Hillary’s Attack On Obama Backfires, Says Dick Morris
July 30, 2007
By Dick Morris
The polling is in, and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations.
According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55 percent-22 percent. Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the "insider" position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong.
Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without preset conditions.
At the South Carolina Democratic presidential debate, Hillary and Obama clashed over Obama's statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran if he were president. Hillary said that she would not do so and would not allow herself to be used for "propaganda purposes."
All week, Hillary pounded out her message, enlisting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her possible future secretary of state, Dick Holbrooke, to speak up on behalf of her position. She blasted Obama as "naïve," one of her few direct attacks on her opponent. For his party, Obama ridiculed her position as "Bush Cheney lite," a comment that got under Hillary's skin.
The exchange had little real significance during the two hour debate, but Hillary's obsession with the issue all week has given it real importance. She made a big mistake in the debate and amplified it all week.
Hillary Will You Draft Our Daughters?
July 30, 2007
Judging by their recent statements, you’d think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were about to cosponsor legislation mandating that 18-year-old women register with the Selective Service System. During last week’s CNN/YouTube debate, they both explained that they oppose a draft but believe that, if there is one, both men and women should be conscripted. Sen. Chris Dodd agreed that including women “would be the fair thing to do,” and former senator Mike Gravel underscored the point by asking, “What’s the difference?” Republican presidential candidates should be eager to answer his rhetorical question and challenge the Democrats’ radical and reckless notions of “equality.”
Although the candidates attempted to shift the subject to the importance of “national service,” young men don’t register with the Selective System Service in order to teach in inner-city schools, serve the needy on Indian reservations, or clean up national parks. Should national defense require a draft, registered young men would have to serve involuntarily in the military’s combat ranks. Democratic candidates for president think young women ought to be compelled to join them.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Selective Service’s male-only registration requirement in 1981. The Court reasoned that the purpose of registration “was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.” With women exempted from combat, their inclusion in draft registration just to place a small number of them in non-combat positions struck the Court as unduly burdensome.
Conservatives Love Hillary…For Now
July 30, 2007
Out of nowhere, conservatives are now gushing over Hillary Clinton. Since when did Hillary become the darling of the conservative pundits?
After the debate last Tuesday, below are some of the glowing highlights from the conservative pundits:
• Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post, summed up the Clinton-Obama debate: "The grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie."
• Rich Lowry of National Review gushed: "She excels. … Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she's ready to be president."
• Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, praised Hillary and slammed her opponent by saying, "Obama, exciting on the stump, was dull in the debate."
• David Brooks at The New York Times, wrote that Clinton "seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change" and is changing voter perceptions in a way that may persuade people to look at her differently.
Republicans should hope that socialist and self proclaimed 'progressive' Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. With Hillary's high negative ratings and polarizing persona, she will be the easiest candidate for them to beat.
Two-Faced Hillary Clinton May Have Labor Trouble
July 30, 2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., may be on a collision course with organized labor over the issue of outsourcing of U.S. jobs and temporary visas.
The front-runner for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination has been wooing wealthy Indian-Americans who are interested in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.
Four years ago Clinton announced that the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services was opening a software development office in Buffalo, N.Y., and forming a research partnership with a local university.
The firm had said it was planning to hire 200 people but only about 10 work there while the research deal with the state university has failed to come to fruition following three attempts to win government grants, the Times said.
"It's just two-faced," John Miano, founder of the Programmers Guild, told the Times. "We see her undermining U.S. workers and helping the off-shoring business and then she comes back to the U.S. and says, 'I'm concerned about your pain.'"
Source: Earth Times
Hillary’s Academy: What’s the point?
July 30, 2007
In a weekend speech to College Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton discussed her proposal for a West Point for bureaucrats. Not only is it a silly idea on its face, but the fine print contains additional embarrassment.
I’m going to be asking a new generation to serve,” she said. “I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public-service position.”
She has introduced legislation (S. 960) to establish a United States Public Service Academy. According to the bill text, such a school is necessary because baby-boom retirements will create a shortage of trained public servants.
That point is debatable. But for the sake of argument, stipulate that the country needs more young people to study government and related fields. Senator Clinton is forgetting institutions that already offer the relevant coursework. We call them “colleges” and “universities.”
I work at such a place. Not only do I teach courses on public policy but I also help my students get internships and full-time jobs in government. And at hundreds of schools all over the country, colleagues are doing the same thing.
Senator Clinton does make one serious point. Some students forgo government work because student loan obligations prompt them to seek higher-paying jobs. But if there is a personnel problem, a better solution would consist of scholarships or other financial incentives.
Launching a new institution of higher education means huge capital expenditures, especially if it is to have a first-rate science program. And when Congress starts any new government entity, it runs the risk of creating a bureaucratic nightmare. Just think of the Department of Homeland Security.
And by the way, guess where Senator Clinton would put the new academy on the government organization chart? Yes — in the Department of Homeland Security. That’s like offering a shipbuilding course on the deck of the Titanic.
