Hillary Clinton Prepares for 2016 by Supporting the Keystone Pipeline

The left continues to support Clinton and Obama. And all they've done is spit in the eye of the environmental movement. Let's remember that Hillary works for Obama. Support for the pipeline would not happen unless the President gave his blessing:

But the rumor is that Clinton’s State Department is nonetheless about to recommend approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the top climate scientists in the nation have unanimously called a terrible idea. As far as I know, though, Clinton’s subordinates haven’t reached out to ask them why. For more than a year now, it’s been one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets that Clinton wants the pipeline approved. And why not? Its builder, TransCanada, hired her old deputy campaign manager as its chief lobbyist and gave lobbying contracts to several of her big bundlers. Leaked emails show embassy officials rooting on the project; it’s classic D.C. insiderism. (And, weirdly, her rumored successor is just as involved—Susan Rice has millions in stock in TransCanada and other Canadian energy companies.)

And in one sense it doesn’t make much difference. Everyone in the capital’s also known that the Keystone decision, in the end, will come down to President Obama, who will weigh State’s findings and then rule whether the pipeline is in the national interest. When that happens, we’ll find out if he’s a more modern politician than Hillary, or if he’s still fighting yesterday’s wars too.

Jack Cafferty: Hillary Blaming Press a Desperate Ploy

Hillary Clinton has adopted a new tactic--blame the press for all her failures. It is reminiscent of the vast right-wing conspiracy arguments during hubbies Presidency. Her reference to the Saturday Night Live spoof during the debate was a new low for her floundering campaign:

McCain Wins Big, Hillary and Obama Still in Tight Race

Despite the manufactured debate, McCain won big last night. He won 9 states, including California and New York. He now has a massive delegate advantage 615 to the nearest rival Romney, 243. Huckabee and Romney split the vote conservatives guaranteeing victory for McCain.

It's not so decisive among the Democrats. Although, Obama won more states and delegates last night Clinton, with the help of her victory in California, has an overall delegate advantage of 825 to 732. The Illinois Senator has narrowed the gap and has made this race very competitive when Hillary Clinton had a large lead just days ago. The Democratic race has a long way to go:

Senator Hillary Clinton won the biggest of the Super Tuesday primaries while Senator Barack Obama won more states, extending their struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination into next month and beyond.

Clinton, 60, won California, the largest prize in yesterday's voting. She scored victories in her own region, winning her home state of New York as well as New Jersey and Massachusetts, on the biggest day of voting in the nomination race. She also took Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Tennessee.

Still, Obama, 46, prevailed in Connecticut, next door to Clinton's home base. He also won his own state of Illinois as well as Georgia, Delaware, Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska, Utah and Missouri. The only race still undecided was New Mexico, where Obama held a 518-vote lead over Clinton with 92 percent of voting precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press. Thousands of provisional ballots remained to be counted.

[...]Hispanics gave about 60 percent of their votes to Clinton, he said. These voters were especially important in California, where they made up about 30 percent of the total Democratic electorate, Kohut said.

Most white Democrats favored Clinton, though Obama fared somewhat better among those voters than in earlier primaries, Kohut said. Blacks heavily favored Obama.

MSNBC reported that the exit polls found white voters split 51 percent to 44 percent for Clinton while blacks favored Obama by 80 percent to 17 percent. Women favored Clinton by 51 percent to 46 percent while men backed Obama 53 percent to 42 percent. Clinton's performance was slightly better than predicted by exit polls.

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...

Poll: Clinton, Obama Neck-and-Neck

It looks like the Democratic race will continue after Tuesday's primaries. Both Clinton and Obama will split most of the delegates, which means there will be no clear cut winner. On the contrary, Obama is surging. And the longer the race continues the better for the Illinois Senator. He has plenty of money and he is getting major endorsements. African-Ameicans are increasingly believing that Obama can win, and the Clinton race-baiting has backfired. The more the American people listen to Barack Obama the more they like him. As for Hillary, she is running out of dirty tricks. Although, expect a few fake tears between now and Tuesday:

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck-and-neck in California, New Jersey and Missouri two days before the sprawling "Super Tuesday" presidential showdown, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday.

Obama has a slight lead in California and is virtually tied with Clinton in New Jersey and Missouri heading into the biggest day of voting in a U.S. presidential nominating campaign, with contests in 24 states from coast to coast.

"It looks like we have some serious horse races going on with Clinton and Obama," said pollster John Zogby said. "However it turns out, we can be pretty sure it is too close to be resolved on Tuesday."

Keith Olbermann Ridicules Hillary Clinton on her Iraq Vote

Now Hillary is getting it from the sympathetic press. Keith Olbermann regularly denounces George Bush and Bill O'Reilly on his nightly MSNBC program. And you can't dismiss him as some radical anti-war extremist. So Olbermann derides Hillary Clinton's "revisionist" explanation, during Thursday's debate, for voting for war with Iraq, he ain't buying it. These comments by Olbermann and his guest, MSNBC political analyst,Richard Wolffe, was on Friday:

Hollywood Democratic Presidential Debate Transcript 1-31-08

It was one-on-one for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There was no knockout and the tone was civil. Barack gave his typical thoughtful performance. Hillary gave her usual talking points/memorized/all-things-to-all-people presentation. Unfortunately, this automaton will win the nomination. Whether she can beat McCain is another question. The American people once again have no choice from among the two parties in November. There is an alternative choice.

Here are some excerpts. Read the entire Transcript:

MR. MCMANUS: A question about the issue of Iraq. Senator Clinton, you've both called for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, but Senator Obama says he wants all combat troops out within 16 months of his Inauguration, and you haven't offered a specific end date. Why shouldn't voters worry that your position could turn into an open-ended commitment?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, because, Doyle, I have been very clear in saying that I will begin to withdraw troops in 60 days. I believe that it will take me one to two brigades a month, depending upon how many troops we have there, and that nearly all of them should be out within a year.

It is imperative, though, that we actually plan and execute this right. And you may remember last spring I got into quite a back-and- forth with the Pentagon because I was concerned they were not planning for withdrawal, because that was contrary to their strategy or their stated position. And I began to press them to let us know, and they were very resistant and gave only cursory information to us.

So I've said that I will ask the Joint Chiefs and the secretary of Defense and my security advisers the very first day I'm president to begin to draw up such a plan so that we can withdraw.

But I just want to be very clear with people that it's not only bringing our young men and women and our equipment out -- which is dangerous; they've got to go down those same roads where they have been subjected to bombing and so much loss of life and injury. We have to think about what we're going to do with the more than 100,000 American civilians who are there, working for the embassy, working for businesses, working for charities.

And I also believe we've got to figure out what to do with the Iraqis who sided with us. You know, a lot of the drivers and translators saved so many of our young men and women's lives, and I don't think we can walk out on them without having some plan as to how to take care of those who are targeted.

At the same time, we've got to tell the Iraqi government there is no -- there is no more time. They're out of time. They've got to make the tough decisions they have avoided making. They've got to take responsibility for their own country. (Applause.)

And, you know, I think both Barack and I have tried in these debates, and sometimes been pushed by some of our opponents, to be as responsible as we can be, because we know that this president, based on what he said in the State of the Union, intends to leave at least 130,000, if not more, troops in Iraq as he exits. It's the most irresponsible abdication of what should be a presidential commitment to end what he started.

So we will inherit it. And therefore, I will do everything I can to get as many of our troops out as quickly as possible, taking into account all of these contingencies that we're going to have to contend with once we're in charge and once we can get into the Pentagon to figure out what's really there and what's going on.

Barack on Iraq:

MR. BLITZER: Senator -- look, I want you to respond, Senator, but also in the context of what we've heard from General David Petraeus, that there has been some progress made lately, the number of U.S. casualties has gone down, there has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before, and that any quick -- overly quick -- withdrawal could undermine all of that, and all of that progress would be for naught. What do you say when you'll hear that argument?

SEN. OBAMA: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters.

I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. (Cheers, applause.)

We -- and I said this before -- we went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government, and now two years later we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives; thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.

So, understand that this has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.

I am happy to have that argument. I also think it is going to be important, though, for the Democrats -- you know, Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, "I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy."

(Applause.) It was not just a problem of execution -- it was not just a problem of execution.

I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is, can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission from the start, and that we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is a imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home?

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have a easier time making if they can't turn around and say, but hold on a second; you supported this. And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security. (Cheers, applause.)

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

Barack Obama alluded to Hillary's Walmart ties in a recent debate. Many Americans, tragically, believe Ms.Clinton is a friend of working people. She is not. She refuses to criticize her husband's bringing us NAFTA:

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.

Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.

Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."

[...]An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

Chris Mathews: Democratic Machine Behind Hillary

It is friends in high places that make the fraudulent campaign of Hillary Clinton possible. It is those connections that possible the election of Hill Senator of a State she did not live in, with no qualifications. Billary is all about whoring. As Mathews points out, the Clintons are calling on all those connections to make her Presidential bid so formidable. That establishment doesn't mind that Hill and Bill would revert to race-baiting. As long as she wins, they profit. Principles and patriotism take a back seat to power:

NY Times Endorses Establishment Candidates: Clinton, McCain

I recently recently that the likely winners of their respective primaries are the most establishment of the candidates...Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The Times just confirmed that belief:

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

[...]As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Here's their logic for endorsing McCain:

[...]there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Why they didn't endorse Giuliani. I kind of agree with this reasoning:

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Maureen Dowd: Two Against One

Famed columnist, Maureen Dowd, does it. This time she exposes the Clintonian dirty campaigning tactics:

If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.

If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.

The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.

Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

[...] Bad Bill had been roughing up Obama so much that Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina suggested that he might want to “chill.” On a conference call with reporters yesterday, the former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, tut-tutted that the “incredible distortions” of the political beast were “not keeping with the image of a former president.”

Jonathan Alter reported in Newsweek that Senator Edward Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois congressman and former Clinton aide, have heatedly told Bill “that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Senator Barack Obama.”

- Read the entire article...

Video: Clintons will do "Just About Anything" to Regain Power

Mike Barnacle appearing on Morning Joe described the tactics of the Clintons. He is right on in essentially calling Billary thugs: