Speaking Of . . .

The issue of money keeps dogging Hillary Clinton and she seems unwilling to do much to escape the increased scrutiny from all sides.

This week, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Clinton received $275,000 for a one hour speech and very limited photo session at the University of Buffalo.

Although the media focuses on the money paid out, the real story may be tax law problems for non profit educational institutions.  Most colleges and universities fall under the 501 (c) 3 category protecting them from paying taxes.  That status can be jeopardized by overt support of a political party or a political candidate.  Under Obama, the Internal Revenue Service has imposed significant burdens on conservative institutions applying for this coveted status.  Political activity is often cited as a reason.

By not officially announcing herself as a candidate (although she has made frequent and coy allusions to it), Clinton has given cover to colleges and universities willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to be graced with her presence.  Some would say purchase influence.

The Free Beacon report contained criticism from MSNBC's Chuck Todd that Clinton earned "presidential" level payments.  In 2011, however, the Daily Beast covered criticism of former President George W. Bush's speaking fees, which typically run between $100,000 and $150,000.

Almost every time, Bush collected six figure payments from private sector institutions.  The University of Buffalo is a public school.

Others who achieved Clinton's highest office, secretary of state, do not make as much for appearances.  Condoleeza Rice was set to collect $35,000 from Rutgers before bowing out in the face of protests.  This only outpaced reality star Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi by $3,000.

Clinton's pay days seem to have backfired.  The MSNBC panel discussed how quickly Clinton's approval ratings fell after the sustained drip of money stories commenced.  Most Americans do not begrudge money honestly made, but few want to hear about rich people crying poverty.  Nor does it look good when public universities, in a time of outrageous tuition, pay out $275,000 for anyone to show up for an hour.

What Does It Mean to Be "Poor" or "Broke?"

In the past week, this discussion has come up over and over.  Spurred on by the dueling poverty stories of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (in the last 15 years, not their childhood), many are taking a closer look at what people mean when they say "poor" or "broke."

In a related and strange statement, the former president's daughter blissfully confessed that she cared little for money.  Of course Chelsea Clinton makes $600,000 per year doing half the work of unpaid or low paid interns.  One does not need to care for money when the nest is permanently and opulently feathered.

Even the federal student loan people got in trouble for a tweet that seemed to minimize poverty. But what is it?

The federal government has a one size fits all measure of poverty.  It considers a family of four impoverished if it makes a little over $23,000 per year or less in every state outside of Alaska and Hawaii.  Cost of living, however, varies widely.  Earnings of $14,000 in West Virginia's most affluent area, Berkeley County, equals nearly $23,000 in Hartford, Connecticut, according to an online CNN Money cost of living adjuster.  Simply put, a dollar goes much farther in West Virginia than in Connecticut for a variety of reasons.

This shows that one cannot put a simple number on poverty, but doesn't explain what poverty actually is, or feels like.

Hillary Clinton described what many Americans occasionally experience regardless of income.  Her family's lifestyle ran their finances briefly into debt.  On one hand, they struggled with mortgages, tuition, and other financial commitments.  Fair enough, until you hear that these were multiple mortgages on multiple mansions.  They did not owe tuition to local state college, but to one of the most costly educational institutions in the world.

Paying bills when revenue dips causes stress and anxiety.  Having to sell a house to pay for bills could cause social embarrassment in their set.  The public, however, rightfully laughed at the Clintons' protestations of poverty.

The Census Bureau reported a few years ago that 30 million, or just under 10 percent, of Americans live in poverty.  They base this on income statistics instead of investigating actual conditions.  If being poor is defined as simply not making a lot of money, then the case gets rested.  Americans, however, assign a more stringent definition to the term poverty.

To most, poverty means real deprivation.  Does a family lack shelter?  Can they not pay for basic utilities? Do they not eat properly because of a lack of resources?  In most cases, the family may not be financially comfortable or secure, but they do eat consistently, they do have shelter, and they not only pay for utilities, but also vehicles (plural), cell phones,  and cable or satellite TV.

Submitted for your approval: if one regularly pays for satellite TV, alcohol, cigarettes, internet, and/or cell phones, one may not call oneself "poor."  If a family is starving and has all these things, it is not poor, but in sore need of re prioritizing.

Some institutions have a vested interest in inflating the poverty number.  More poverty means more money for the poor but also, more importantly, for bureaucrats and non profits that supposedly handle programs to help them. Examining true poverty does not help them expand their agencies, much less solve the real problems.

The more time spent on servicing the financially insecure as if they were poor, the more likely that the truly poor will escape notice.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's foray into the verbal forest (and we should not forget that Bill actually did know real poverty as a child) is great for poking fun.  It should, however, lead the country to discuss what poverty really is and examine the policies intended to address it.

Hard Times For the Clintons

Give the Clintons credit.  They have at least enough self-awareness to understand when they have not been self-aware.

Hillary Clinton let slip a moderately damaging assessment of her family's post presidency finances.  "We were dead broke," she said.

Should she run for president, she will find those four words as ubiquitous as Mitt Romney's offhand 47 percent comment.  She will have to explain ad nauseum what she meant and that she does really understand what truly broke really means.

This will likely grow tiresome.  Neither Clinton entered the world with guaranteed millions and both, especially Bill, understand what poverty feels like. Saying "dead broke" instead of struggling to meet responsibilities was a huge error in judgment.

The Clintons, however, did the right thing.  When confronted with their own version of tough times, like good free market entrepreneurs, they cashed in.  People wrongly envy Bill Clinton's huge speaking fees.  There is nothing wrong with making top dollar.  The onus lies on those who pay the fees, especially if they pay from the public purse.  Bill Clinton or the town dog catcher can ask a million dollars to speak.  No one has to pay.

Problem is that being Democrats comes with connection to the party's ideology. One cannot just comfortably defend a million (or tens of millions) dollars honestly made. Nationally, the Democratic Party has moved well to the Left of the centrist comfort zone Bill Clinton always claimed.  If Hillary runs in 2016, Leftist candidates such as Martin O'Malley (does anyone doubt that this failure is running for president?) will hurl this statement back at her over and over.  Clinton will face class warfare, this time against her and the profits reaped by her family after the presidency.

Second West Virginia Legislator Switches to Republican Party

Former US Senator Zell Miller complained in 2004 that he did not leave the Democratic Party.  It left him.

Two members of the West Virginia Legislature in the past year have come to the same conclusion.  Months ago, State Senator Evan Jenkins of Cabell County switched and announced a run for Congress.  Now, Delegate Ryan Ferns of Ohio County has done the same.

Ferns' home district in Ohio County resembles what Washington insiders call "Hillary country."  Wheeling has a long industrial history that has faded in the past twenty years.  Its blue collar roots have been supplemented by the luring of major retail outlets on the Interstate 70- corridor.

A "Hillary country" Democrat going red is a bad omen for Clinton in West Virginia. It shows that Obama's tenure has alienated a great deal of the blue collar bases depended upon by the Clintons.

Also interesting are the long standing ties between the Ferns family and Senator Joe Manchin.  Delegate Ferns' father and Manchin are reputed to be close friends.  Manchin family ties with Republicans are not unusual.  Governor Arch Moore worked closely with A. James Manchin, for instance.

This, however, invites scrutiny because of the increasingly isolated position in which Manchin finds himself.  In October, a Roll Call article described a centrist senator regretting leaving the Governor's Mansion.  Last week, he defied Senate leadership on a pivotal vote which removed minority filibuster power on nominees.

Manchin's discontent as a Senate Democrat seems clear.  His home state drifts toward the Republican Party by staying true to its traditional values. Manchin's few clashes with his base quickly, if temporarily, eroded his popularity.  Following the example of Ferns and Jenkins is one option.  Abandoning all party identification, like former Senator and vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, is another.

Clearly Manchin, Ferns, Jenkins, and many of their traditionally Democratic brethren in West Virginia share the same dilemmas.  Switching to the GOP means breaking with generations of tradition in a state where party identification ranks a close third to family and denomination.  But how long can such ties remain when the national Democratic Party stokes hostility with values held dear by most West Virginians?

And what will this mean politically for the state in the next few years?

Let the Games Begin!

Hillary Clinton opened the 2016 presidential campaign with a powerful first strike aimed at the heart of her presumed to be most important opponent.  At a conference of convenience store owners in Atlanta, the former secretary of state related how she fully supported the decision to kill Bin Laden while the Vice President waffled.

Joe Biden has attended a number of events in Iowa while making the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner rounds elsewhere.

Many, including some presidential aides, say the nomination is Clinton's to lose.  But "experts" said much the same in 2008.

Interestingly, this could reignite the Benghazi scandal.  Besides her general lack of authority in office or accomplishment as secretary of state, the Benghazi raid remains her weak point.  Will Democrats who ignored Republican questions listen to Biden camp arguments?

America could finally get some real answers.

Also, the Bin Laden raid has become in Democratic circles the measure of toughness.  Even those, like Jonah Goldberg, who argued that he should have been captured and questioned, have faced strong attack.  It has hidden the wayward and bizarre foreign policy of Obama.  A pusillanimous policy with the facade of the cowboy that frittered away international respect.

Biden finds himself in the same position as Hubert Humphreys in 1968. Much of his bosses policies deserve criticism.  How far will he go to build credibility by attacking the poor decisions of the man who named him vice president?  Especially since Biden can hang many of those albatrosses around Clinton?

Recent GOP intraparty debates have centered around principle, not personality.  Should be interesting and instructive to see the Democrats fight over Biden versus Clinton

Death Comes to Syria and Egypt

Someone attacked a suburb of Damascus, Syria this week with all the quiet fury of a Biblical plague.  No marks of sacrificial blood could save the innocent or chosen.  This work of man killed all indiscriminately.

Nerve gas wafted through the streets and homes.  By the time it dissipated, it killed 1,300 just as effectively as the Japanese at Nanking or the Romans at Carthage in the Third Punic War.

The Daily Mail referred to the incident as "the town that never woke up."

The Syrian belligerents can be divided into three categories.  First is the Syrian government itself, no stranger to atrocities.  Rebelling against it is one group with an equal potential for evil, the Islamicists.  Kurdish forces in the northeast have seized important points.  Kurds have a quasi-sovereign state in northern Iraq, but also live in Syria, Turkey, and Iran.  Possibly the weakest faction is the Syrian nationalist rebels, tied by outrageous fortune to the Islamicists.

Government forces showed signs of desperation earlier this week when they attacked the Israeli held Golan Heights.  Provoking a war with Israel would throw the region into chaos.  Israel, so far, has remained somewhat restrained.

A group allied with the Syrian government took down the Washington Post's website last week.

The Washington Free Beacon reported a day before the attack that a joint Russian-American plan to create a transitional government has not taken the first necessary steps.

Meanwhile in Egypt, as was reported yesterday by Kirby Wilbur on the Sean Hannity Show, Muslim Brotherhood thugs, ousted by the military, have taken their rage out on the Coptic Christian community.

American influence since World War II has not brought complete peace, but has kept the lid on conflicts that could have erupted without its presence.  US troops have occasionally played a role, as in Lebanon under Eisenhower and Reagan. This also, of course, includes the Iraq wars. But usually US aims are realized through  the dispensation of aid and realpolitik style maneuvering.

Some of these conflicts, such as the rise of the Islamofascist thug group, Muslim Brotherhood, have steadily percolated for years.  The Brotherhood aligned with the Nazis before and during World War II to try and destabilize British authority in the Middle East.  Ever since, they have worked to undermine secular rule in Egypt to establish an Iran or Taliban style state there.

The full realization of their plans would put a hostile power in control of the vital Suez Canal who also would attack Israel.

Part of the problem lies at the feet of Barack Obama.  Nearly every president since Harry Truman has based American Middle East policy on certain foundations.  First was support of Israel.  Second, America must protect, or support the protection of, strategic interests.  These include safe ocean passage through the Suez, Straits of Hormuz, etc., oil reserves, and important points.

The United States also worked to prevent the rise of malefactors in the Middle East, but also lived with anti-democratic forces willing to go along with the game plan.  For example, Qaddafi was an enemy when he sponsored terrorism.  When he renounced weapons of mass destruction, he became at least tolerable and a possible example of a "reformed" dictator.  Not the best case scenario, but an improvement.

Supporting "democracy" in the Middle East is problematic.  Islamofascists, like the German Nazis and Communists before, advocate "democracy" so that they can come to power and annihilate it.  The best case scenario for Germany in the mid 1930s would have been a military coup and purge of Hitler's followers and Communists, followed by a restoration of the Kaiser.  Those rebelling against authoritarianism today often only plan to establish bloody totalitarianism tomorrow.

Previous presidents understood this.  Obama does not.

American policy in the region has no chance of restoration under Obama.  His aimless diplomacy, coupled with two poorly performing secretaries of state, inspire no respect.  Middle Easterners did not always like Obama's predecessor, but they respected his strength and ability to act.  Obama has effectively destroyed that perception and replaced it with weakness.

Drifting away from Israel has also made war more likely, not less.

Even though energy self-sufficiency will de-emphasize the Middle East's importance somewhat, it still breeds hate and terror.  America must have a policy that starts with a perception of strength based on the reality of action.  Doing anything else increases the chance of war and/or terror attacks.

Vladimir Putin's Winning Streak

At this point, 2:34 PM Monday June 24, Russia Today's website is almost entirely devoted to the Edward Snowden debacle.

Fox News's site leads with Snowden, but also lists a variety of other stories.  CNN didn't have Snowden covered in any prominent spot.

But Russia Today revels in the twists and turns of Snowden's ability to elude American surveillance.

Putin has been on a winning streak of sorts lately.  His ally, Syria, now receives arms and other support that may push the regime to bloody victory.  The Russian leader put his thumb directly in the eye of Obama by facilitating Snowden's escape.  He managed to split from his wife without much public fuss.  Putin even somehow managed to score a Super Bowl ring without ever suiting up.  The only mark against him is the viral picture of Steven Seagall giving him bunny ears in a photo.

This presidency has never played the diplomatic game well, but now the world has become the Harlem Globetrotters to Obama's Generals. 

From the beginning, Obama wanted to organize the world community.  He failed to realize that diplomacy at its core is a relationship of power and interest.  Choices made for the office of Secretary of State reflect domestic political priorities rather than wise selections.  Former Senator Hillary Clinton turned out to be a non entity (although Obama rarely put his trust in her.)  John Kerry will not do much better.  Diplomats, military officers, and even academics seem to understand the abstract and the reality of power better than legislators. 

Obama also does not seem to understand the limits of power.  One never makes threats or demands that can be easily flaunted.  The US government warned Western Hemisphere nations to not allow a plane carrying Snowden into their airspace.  Fair enough.  But what will we do if one does?  More bluster?  Any tin pot who wants to make the US look bad without consequences can bring this guy to their country, at least in the short term.

The government should have said nothing and just kept quiet tabs, waiting for the pressure to get to him.  He would either turn himself in, or make a mistake.  Snowden has already brought his own judgment into question.  American officials making themselves look like fools will not bring him to account. 

Strangely enough, Obama has the ability to embarrass and even harm Putin if he chooses.  Should the United States ever remove its export restrictions on natural gas, the price will plummet even further.  Gas revenues are most of the foundation of Russia's recent prosperity.  The impact of American shale gas on the global marketplace has seriously weakened Russia's economic position.  Why not turn on the taps full blast and watch American energy might push Putin (and a few oil states in the Middle East) toward irrelevance? Why not build the pipeline that would bring even more US made energy to market?  This would put even more Americans to work in gas and its byproducts.

Putin may be on a winning streak, but it lies within Obama's power to prevail in the game, if he so chooses.

Another Nail In the Coffin, Driven In By Hillary Clinton

The Secretary of State's excellent adventure in Colombia is an internet hit. It even outshines Obama making a foolish comment about vacations on the heels of being unable to answer questions about his vacations.

Pictures of her dancing, chugging beer on a couch, and generally feeling very tipsy have flooded the internet, reminding Americans that no responsible adult is minding the store.

Hillary was supposed to be the responsible one!

Why can't she cut loose? Why can't she party? Because her image is our image. We yearn for the days of taciturn statesmen and women taken seriously on the world stage. Now we have ham handed fools churning out one liners and getting plastered. Even the Praetorian Guard gets to chase hookers.

After hours, according to the practice of Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, Prince Otto von Bismarck, and others is when the real diplomacy takes place. Intimate discussions over wine, or whatever, that cut to the heart of issues and lay the groundwork for the official sessions, that is what you do at night. You don't send the old woman to the bar to get her liquored up in public.

We are officially the laughing stock of the world.

A Gingrich Role, the Ruin of Sarah Palin, and Approve the F 35 Already!

Conservatives love Herman Cain. He is a businessman, answers questions in regular talk and not politicianese. So why so little support for a guy who seems to have been preparing to be president at this point in history for much of his adult life?

Gingrich will probably not be nominated. But he is definitely a potential consigliere for anyone elected who may not bring a lot of experience to the job.

Is Bill Clinton prepping the country and the Democratic Party for another Hillary run? His criticism of Obama lately has been palpable. Sounds like he is almost begging someone to call for her to be a candidate.

The media has won. They have effectively destroyed Sarah Palin as a serious presidential contender. Not because she was dishonest in office, not because she is a criminal, but because she dared to be a pretty, successful, conservative woman from Middle America. Media figures have figuratively ravished her family, not even sparing her disabled son. Her name, without cause, has been tarnished and her ideas ignored. Shame is too minor a word for what they should feel.

Would you rely on a 22 year old car with hundreds of thousands of miles on the odometer to keep you safe on a long trip? Would you bet your life on it? That is what we do with our aging fighter fleet. It is time to start production on the F 35

A Crisis of Confidence

The United States and key players in the world community have a crisis of confidence. Not in America itself, but in Barack Obama.

The past two weeks have shown us just how much the sitting president is in over his head. He has been seen most conspicuously playing golf, predicting the NCAA Men's Tournament, and going to Rio de Janiero to dance and see the sights. Meanwhile Japan is still reeling from natural and nuclear disaster, Egypt is still in an uproar, and we have just launched air strikes against Libya in coordination with our NATO allies. Well, semi-coordinatiion because we are arguing publicly with Britain over whether or not Moammar Ghaddafi is a legitimate target for removal. And his own party is screaming because Congress received not so much as a courtesy call about the attacks.

Obama does not have the ability to lead a church bingo game, much less the country in a world of crisis. So why doesn't he hand things off to Hillary Clinton? She may have wrong headed ideas about a lot of things, but she is more capable and experienced than the basketball prognosticator in chief. Obama would never be able to handle any form of Clinton accomplishment because she remains the number one threat to his renomination.

Hillary Clinton herself posed the question. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3 AM with the world in crisis. I wish Obama would stay in Rio, or on the golf course, or wherever he'd rather be this week than working his main job, and let Clinton answer the phone. She and Bill are not my top choices to respond in a crisis, but they are better than anyone else the Democrats have right now.

Who ever thought that this guy was a great intellect was sold a bill of goods. Sorry America. You've been had.

Tidbits . . .

Is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resigning? Guess she is getting tired of being sent to town hall meetings in the Congo while Obama sends his secret friends to do the real work. She may also know something that we don't about this administration's horrible foreign policy.

Meanwhile, Obama once again makes a statement when he does not have to. Why would he just blurt out his support of Michael Vick and the Philadelphia Eagles? Politically speaking, it's a bad move. Why anger dog lovers that much more?

The Intrastate Coal and Use Act proposal should get a lot more scrutiny here and across the nation now that the EPA is ratcheting up its anti-global warming campaign. They want to start taxing emissions and hitting power plants with new regulations. States and Congress need to end this unconstitutional seizure of authority. Article 1 Section 1 prevents the EPA from doing anything along these lines without Congressional authority.

Jeff Kessler may have the votes to have himself named Acting Senate President, leaving Earl Ray Tomblin as Acting Governor only. This should remove the constitutional problem of having one man holding both a legislative and an executive branch post. Hope that these guys are "acting" in the public interest.

Watching the Andrew Johnsonization of the President

In 1865, Andrew Johnson entered the White House after the assassination of President Lincoln. High hopes surrounded the presidency even without Lincoln. Some wanted punishment for the South, others wanted leniency. Some called for treating blacks fairly and getting them a new start, others were not as concerned.

Lincoln wanted lenient treatment for Southerners, but also did not impede the progress of his military's seizures of Confederate military and government officials' property for redistribution to blacks. It seemed like a fair punishment for taking arms against the Union, although it was not yet clear whether or not Confederates would face trial.

Johnson followed the leniency policy and forget about the blacks, taking control of Reconstruction. Northerners grew increasingly angry that the South seemed to face no punitive measures for starting the war. Those concerned about the fate of blacks saw legal proscription and impoverishment approaching for them.

Republicans stepped in by 1866 and started blocking Johnson. He reacted wildly, ranting about individuals such as Charles Sumner. Johnson actually made a national figure of the radical Thaddeus Stevens, representative of Pennsylvania, by condemning him so often. Moderates who might have compromised with Johnson recoiled at his bitterness and lack of decorum in speechmaking. The summer and fall of 1866 found Johnson speaking through hecklers and physical threats to support Democratic candidates. Republicans increased their majorities substantially. From 1867 until the end, Congress put Johnson in a box, but overplayed their hand in trying to impeach and remove him from office.

Are there enough angry Democratic moderates in both houses to join with the GOP and put Obama in his place? That remains to be seen, but a repudiation of Harry Reid by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans would be a great start.

Something to watch for. Wait and see if Hillary Clinton doesn't leave office within six months.

"Hand to hand combat" Promised By Obama After Election

Obama and his spokesmen had two interesting statements this week connected to the midterm elections.

First came the news that he will leave on November 5 instead of the 7th on a trip to India. Interesting idea, drive your party to defeat and then leave the country. I wonder if he will get any golf in over there?

Next came something more ominous. Obama promised "hand to hand combat" with Republicans after they make gains this November. Look for Congress to defund and box off his health care initiative and work to limit the reach of the EPA. Obama's reaction is interesting since his ideas and policies resulted in the congressional defeats. This year is a referendum on his left wing ideology and Americans are clearly not buying it. What is interesting is that Joe Biden said he would "strangle" Republicans who opposed their debt ridden budget proposals.

So the president and vice president are figuratively using the language of murder to describe their frustration with the GOP, the Tea Party, and the electorate for rejecting leftism. Of course they won't be literally killing Republicans, but their language reflects their frustration.

In 1995 when the GOP took over Congress, they skirmished with Clinton, but also hammered out welfare reform. In 2007, you saw Bush retrench and try to find ways to work with Congress (although this led to some negative outcomes). I seriously do not see Obama working with congressional Republicans in the remaining two years of his term. Like Andrew Johnson, he will more likely go off the deep end and become a bizarre spectacle, shunned by both parties.

Look for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in 2012. Just my gut feeling.

Without So Much As a Bayh Your Leave . . .

Recently Evan Bayh, the U. S. Senator who has worked most closely with Republicans over the years, announced in anger that he did not intend to seek another term. He described the growing acrimony within Congress as one reason, but also made veiled references to the overbearing nature of Obama. He was one of several Democrats who declined to run in 2010. One included a Democratic Senator from Arkansas still fuming over derogatory remarks made by Obama about President Clinton.

The "huff" from Senator Bayh was well documented and leading press outlets gave it a great deal of coverage. Much more coverage than any other Democratic congressman who announced his intention to not run. In politics things like this often happen for a reason.

Could that reason be that Senator Evan Bayh intends to run for President of the United States?

In 2012, the only way for the Democrats to hang onto the White House is to dump Obama. His arrogance, unpopularity, and failures do not recommend him for another try at the office. Democrats are abandoning him in droves. Now Bayh's nomination is not a sure thing. Many liberal Democrats see him in the same way that conservative Republicans see John McCain. There is respect, but also a sense that he is not committed to their principles.

He, however, represents one of their best chances of keeping the presidency. The midterm elections should be a guide. If, as is expected, Republicans make huge gains and even capture one house (in the process deposing Harry Reid) then all bets are off on an Obama renomination. He will probably have a primary fight once again. I would not doubt to see Hillary Clinton resign shortly after the midterm elections and woo Terry McCauliffe back into activity.

In any event, Obama is toast if these midterms go as most expect.

Looking Ahead to 2012, Potential Contenders For the Democratic Presidential Nomination

This might take some folks a little off guard. Contenders for the Democratic noination for president? Don't they have an incumbent?

Obama said recently that he would rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two termer. This reflects a rare moment of reality for the embattled president who at one point told a Blue Dog Democrat expressing fears about this November that the difference between 1994 (when Republicans swept into control of Congress) and 2010 is that "now you have me." He forgot that he has not accomplished anything thus far that would define him as a "good" president. This remark may have been a shot at both of his predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton (whom he personally seems to despise and vice versa.)

If events continue as they have, Democrats will start mulling a run at the nomination. They will each try to present themselves as the anti-Obama, perhaps event to the extent of looking a little less polished if it leads to the impression of greater substance.

First and foremost, the best Democratic alternative to four more years of Nobama is the sitting secretary of state. Under George W. Bush this was the most honored office in his Cabinet. Condoleeza Rice has tremendous power and latitude. Hillary Clinton goes to town hall meetings in the Congo and begs money off of the Chinese while others handle major affairs separately. This has to grate on her. I would not be surprised to see Clinton resign in the next six to nine months. This would signal to the world that the Democratic nomination is up for grabs. Then it would be the battle of the Chicago Obama organization versus the Clintonistas. The difference between the two is that the Clintons have actually accomplished things.

How about a prominent Democratic governor? The fact is that in this group Joe Manchin has as much credibility as anyone. He has managed to maintain a stable face on state finances while other governments have gotten into trouble. Some may remember his exposure during the Sago mine disaster. Manchin looks, sounds, and acts more like the Clinton prototype than Obama, a fact that could win him credit with Clintonistas if their own hero passes.

The fact is that Obama is weak and stubbornly refuses to adapt his tone, policies, or actions. This adds up to a strong challenge in 2012 from his own party.

Maybe Because He Wants to Win the War

General McChrystal has written, spoken, and probably leaked to the public his earnest desire to win the war in Afghanistan by requesting what the Democrats called for several years ago, more troops.

Back when Iraq's future remained uncertain, many Democrats, including the current Secretary of State, called for more focus on Afghanistan. They, including the current president, called this country the real war and Iraq the distraction. Now Afghanistan is the distraction and the Olympics are the real war.

Naturally the officers and soldiers have gotten fed up with the shifting of attention. Obama called health care the most important struggle of this generation (excuse me, are we not at WAR?) He has little concern or time for Afghanistan, so long as he can get one domestic victory and the Olympics (oops, may have screwed the pooch on that one.)

Danger does exist in too massive a buildup; after all, we trained them to hit the logistical units of massive concentrations of men and armor during the Soviet occupation. However we need to expand our presence in the countryside. Experts at the Army War College have studied two hundred years of irregular warfare in American history and figured out a gameplan for victory.

They concluded that you can pacify a region like Afghanistan in two ways, offer security or terror to the most important factor which is the population. Americans do not terrify civilians, even though that is the easiest way to win. Instead the goal is to establish permanent security. It makes no sense to advance into a town, secure it, gain cooperation, then abandon it to go after another objective. You need a long term presence to help train security units and home guards so that they can protect themselves. This requires time and more manpower.

Is Obama interested? Does Obama care? His generals have taken the extraordinary step of speaking out to try and pressure him into giving the war more attention than the Olympics. Let's hope they succeed. Failure in Afghanistan means emboldened terrorists and more attacks on our soil.

More Evidence That the Wheels Are Falling Off the Obama Administration

Remember Bush era foreign policy? In his second term, he sent the calm, collected, and brilliant Dr. Condoleeza Rice to wage diplomacy. She took the point on every major diplomatic situation and performed adeptly despite a wide range of thorny problems.

Now who represents America? Diplomatic czars? Joe Biden? Obama? A former NBA All Star?Former President Clinton? The world is beginning to wonder as it finally grasps the slipshod international presence of America under Obama.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly does not. Recently she snapped at a Congolese university student as if he had come to talk to her about health care deform. He had a reasonable question about international finance and asked her what her husband and Dikembe Mutombo's opinions were on it. Clinton responded "Wait. You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state; I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channeling my husband."

Brilliant diplomacy from a former radical left winger. Isn't the left the movement that claims that all points of view and perspectives, even from the Third World, have merit? This was obviously the question of a young man from a patriarchical society where men's opinions carry more weight.

It was not a tactful question, but tact is not the job of a college student. Hillary Clinton's irritated response spoke volumes about her miniscule role in diplomacy and her frustration. She could have passed it off humorously and kept the upper hand. Instead she revealed some of her rather justifiable anger. That rage should be kept away from diplomatic photo ops with NBA players and Africans.

The question also revealed the fact that Hillary Clinton has very little role or respect in US diplomacy. Obama has adeptly humbled his former rival, but will it end up hurting him in the long run if she decides to break free of this impossible situation?

Questions, Thoughts, Ramblings

Would it not be cheaper to close down every VA hospital and simply give all vets a private insurance card, such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

It is pretty amazing how quickly protesting has moved from "patriotic dissent" to "angry mob" status. I am also amazed that President George W. Bush would wax philosophic about how great it is to live in a nation where people could protest the president freely. Otherwise his administration ignored them. The Obama Administration attacks protesters. It figures. They have not shown a good grasp of the American psychology yet, why start now.

Amazing how anyone can slam their opponents for taking a tactical page from their own playbook.

It is nice to see Republicans coming together to battle the biggest ideological threats to the American way since Governor Huey Long in the 1930s. Well, almost all Republicans.

Interesting how Facebook is down as of this writing. With most of the media in full damage control mode for Obama, it has become a great source for the latest outrages and a catalyst for organizing responses. Wonder if any of the Obama volk have turned us in yet for, as they put it, disinforming people?

The power to tax involves the power to destroy. When the government has a monopoly in some field, the manipulation of rates also has the power to destroy. Big periodical companies for some reason have to pay a lower mail rate now than small publications. Liberal magazines can keep their costs down while small conservative startups like Human Events may have to cease publication.

West Virginia does a poor job marketing state history for tourism purposes. We were the center of early frontier warfare. Our guerilla style Civil War history matches much better the experience of a large group who tend to be military history enthusiasts, veterans. We have structures in place from the early Industrial Revolution. The state needs a vision for tourism beyond "Wild and Wonderful." We certainly are that, but so are parts of surrounding states.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, repeatedly marginalized and humiliated by the Administration, sounded one of the few notes of a tough foreign policy yesterday. She said that the release of journalists did not mean that the US would abandon the six nation talks with North Korea in favor of bilateral negotiations. North Korea wants to speak with the US alone. American policy since Bush has been to include Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea in any discussions of North Korea's nuclear program. We will wait and see if Clinton's wishes here will be followed or if the Apology Tour 2009 continues.

It is still interesting that Obama feels a higher comfort level dealing with foreign dictators than the Republican Party.

Nixonian Foreign Policy and Obama

A couple of days ago, I described Hillary Clinton's foreign policy as being that of Richard Nixon and the more I thought about it, the more I felt that point needed clarification.

Nixon's main achievements came in the field of foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson's tax and spend approach to welfare combined with his mismanagement of the Vietnam War led to a period of American weakness. High inflation, breakdowns of social cohesion, and a declining ability to project power meant that by the late 60s, that weakness was real. Nixon adjusted US policy accordingly. For the first time since World War II, we dealt from a position of weakness rather than one of strength. This required Nixon, more so than other presidents, to engage enemies with despicable domestic records. Mao Tse Dong was the worst of the lot. However, Nixon did this with an overall vision of m,aking our enemies (USSR and China) more afraid of each other than of us. It worked, giving us breathing room before the American Renaissance of Ronald Reagan.

Obama has insisted that we show disrespect to our friends and love to our enemies (who use the opportunity to slap us in the face when they get the chance.) It is the Nixon concept of engaging enemies, without the overall plan of how to use that engagement to secure security. What is most galling is that at the end of 2008 the United States was the most secure and strongest power in the world. Obama's excessive borrowing has placed us at the mercy of our adversaries. His policy of apologizing for every slight, real or imagined, has dissolved the international respect so carefully established by Bush and Rice.

So a point of clarification. I used Nixon to describe Clinton and Obama's policy because liberals believe that Nixon is worse than Hitler and Judas Iscariot rolled into one. However it does use some aspects of Nixon's process without the overall vision or savvy that will lead to an enhanced American security.

Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy Are "So Yesterday" According to Hillary Clinton

Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ."

Woodrow Wilson: "I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately . . . Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion. . . . To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

John F, Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

Hillary Clinton: "Ideology is so yesterday."

Great. The ideology of Marx, the principles of a vacuum, the foreign policy of Richard Nixon, and the speech patterns of a valley girl. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your secretary of state.

Congratulations.