Babushka Doll

To All the PUMAs And Their Would-Be Pied Pipers:

gwojtowy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:49:28 +0000

For a long time I, like you was dispirited. Like you, I felt that Hillary was robbed of her rightful place as the party standard bearer.

But then I began to ask what did I want more? Was it to sulk like Achilles in his tent over an insult while fellow Greeks died around him? Or was it to remember why I became active, and return to face the real enemy that is before us, a continuation of the past eight years of corrupt administration, an unnecessary war, the ruination of my country and the endless war on the middle class?

I look upon it as a cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand, I could seek revenge by supporting McCain if I were that vindictive. But that would make me a hollow person. McCain betrayed me a long time ago.

One the other hand, I could remember that this is nothing less than a battle between good and evil. In war you can’t always choose your leaders, but you can remember what the struggle is about and whose side you are on.

Last week I saw a party that understands this, and a Republican so out of touch that he insults all Hillary supporters, PUMAs, and all.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, everyone there pledged at least on paper, to put aside their differences and fight for the common good. First, the Obama’s have acknowledged the importance of Hillary’s campaign. Everyone recognized the achievement of bringing 18 million votes into the picture. Next, Hillary, then Bill Clinton declared their support of and their confidence in Barack Obama. In addition, nobody whined about snubbing Hillary when they realized how strategic the choice of Joe Biden was for a running mate.

Hillary was the one who put it best:

I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

My friends, it is time to take back the country we love.

Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.

This is a fight for the future. And it’s a fight we must win.

And later she said:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won’t be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don’t fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

So there it is. Your own leader, my Senator, supporting her party’s choice for President. Would you sulk in your tent while your friends pay the price?

And who is Sarah Palin?

Well for one thing, Palin is no Hillary clone! Any Clintonista who has heard anything Hillary said cannot mistake Sarah Palin for someone you knew and loved for years.

I recognize that Palin may be an honest person in her own right, and maybe a good governor for Alaska. As mayor, she reduced her own salary. She then proceeded to cut wasteful spending. She resigned her position as chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission to protest what she termed “lack of ethics.” She challenged Alaska Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into financial dealings.

She opposed Frank Murkowski’s wasteful spending and sold his big vanity jet.

Nevertheless, being mayor of a town smaller than the Town of Onondaga, NY where I live is barely a prerequisite for becoming a governor, or state senator, not President! (Yes, I said something similar about Obama, but it’s all about issues and ideologies now!

Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, let alone Barack Obama!

Hillary would be appalled at Palin’s stand on the environment.

Here’s Hillary on ANWR:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

And Palin’s position on ANWR?

Let’s let her answer that!:

Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR

The standard should be no different for industry. Ironically, we’re trying to convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR, but we can’t even get our own Pt. Thomson, which is right on the edge of ANWR, developed! We are ready for that gas to be tapped so we can fill a natural gas pipeline. I promise to vigorously defend Alaska’s rights, as resource owners, to develop and receive appropriate value for our resources.

Source: State of the State Address Jan 17, 2007

On health care, Palin and Hillary are as different as night and day.

Here’s Hillary on the subject:

Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate. (Feb 2001)

• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)

• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)

• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)

• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)

• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)

• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)

Sarah Palin’s position is nothing less than feudal:

Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)

Take personal responsibility for personal health & all areas. (Jan 2008)

Doctors should manage health care, not bureaucracies. (Jan 2008)

Personal responsibility & choices key to good health. (Jan 2008)

Flexibility in government regulations to allow competition. (Nov 2006)

More affordable health care via competition. (Nov 2006)

However, what really strips bare the total bankruptcy of the Republicans in general and Pallin in particular is this statement Pallin made at the beginning of her

acceptance speech.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.

Excuse me? Every politician on earth depends on community organizers! Who will “organize” events for Sarah McBush?

Martin Luther King Jr. was a community organizer, as was Mahatma Gandhi, César Chavez, Jayne Addams.

Community organizers are the people who look into the human condition and try to empower people to fix it. Are there broken sewers that are overdue for repair? Not enough cops on the street? Are anyone’s civil liberties violated? Community organizers rally the people to fight for themselves.

And who becomes a community organizer? Is it a position that requires a degree? Has there been a hierarchy imposed upon it? Or does it simply take someone sufficiently motivated like a disgruntled parent, or teacher, or sanitation worker who saw injustice, or squalid conditions, and tried to fix them?

So who is Sarah Palin to take on the mantle of “The Female Candidate?” That was Hillary’s place, and could belong to no other. Now we will unite for Obama to help bring sanity, not the McBush/Palin dystopia into this world.

To All the PUMAs And Their Would-Be Pied Pipers:

gwojtowy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:22:02 +0000

For a long time I, like you was dispirited. Like you, I felt that Hillary was robbed of her rightful place as the party standard bearer.

Last week I saw a party that understands this, and a Republican so out of touch that he insults all Hillary supporters, PUMAs, and all.

Hillary was the one who put it best:

I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

My friends, it is time to take back the country we love.

Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.

This is a fight for the future. And it’s a fight we must win.

And later she said:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won’t be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don’t fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

So there it is. Your own leader, my Senator, supporting her party’s choice for President. Would you sulk in your tent while your friends pay the price?

And who is Sarah Palin?

Well for one thing, Palin is no Hillary clone! Any Clintonista who has heard anything Hillary said cannot mistake Sarah Palin for someone you knew and loved for years.

She opposed Frank Murkowski’s wasteful spending and sold his big vanity jet.

Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, let alone Barack Obama!

Hillary would be appalled at Palin’s stand on the environment.

Here’s Hillary on ANWR:

Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

And Palin’s position on ANWR? Let’s let her answer that!:

Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR

The standard should be no different for industry. Ironically, we’re trying to convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR, but we can’t even get our own Pt. Thomson, which is right on the edge of ANWR, developed! We are ready for that gas to be tapped so we can fill a natural gas pipeline. I promise to vigorously defend Alaska’s rights, as resource owners, to develop and receive appropriate value for our resources.

Source: State of the State Address Jan 17, 2007

On health care, Palin and Hillary are as different as night and day.

Here’s Hillary on the subject:

Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate. (Feb 2001)

• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)

• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)

• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)

• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)

• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)

• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)

Sarah Palin’s position is nothing less than feudal:

Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)

Take personal responsibility for personal health & all areas. (Jan 2008)

Doctors should manage health care, not bureaucracies. (Jan 2008)

Personal responsibility & choices key to good health. (Jan 2008)

Flexibility in government regulations to allow competition. (Nov 2006)

More affordable health care via competition. (Nov 2006)

However, what really strips bare the total bankruptcy of the Republicans in general and Pallin in particular is this statement Pallin made at the beginning of her acceptance speech.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.

Excuse me? Every politician on earth depends on community organizers! Who will “organize” events for Sarah McBush?

Martin Luther King Jr. was a community organizer, as was Mahatma Gandhi, César Chavez, Jayne Addams.

Babushka Doll › Create New Post — WordPress

gwojtowy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:05:55 +0000

Babushka Doll › Create New Post — WordPress.

Hillary Clinton and SCHIP: The Unvarnished Truth and The Massaged Talking Points

gwojtowy — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:03:33 +0000

So now nothing is sacred. Not even something as laudable as the bipartisan coming together on the Children’s Health Insurance Program! The very people who credited Hillary for her role in it’s passage, are now so mercenary as to deny her any credit for CHIP at all! Well, in order to do this they’ll have to talk out of the other sides of their mouths.

Back then, when it was passed, they were more than happy to heap praise on Hillary for persuading Bill to come around on the deal, so they could pressure Trent Lott to roll over. Kennedy had then acknowledged that the First Lady had a very important role in getting the White House on board.

From the Boston Globe October 6, 2007:

The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.

It goes on to state:

‘She wasn’t a legislator, she didn’t write the law, and she wasn’t the president, so she didn’t make the decisions,’ says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. ‘But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.’

Well, what a pair of witnesses! Not just Ted Kennedy, but one of his senior health advisors!

The story goes that Bill was a little wary on account of his negotiating a balanced budget with Lott, who called the children’s health bill a “deal buster.”

But in another article in the New York Times from August 11, 2000, Littlefield again states:

‘She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done,’ Mr. Littlefield of the Health, Education and Labor Committee said. He said that he and Senator Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the major force behind the bill, enlisted Mrs. Clinton’s help in the spring of 1997 when the president became ’skittish’ about the program. Mr. Littlefield said the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, was threatening that it was a ”deal buster’ on the balanced budget agreement that he and Mr. Clinton had reached. ‘At that point we went to Mrs. Clinton and said, ‘You’ve got to get the president to come around on this thing,’ ‘ Mr. Littlefield said. ‘And she said, ‘Absolutely.’ And we very quickly noticed a change. The president was very much on board.’

How times have changed!

Now that two factions have emerged in the struggle for the nomination, legislators who cooperated with one another now belittle each other.

After the Hillarycare debacle of 1993, Hill and Bill decided three things:

• Secretive decision making was not working.

• Hillary had to keep a low profile if she was to be of any legislative use to her pet projects.

And so, some people must’ve gotten confused or something. Someone played telephone and a whole lot of hats got hung on an inaccuracy. The Washington Post says:

During months of SCHIP negotiations in 1997, her name rarely surfaced in news accounts. Clinton never testified before Congress or held a news conference on the bill. When Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the lead GOP negotiator of the children’s health bill, heard reports that Clinton was depicting herself as SCHIP’s main advocate, ‘I had to blink a few times,” he said. Hatch said he doesn’t recall a single conversation with Clinton about SCHIP, even a mention of her name. “If she was involved, I didn’t know about it,’ he said. ‘You know how she says, ‘I started SCHIP’? Well, so did I,” joked Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), one of the Democrats who pushed the bill across the finish line along with Kennedy. Both have endorsed Obama.’

I guess Senator Rockefeller didn’t get the very Clintonesque strategy of bypassing obstacles if you can’t remove them. Kennedy and Hatch wanted to attach SCHIP to the budget bill as an amendment. Clinton knew that Lott wouldn’t go for that, and according to Gene Sperling, the White House chose to back it as a seperate bill:

Gene Sperling, a former chief economic adviser in the Clinton White House, said the budget resolution never would have passed the House with the Hatch-Kennedy amendment in it. He said that both the president and his wife wanted the SCHIP program and that Hillary Clinton lobbied hard to get it included in subsequent legislation.

Of course, Senators Kennedy and Hatch, who have both endorsed other candidates, acknowledge support by the White House, but try to play down the support of Hillary. Yet, according to the Boston Globe Sperling gives a different account:

Gene Sperling, a Hillary Clinton campaign adviser who served as one of President Clinton’s lead budget negotiators in 1997, said efforts to include children’s health coverage were constrained by a balanced budget agreement between the White House and Republican congressional leaders. But he said Hillary Clinton pushed hard and even favored boosting the price tag to $24 billion, instead of the $16 billion that had been floated as a compromise. ‘Her office was across from mine, and I knew what her priorities were,” Sperling said. “I remember her having a lot of influence — you’re getting this done because you know the first lady wants it.’

And so, the Obama partisans either in error, or deliberately, downplay Hillary’s legislative history as First Lady and use her misperceived inaction in this area as a politcal football against her.

But the high profile legislators ought to know better. Their legislative histories are recorded ad infinitum, and makes their words over time seem untrustworthy concerning Hillary:

‘Last fall, Kennedy said SCHIP ‘wouldn’t be in existence’ without Clinton’s support inside the White House. But when her rhetoric on the campaign trail started to filter back to the Capitol, the veteran legislator became stingier with his praise.

‘At the last hour, the administration supported it, and she was part of the administration, so I suppose she could say she supported it at the time,” Kennedy said.’

Setting a Few Matters Straight: Why I’m for Hillary and not Obama.

gwojtowy — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:35:02 +0000

Part One” She’s Not the Devil!

Maybe it’s just a gut feeling, but Hillary Clinton inspires confidence in me, and I’m just not sold on Barack Obama.It could be that she’s just been known to me for much longer than Obama. Or that I was pulling for the first Democratic First Lady in twelve years since Rosalyn Carter in the Clinton’s fight for survival against neocons and spoiled Reaganites who were pining for their “good old days.Maybe I saw at that time a toughness, an indomitable spirit of a person who became an expert at fighting that “vast Right Wing conspiracy” that we now know really existed and wasn’t a figment of her imagination. All I know is that she became my Senator, I met her once, “Cackles” wasn’t there at the time either. It was at our State Fair, and Cold Hillary never came. She was warm with everyone, and everyone felt proud just to be near her. She even posed for a picture for me.Now, can someone explain to me why the Clintons are coldly calculating and Obama is not? According to MediaMatters.com,Hillary has consistently maintained the same positions that she had as First Lady. One example is on abortion:

Critics often cite Clinton’s views on reproductive choice as an example of her repositioning. For instance, Chris Matthews has described Clinton as purportedly shifting her stance on abortion in a “transparent” effort to recover the so-called “values vote.” He has also accused her of “trying to play it safe” on the issue by taking a “poll-tested path.” Matthews has pointed to her assertion in a July 25, 2006, speech that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” as an example of her changing position on the issue. But far from representing a point of departure from earlier statements, Clinton’s remarks in July were consistent with those she made in a January 22, 1999, speech. While first lady, she said: ‘But all too often, generally because of the loudest voices, the American people don’t hear explained the efforts that we’re engaged in to continue to work with people from all different walks of life to make abortion safe, legal, and rare.’

As for the controversial vote to give Dubya war powers, I will not join the rest by bashing Hillary for it. The country was in no mood for peace after 9-11. I was full of vengeance myself at that time.To call Hillary a staunch supporter of the Iraq War as a hypothesis is very widely off the mark.

But the claim that Clinton was once one of the ’staunchest” backers’ of the Iraq war does not withstand scrutiny — nor does the claim that her criticism of the war is recent. While Clinton did vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, less than seven months after the war began, she expressed doubt about President Bush’s leadership in the war, saying in an October 17, 2003, floor statement, that her ‘yes’ vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation ‘was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission. … [I]t was not a vote for our national leadership.’ During the same statement, Clinton accused the Bush administration of having “gilded the lily” on pre-war Iraq intelligence at ‘the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at the least the administration that cried wolf.’

Now we come to the “deviousness” question. First of all, if we learned anything from the past seven years, it’s hard to slip one by diligent opposition researchers. Sooner or later, someone will check the source, listen to some disgruntled ex-employee, or check some coincidence and expose it. Someone who isn’t drinking the Kool-Aid will notice the details that True Believers overlook or deny.Then why has nothing stuck to Hillary? Time and again for the entire Clinton administration Right Wing s spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to bring them down, through Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. They only succeeded in self-destructing à la Newt Gingrich and Robert Livingston. And yet back then they learned nothing! And they still know nothing. To date, the stupidest thing they could do was to try to pin their own crimes on someone else. Someone like Hillary. Attempts to accuse Hillary of the madrassa slander backfired according to Mediamatters when the datelines of some Right Wing articles on the matter came to the fore. And mindlessly the Right Wing kept sticking it’s head into the mouth of it’s own lion. Now any Progressive blogger can close that beast’s mouth on Limbaugh’s neck by simply right-clicking on any link to the articles in question.

Conservative efforts to raise questions about Obama’s Muslim heritage had, in fact, begun days earlier. Indeed, on January 9 — a week before the InsightMag.com article — Chicago Tribune metro columnist Eric Zorn wrote on the Tribune’s Change of Subject weblog, “The crazies are sending around an e-mail that attempts to establish that Barack Obama is actually a Muslim who masquerades as a Christian for political advantage.” But following the publication of the InsightMag.com article, numerous right-wing media figures repeated the entirely unsubstantiated accusation that Clinton’s campaign staff was responsible for spreading the madrassa allegation against Obama. Several Fox News hosts repeated the claim that Clinton had “outed Obama’s madrassa past.” Rush Limbaugh declared, “This is Hillary’s team doing this.” And conservative radio host Melanie Morgan asserted that Clinton “is going to try to derail the [Obama] train before it gets out of the station.” As recently as January 30, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris persisted in leveling this baseless accusation.

A similar attempt to slander Hillary was made (though sadly compounded by an erstwhile Clinton operative,) that Hillary was behind a supposed leak about the ancient history of Obama’s drug use.Sadly, it’s not only the Right that is unfairly treating the Clintons. In her latest column, Maureen Dowd carries forth much of the mistaken impression that all of Hillary’s actions are in part motivated by self interest, calculation, and cynicism.

She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?

Even if you agree with this, which I do not, Dowd, whom I usually respect, gets it wrong when she concludes that:

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

However, she inadvertently contradicts that point with a preceding paragraph. in it she attempts to deride Hillary’s allusion to Martin Luther King Jr. and LBJ and in so doing, opens the backdoor for every supporter of Hillary to sink that argument:

Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)

Dowd missed the point entirely. In the debate, Hillary argued for change with experience. She had every right to allude to the civil rights accomplishments of Johnson. Dr. King could only fight the battle in the streets, but Congress was another matter.In her criticism of Hillary’s allusion to LBJ, Dowd forgets obvious facts where she should have been more diligent. In order to affect change, as a President Johnson needed to rely on his decade long experience in the Senate – and as Senate Majority Leader to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, considering the amount of controversy and bloodshed it caused at the time. Getting laws passed the Johnson way required him to know a lot about every Senator and Congressman. That required that decade’s worth of Senate experience. The business with McCarthy in New Hampshire though important, is irrelevant to the argument.update:The Hooplah on the MLK Statement.Everyone misses the point that Hillary was speaking from the perspective of someone who was for 8 years a President’s wife. This gives her at least one President’s point of view, and that President, her husband, had to deal with a very belligerent Congress whose every move was like.an act of war against him. This is not dissimilar to what Johnson faced from Dixiecrats in 1964. In fact, it lost him support from the South and was a factor in his choosing not to run for re-election. Remember George Wallace?.Part Two “Keeping Barack Obama in Perspective” will appear in my next post.

An Open Letter To John Lewis

gwojtowy — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:28:37 +0000

Our party was well poised to take control of this country and turn it back well before Mr. Obama decided that he was the man to do it. Our party could now be united and ready to fight the general election. This could have caused such consternation on the other side that they would be split along ideological lines much like we are now.

Instead, we are the ones who are divided, and I blame Barack Obama. It was his choice to announce for the Presidency and throw us into disarray.

Mr. Obama says that he wishes to leave behind the “old politics.” But when have you ever seen any instance in this campaign where he has engaged in his so-called; “new politics?” I haven’t.

Firstly he disillusioned me when only after two years in the Senate, he chose to run for President. As if the Senate was only a stepping stone. What of the promise he made to people of Illinois to represent them?

He calls his time in the Illinois State Senate experience enough to add to his resume for the job of President. But you and I both know that such experience as his only makes him elligible to represent his state or Congressional district, and that way – to start learning the ways of federal government. How his arrogance makes him think he is ready to be President, I don’t know.

If that were all, I could still forgive his youthful exuberance. What I cannot forgive is his dishonest behavior.

He professes to be the apostle of the “new politics,” a politics based on “inclusion,” speaking to the enemy, and being honest. But the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

In fact, he is merely another politician, but with a better disguise and a silver tongue. In his message he distorts the facts, misquotes third party sources and takes them out of context like any other politician. And of course, he misreprents his opponent’s position, misquotes her and consciously misrepresents her position – like any other politician.

But he is supposed to be above all that isn’t he? And so he misdirects his listeners with flowery phrases, espouses those noble sentiments and like a magician, sneaks into the message all his distortions. And under his facade, he allows his attack dogs to do the dirty work – like any other politician.

He’ll also learn that while in Congress, on-the-job training is apporiate, in foreign policy, it’s a train wreck waiting to happen.

In conclusion, I’d have to say that to me it’s all Old Politics – all showmanship, and I’m not buying the ticket!