Brace Yourself For Hillary

Via Drudge:

Sure.  Bring it on, Hillary.

Let's talk about Benghazi for starters. Then we can move on to Fast and Furious.

Drudge is, of course, stirring the pot a bit with his "She Makes it Official?" headline.  She has done no such thing although there is little doubt in anyone's mind that she will run.

The fundraising email to which Drudge refers is from Gen. Wesley Clark and directs recipients to a website where for just a simple trade of all your information (for future fundraising emails, of course) you too can have a free I'm Ready For Hillary bumper sticker.

If you want four years of Fast and Furious and Benghazi ineptitude, sign yourself right up.  If you think putting Hillary, a woman, in the White House (again) will be hip, cool, and progressive, sign yourself right up.  I think I'll pass, but "First Mate" Bill Clinton will be thrilled.

Added:  On a related note:  was it al Qaeda or wasn't it?

That's Crazy, Man, Crazy!

Bill Clinton riffing on Rick Perry:

“And he’s saying ‘Oh, I’m going to Washington to make sure that the federal government stays as far away from you as possible –while I ride on Air Force One and that Marine One helicopter and go to Camp David and travel around the world and have a good time.’ I mean, this is crazy.”

He's got a point. 

At least Obama is honest and up front about wanting to shove the government down your throat and into every other orifice while every aspect of your life is determined by bureaucrats.

Because that's not crazy at all, right?

Were They Serving Eggnog (With Nutmeg) at That Christmas Party?

How can anybody take him seriously after this?

 

A look at what others are saying:

Pundette:

Weirdest thing of all: Obama makes Clinton look like a responsible adult, almost like a president.

The Other McCain:

Wow. Who knew it would be so easy to get rid of him?

Dana Perino at The Corner:

Allowing Bill Clinton face-time in the White House briefing room was a totally safe move — he’s about the only Democrat that can’t mount a primary challenge against him, and that’s only because of the Constitution. I’m still wondering if I can believe my eyes. Did that really just happen?

Allahpundit:

I can’t do justice to what you’re about to see. The spectacle of the president bugging out of his own press conference to go to a Christmas party is weird enough, but having Clinton back at the White House podium fielding questions on the hottest domestic issue of the day shoots past deja vu and lands firmly in “am I hallucinating?” territory.

Professor Glenn Reynolds:

Those rumors that White House insiders are worried by Obama’s disengagement just got a lot more credible . . . .

Bryan Preston:

I saw a current president who has never looked less interested in doing his job.  I also saw a former president who never lost interest in doing that job.  Obama’s demeanor and body language suggested that he’d rather be anywhere but where he was, and then he followed through and actually bolted for the door.  Clinton’s demeanor was that of a passionate wonk trying to sell a policy he actually cared about, that he thought would be good for the country.  It didn’t matter that it wasn’t even his own policy that he was selling. I saw a president who, for a few minutes a least, ceded his job to his predecessor.  He’d failed to sell his own policy, so he needed and got some rescue from Clinton.

The Caucus with a round-up of Twitter messages:

But perhaps the best Twitter message of the afternoon goes to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, who said: “After this, Bill Clinton is going to go sit in the Oval Office, ‘just until Obama gets back.’”

Bride of Rove:

But no. President Petulant man child is just so over the whole Presidential thing and ready to enjoy the perks of job for as long as he can ride it.  What a worthless, lazy-assed, whiny little squid.  This week in the Presidency should be an impeachable offense. Just say’n.

Michelle Malkin:

Why would Obama leave Clinton alone with the press corps under these conditions? A bigger mistake hasn’t been made since Eddie Fisher agreed to let Elizabeth Taylor share a makeup trailer with Richard Burton on the set of Cleopatra.

All I can say is ... total apathy in action.  How can anyone take Obama seriously anymore after this?  Again, I  point to Lindsey Graham's comment:  "... quite frankly, there's some political immaturity showing here."

Obama had better things to do yesterday afternoon than attend his own press conference.  Well, Mr. Obama, we can do better than you.  2012.

More aggregation at Memeorandum.

Random Thoughts for Monday

Random thoughts for Monday:

I know you don't click over to this blog for a daily heath report but for those that have been keeping up with my ailment over the past month (this began March 22), let me just say that I'm calling another doctor today for a second opinion.  (Bride would be proud).  There's no reason that I can see at this late date in this deal that I should continue to spend sleepless nights because of chest pain.  I know - it's pleurisy and it hurts and it takes a while to go away.  But shouldn't it be abating by now?  And in this day and age of miracle drugs isn't there something somebody can give me or do that will make this better?  I'm not usually a complainer, or a hypochondriac, really.  I know that's hard to believe at this point.

Speaking of complaining, if I had the energy and the ability to focus on anything beside myself, I'd tackle the Bill Clinton Op Ed in the NYT comparing the Oklahoma City attacks to potential attacks of violence by Tea Party partipants.  Clinton and Rush have been exchanging words about this over the past few days and Glenn Reynold links to Byron York who weighs in on how Clinton and Dick Morris exploited the Oklahoma City bombing for Clinton's own political gain.  Not wanting to be left out, E.J.Dionne offers his two cent on the Tea Party movement.

I was also intrigued by the kerfuffle over Obama going golfing instead of to the funeral in Poland.  Granted, the Canadians didn't go either, and we know it was because of the safety issues of flying through the volcanic ash.  But would it be too much to ask that Obama at least put on a pretense of dignified behavior during such an event?  Some have suggested that he should have gone to the Polish embassy to offer condolences.  We don't really know what he did to mark the somber event, but we do know that he hit the links.  Since libs are so intent on drawing comparisons to BHO and GWB, let's remember that Bush quit playing golf out of respect to those serving and risking their lives in Afghanistan, thinking that it was a bit frivolous for him to be chasing a golf ball while Americans were dying abroad.  No such class from Obama.  Not surprised.

Okay.  I'm dragging myself to work today.  We're starting medieval literature today.  I'm calling doctor number two.  She might laugh at me, tell me to take 800 mgs of ibuprofin three times a day (like the last doctor did) and get over it.  But I won't know unless I call.

Have a happy Monday.

Verbal Irony

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has selected the Clintons to "drop the ball."

There's a certain irony in that.

Hold On, Holder!

Update: (5pm) An article by George Lardner, Jr. on the same topic in the New York Times.

I have to admit that I have been less than impressed with the unfolding Obama cabinet announcements this week. With all the "HopenChange" mantra surrounding his ascension to office, I've been surprised to see a lot of Clinton retreads in his picks. I'm willing to go with that ... I thought, well, maybe these are okay people who just had the misfourtune to be tied up with Clinton and, as Obama supporters often reminded me, association with shady people doesn't necessarily make you shady. Maybe those Clinton people were actually okay. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt up to a point.

The one that bothers me is the Eric Holder appointment. Gosh, even Ronald Reagan picked Holder in 1988 to serve as a superior court judge! What could be wrong here?! But I'm troubled by Holder's actions since then. I'm troubled by his involvement with the Marc Rich pardon of course, which is what most people are talking about. Holder engineered the end-run around the justice department that allowed the eleventh-hour Clinton pardon to go through. Rich, if you remember, was in exile at the time, and that would have posed a problem to the justice department. He was indicted in 1983 for tax evasion ($48 million!), 51 counts of tax fraud, and more troubling, illegal trading with Iran during the hostage crisis. Denise Rich made huge donations to the Clinton library and to the Democratic party, thus fueling talk that Rich's pardon was bought. Tsk, tsk.

Also, on the same day as the Rich pardons, guess who else got the free ride? Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans of, you guessed it, the Weather Underground. They were associates of Bill Ayers, of course, and were serving sentences for bombing U.S. government facilities. With Holder's guidance, these pardons came just weeks after the bombing of the USS Cole.

Also under Holder's tenure was his management of the Elian Gonzales fiasco in 2000. I remember that clearly and the whole thing troubled me at the time.

And yes, it's true that Holder believes in regulating free speech on the internet. Here's Holder on free speech in 1999: "Well, it's very difficult, given the tenor of the recent Supreme Court cases. The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at."

He's no fan of the second amendment, either.

No, the Holder move that bothers me most is his role as the point-man in charge of the defense of Clinton's pardon of the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists who conducted a violent campaign from 1974 to 1983, primarily in New York and Chicago iin which at least 6 people died and 70 were injured. The FALN terrorists never expressed remorse and in fact threatened the judge's life who presided over their case. Terrorist Carmen Valentine told the judge, " You are lucky that we cannot take you right now." Another terrorist, Dylcia Pagan warned the courtroom, "All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs!" And finally, terrorist Ida Rodrigues told the judge, "You say we have no remorse. You're right...your jails and your long sentences will not frighten us." Why would anyone pardon, or work for the pardon, of these people? Holder testified that his department did not even question these people to find out if they were remorseful or if they would cooperate with the government in any way to locate one of their accomplices who was still on the Ten Most Wanted list. These pardons were granted over the objections of the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons, yet Holder supported this move for clemency.

These pardons were issued in the months after al-Qaeda's 1988 U. E. embassy bombings. Clinton's supposed motivation for the pardons was to assist his wife's senatorial campaign by garnering support (votes) in favorable communities.

The Clinton tenure has a reputation as being soft on terrorism and the FALN pardons is evidence of this. There is no way that these people deserved to be pardoned. These people hurt and killed Americans, they are a known terrorist group, and Clinton and Holder worked to set them free? Was Holder just following orders from Clinton? Did Holder actually believe they deserved clemency? And is this a position Obama agrees with? It is something he surely must have looked at as he considered Holder. I'd like to know Obama's position on the issue of clemency for terrorists, or at least, these terrorists in this case.

So I'm not convinced this is actually a good pick by Mr. Obama. There is no doubt that the confirmation of Holder would go through - the democratic Senate votes are likely there. But this is one pick that Mr. Obama might be obliged to defend. Holder has a lot of baggage.