The Hillary Game:  Who Said It?

To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.  Gibson and Stephanopoulos spent more than half of their time playing "gotcha" on subjects that only the idiot pundit class obsess over. But Gibson and Stephanopoulos weren't the only two participants playing the game, because Hillary Clinton was right down in the mud with them.  So let's spend a few minutes playing another kind of game based on some of last night's questions.  

On the question of Bittergate,  which was Clinton's answer and which was a response from John McCain?

I think anybody who disparages people who are hardworking honest dedicated people who have cherished the Second Amendment and the right to hunt and their culture that they value and they’ve grown up with sometimes in the case of generations and saying that’s because they are unhappy with their economic conditions. I think his remarks may be defining, because it shows a fundamental attitude about the heartland of America, that basically says that it's economic conditions that shape their values.

I think that is a fundamental sort of misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.  And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either, when they are frustrated with the government.  I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.

On Jeremiah Wright, which was Clinton's answer and which was from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by the chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax?

Obviously, one's choice of church and pastor is rooted in what one believes is what you're seeking in church and what kind of, you know, fellowship you find in church.  But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me.  And, therefore, I would have not been able to stay in the church...It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to...the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.  You know, these are problems.  And they raise questions in people's minds.  And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

Considering this view of America, it's not surprising that in December Mr. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement....Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out...Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views...This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.

And on William Ayers, which was Clinton's answer and which was the musings of Sean Hannity?

But Ayers' controversial past calls into question just how close they really are. Sen. Barack Obama served as a director for the non-profit Woods Fund of Chicago from 1999 to 2002 alongside William Ayers. In addition, both Ayers and Obama have served together at various public speaking engagements.  In an article that was published in "The New York Times" on September 11, 2001, the same day we were attacked on American soil by Al-Qaeda, Ayers is quoted as saying in "The Times," quote, "I don't regret sending bombs. I don't feel we did enough."  It seems William Ayers just wants his past to go away, but the admitted terrorist still refuses to apologize, and the fact that he's an associate with Barack Obama demands that he be scrutinized and questioned by the American people.

I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.  And, if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.  And what they did was set bombs.  And in some instances, people died.  So it is -- I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.

Don't worry about your score because the answers are all the same:  What's the difference?  

Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds

If I were striving to raise myself to the level of the astonishingly miserable questioning by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at tonight’s ABC debate, I suppose I should be pointing out that American Idol is down to six contestants. But I'm incorrigible.

Deborah Tate at Voice of America writes:

^{US Official Urges Congress to Pass War Funding Request}

The Bush administration is warning Congress of potential layoffs at the Department of Defense if they do not approve a $108 billion funding package for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of next month.  But lawmakers are demanding more accountability over the war funds and more attention be spent on domestic initiatives, signaling a tough battle ahead for the White House ...

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle told the Senate Appropriations Committee that there could be layoffs at the Defense Department if Congress does not approve funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by the Memorial Day holiday at the end of May.

Ben Pershing at the Washington Post  writes:

^{The Costs of War}

House and Senate Democratic leaders gathered today to tout new data from the Joint Economic Committee ... that breaks down spending on Iraq in a number of increments -- $434 million per day, $3 billion per week and $13.2 billion per month -- and then outlines how that money could instead be used to pay for X number of teachers, police officers, border patrol agents, and so on.

"The president has not been honest about the cost of the war from the very beginning," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as he and other Democrats suggested the Bush administration was "unwilling" or even "afraid" to send any officials to testify before the JEC on the costs of the war. ...

This Democratic message push is related to the party's separate argument about whether spending on Iraq has helped to cause America's current economic woes. While that point is about assigning blame for broader economic problems, today's event was about positioning for the upcoming fight on the Iraq supplemental bill. Democrats plan to exceed Bush's request for that measure and may tack on some domestic items, while Bush has said he would veto a bill that doesn't meet his conditions.

American military fatalities so far in Iraq: 4037

"Coalition" military fatalities so far in Iraq: 4346

Iraqi civilian and military fatalities since the invasion and occupation began 61 months ago: 200,000 to 1.4 million

Message confusion

AP:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat.

"Yes, yes, yes," she said when pressed about Obama's electability during a campaign debate six days before the Pennsylvania primary.

Yeah ... oops.

So if she admits Obama can win, why should the supers overturn the will of the primary electorate?

Subscribe with an RSS reader Older News Archive Add news to your web site