she ran with pictures of Obama where he looks several shades darker. You can see for yourself from this illustration. The top photo is from Hillary's ad and the bottom three were photos takes from the same debate where Hillary got her photo.

To this unbiased observer it looks as if Hillary's ad team clearly darkened Obama to make him appear much blacker. One would have to ask why they would do this? The only theory I can see any logic in is the hope that if Obama looks more African it will scare more voters with racist inclinations into supporting Hillary. Desperate times call desperate measures apparently.

Boy, I'm glad I don't have to vote.

Have I been sleeping?

I’ve been lucky until tonight. I haven’t had to watch any of the superficial sound bites that pretend to be campaign commercials. Unfortunately that winning streak was just smashed. I sat through a Hillary Clinton ad.

Now forgive me, but apparently I’ve been Rip van Winkle or something. Apparently I’ve been asleep for decades. Hillary went into her spiel and ended it mentioning “my thirty-five years of experience”.

And I had to scratch me head. What thirty-five years of experience?

Is being married to a politician now considered “experience” when it comes to the presidency? Is Laura Bush now in the running for 2012. Apparently we are into some sort of dynasty thing. We get a Bush, then a Clinton, then a Bush, and now apparently a Clinton.

The one thing about the election is that the more they campaign the more I’m convinced we’d be better off it a bolt of lightening took out everyone of them.

Of course when the Republicans are campaigning the Democrats look good and when the Democrats campaign the Republicans look good. I suspect the winner will be which ever one manages to campaign the least.