slamboard

The headline in the Washington Post says Clinton Sorry. The report says that she apologized for her recent reference to the RFK assassination.

I don’t know if the quote at the end of the piece is complete, but I read it for context and I do not see the word sorry. An apology from Hillary Clinton is a lot like Heidi Diaz coming clean.

I wrote the first part of this entry without watching the video of Hillary’s comment (the one for for which she ‘apologized’). I have to admit that it doesn’t sound as bad as it looks in print.

The man who still stands a chance at being the First Man was once rumored to have a thing for Belinda Stronach.

Having a girlfriend in Canada is a cliche. Denying it is untypical, but Bill is a bit of a maverick.

I left this post unfinished earlier and I want to make a small retraction. Bill no longer stands a chance at being the First Man.

I am not an idiot. I know that when Michelle Obama recently reminisced about her early discouragement of Barack’s political ambitions and used the words these people are mean, she was launching a not so subtle dig at Hillary Clinton. I think that she has a point. Washington seems to have become a ‘win at all costs’ place in recent decades and the people who are best suited to that environment have gravitated there and flourished. Obama does seem to be substantively different than ‘those people’ and ‘those people’ might prevent him from changing the political landscape. Those people only have one vote each.

This video showing New York politicians including the New York Governor Endorsing Hillary Clinton. Used to be featured in her official website. There are no links or thumbnails pointing to this video on her site anymore, but the page still exists.

The former Governor seems to be smirking when Hillary talks about moral authority and values. It could be just the sun in his eyes.

This is the first American Presidential Election where YouTube is a relevant platform for discussion. That intrigued me at first, then I saw that the two people who were using it most effectively both hold their comments for moderation. After taking a moment to think about it, I realized that this was a step that both campaigns had to take. I personally had no interest in reading through the comments knowing that it was going to me a bunch of cheerleading.

Today, I noticed two things when comparing the YouTube channels of Obama and Clinton. Obama’s videos are more relevant in searches than Hillary’s. Obama has a LOT more comments.

I think the people who are responsible for approving comments for the two channels are using slightly different criteria. I do not have the time to delve deeply into the substantive differences of the comments. If anybody else wants to offer their opinion I would greatly appreciate it.

I filter for spam, but I don’t hold real comments for moderation at this time

You will not find too many Presidential candidates vowing to carry on the torch for Bush and Cheney. I think at last count, it stood at Zero. Since the present administration is not in a position to help with any campaigns, they have more time to do what they have been doing all along… hand out favors and alienate the rest of the World.

The general public has enough to worry about with the really big issues, like the war (which Bush and Cheney can take full credit for) and the economy (for which they deserve at least partial credit). The administration has walked behind this giant pile of lemons and opened up a little lemonade stand where they are giving away judicial appointments and other sweet stuff to the little people that have helped make it all possible.

Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV was on loan to team Cheney to prepare him for debates in 2000 and 2004. He has made millions as the general counsel for CCA the private company that houses many of America’s federal prison inmates. Putting a man who has made obscene profits from imprisonment on the bench as a trial judge seems counterintuitive, but so does installing a man who made obscene profits as an executive for a defense contractor as Vice President.

I hadn’t expected this. Ralph Nader announced that he is running for President. I’m going to tell him the same thing that I used to tell the healthy and tenacious guinea pig that had outlived my children’s interest in him by a few years.

He actually has exceeded his life expectancy by about the same number of years that poor old Piggy did.

Rest in Peace, Piggy.

My title is an absolutely true statement. It is also almost completely beside the point with regard to the accusation made via a YouTube video by some greasy guy.

I didn’t really want to watch the video, but I did anyway. It is pretty unconvincing. Political opponents will have to take very private joy from this. Nobody could look good associating themselves with the ploy. The MSM is so far not touching his story with a ten foot pole. I think it is possible that the perpetrators of this are apolitical people who did it for attention and money. Larry Sinclair is going to get money, at least $10,000 from a website that is piggy backing on the story with a publicity stunt.

I was surprised to read that Joe Scarborough had a successful career as a congressman after trying to offer pro bono representation to a terrorist who shot and killed an abortion doctor. The judge at the criminal trial refused to allow it because of his inexperience in criminal defense law. His motivations were based on his pro-life views. I am willing to assume that since he was by no means the best lawyer available, there was self interest and self aggrandizement at play as well. I am not implying that anybody is ever undeserving of a vigorous defense. Joe’s volunteering was something else.

Joe Scarborough is now a controversial broadcaster. I don’t know what his response would be to a question about his views on people who side with terrorists in the present socio-political climate.

I was able to find one transcript that supports my argument that there is a double standard. Terrorism is abominably wrong even if you agree with the viewpoint of the terrorist.

Mississippi has more than its share of obese people. One politician is raising awareness of the problem by making an indecent proposal to enact a law that would force restaurant owners to refuse to serve the obese.

His colleagues aren’t happy about the bill and there has never been any chance of it passing.

There are analogous situations. Bar owners in many areas cannot serve patrons alcohol if they are intoxicated. Obviously that law is ignored to some extent. Drinkers would not be able to make an accusation of discrimination in the same way that obese people could if Mississippi actually tried to play nanny state in such a ridiculous fashion.

Source for this post: AP