Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton Fakes Tears...Again

I was right. Hillary has faked tears a day before Big Tuesday. The last time we saw the crocodiles, it was the day before her surprise win in New Hampshire. She is doing it again. And she might get away with it despite the obviousness of it. The Clintons have no shame.

From Hot Air:

How remarkably coincidental is it? ABC predicted it when the event started.

ABC News’ Kate Snow, Eloise Harper and Ann Compton Report: On the morning before the New Hampshire primary, we Reporters Who Cover Hillary found ourselves at the Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, N.H. Senator Clinton was sitting at a large rectangular table, surrounded by 16 undecided voters. All were female except one.

You’ll remember that morning as the morning Clinton got emotional and teared up while answering a question about “how she does it”.

On the morning before Super Tuesday, we Reporters Who Cover Hillary find ourselves at the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven, Connecticut. We are in a nicely appointed conference room. And in the center is a rectangular table. Seated around the table are 12 voters. All are women. Clinton organizers say the goal was to have them all be “undecided” voters (though a local organizer says some may be supporting Clinton coming in).

Here's another view:
The first time, I bought it.

Now I’m suspicious.

Yesterday, for the second time in a month, Hillary Clinton teared up on the eve of a primary with the outcome looking tougher than expected.

Are we looking at the first candidate in our history to weep her way to the White House?

“This one here? I don’t know,” said Marianne Pernold Young, the New Hampshire woman whose question there to Hillary (“How do you do it?”) sparked the first near-tears moment. Pernold Young believed that first one genuine, though she voted for Obama anyway. “It’s curious that she should be crying again the day before another primary,” she said. “But, hey, listen, if it worked the first time, why not try again?”

Why not indeed? Even Hillary conceded her New Hampshire near-weep may have turned around an expected double-digit win by Barack Obama.

Why shouldn’t strategic tears go national?

- See the video...

Interest-Group Campaign Spending Nears Record

It is why we've lost our government. We'd like to think that our votes are what matter. The truth is that money is what rules our political system. And two parties are beholden to powerful/wealthy special interest groups:

Spending by interest groups in the current presidential campaign is on pace to far exceed the record amount spent by outside groups in the last presidential election -- and could top $1 billion for the first time, according to new campaign-finance reports.

The data show that spending by 50 of the largest independent political groups -- ranging from American Federation of Teachers on the left to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the right -- jumped to $130.8 million in 2007, up 55% from 2003, the year before the last presidential election. There were 28 groups that spent more than $1 million each on politics in 2007, twice as many as in 2003, according to the reports released this week.

If that pace continues in 2008 -- and there is every indication that it will -- the amount of money spent by interest groups to influence elections will exceed $1 billion. Outside political entities spent at least $800 million during the 2003-04 campaign season.

[...]The 527 organizations were widely criticized for injecting big money into the political system when they first came to prominence in 2004. In August, the Federal Election Commission fined the largest Democratic group, America Coming Together, more than $775,000 for accepting large donations from donors with the premise that the money would be used to defeat President Bush. The fine amounted to less than 1% of the $78 million that group spent in 2004.

Prince Andrew Rebukes Bush for Iraq War Mistakes

Even the rarely politically outspoken Prince of England is trashing our joke of a President. What a disgrace:

The United States could have avoided some of the problems it is experiencing in Iraq if it had listened to Britain's advice and learned from its experiences, Prince Andrew said in an interview published Tuesday as he began a trade mission to the U.S.

In a rare airing of political opinion by a senior member of the British royal family, the prince said the invasion and its aftermath had created a "healthy skepticism" in Britain about what was said in Washington and led many to ask, "Why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given?"

Queen Elizabeth II's second son, a former Royal Navy helicopter pilot who now promotes British business abroad, told the International Herald Tribune that Britain's history as an imperial power meant it had valuable experience to share.

The United States was Britain's chief ally, he said, but, there were "occasions when people in the U.K. would wish that those in responsible positions in the U.S. might listen and learn from our experiences."

Britain, which has about 4,500 troops in Iraq, down from a 40,000 during the 2003 invasion, has a long military history in the region; British troops invaded what was then Mesopotamia in 1914 during World War I, and fought insurgents until Iraq gained its independence in 1932.

"If you are looking at colonialism, if you are looking at operations on an international scale, if you are looking at understanding each other's culture, understanding how to operate in a military insurgency campaign — we have been through them all," the prince said in comments confirmed by Buckingham Palace.

"We've won some, lost some, drawn some. The fact is there is quite a lot of experience over here which is valid and should be listened to."