Hillary's Unintended Support for Supply-Side Economics

Steve Forbes wrote a priceless editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday lambasting Hillary Clinton for her misguided support of Brazil's tax policies.

Quoting Hillary as saying regarding the US,

"The rich are not paying their fair share,"

Forbes went on to cite her extolling Brazil's tax-to-GDP rate.

Unfortunately for Hill, as Forbes pointed out, that doesn't mean Brazil has high tax rates on the rich. Quite the contrary, it's a textbook example of Reaganomics. The highest Brazilian rate is,

"a mere 27.5%, far below our top federal rate of 35%, which, given the complexity of our tax code, is actually closer to 38%."

This would be funny, if it weren't so sad as a commentary on the economic illiteracy of our current leaders and administration.

I'd love to hear Hillary's rebuttal when someone pointed out Forbes' editorial and asked her about her closet endorsement of low tax rates.

Iran, Brazil, Turkey, Hillary & Nukes

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal had a scathing lead staff editorial regarding the recent coup by Iran involving nuclear material, Turkey and Brazil.

By far the best single line of the piece, and maybe any editorial in that space in months, was,

"In her first game of high-stakes diplomatic poker, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leaving the table wearing a barrel."

Thanks to Wonderboy leaving America toothless and completely unnecessary to be feared by any rogue nation, or (former) friendly nation, Iran has found confederates among once US-friendly nations.

Good job, guys. In less than four years, this administration has put a nuclear weapon within reach of Muslim radicals in Iran. Meanwhile, Clinton is baldfacedly assuring Congress that the recent START treaty with Russia is a good deal- really.

With Hillary's recent failure fresh in our minds, let's hope nobody on the Hill believes her in that testimony, either.

More Wrong-headed Blather From Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan's stream-of-consciousness editorials in the Wall Street Journal's weekend editions are growing increasingly more bizarre.

This past weekend, Noonan couldn't fill an entire column with any one topic- the lunar landing anniversary, Supreme Court nominee hearings, or even comedian Al Franken's stolen election.

But what really caught my attention was her focusing on Hillary Clinton's lameduck status as Secretary of State.

Sure, Noonan is correct. But others, including me, warned of Wonderboy's tactic of isolating and neutering Clinton by his 'offer' of the cabinet position. Noonan points out how many little czars have been created to pre-empt and limit Clinton's scope in key geographic areas, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Mideast.

I'll agree that Hillary looked totally stupid in a picture on the Journal's Monday morning front page, wearing a bright, floral lei while the accompanying headline declared that she was being dissed by India's Environmental Minister on climate-control issues.

But Noonan seems way off base, at least to me, when she finished her column with this contention,

"They will look like kids playing with history. Hillary isn't a kid. She's experienced and has been roughed up by history. Watch. She'll roll right back."

No, she won't. She's nowhere near as relevantly 'experienced' as Noonan believes. And by joining Wonderboy's cabinet, she removed herself from an ability to observe and opine on current Democratic administration domestic activities. She will now be lacking in credibility on these issues, and moreso, if/when she departs the cabinet prematurely.

If you don't like Sarah Palin's early resignation, what will you consider Hillary's? Different?

Further, Hillary lost because, among other things, she was outrun in the campaign. She gave it her best shot, and lost. She lost a huge early lead, chose the wrong moments to turn on the faux tears, and became emotional in a very bad way, too late.

Ironically, for all the hue and cry that Republicans don't have adequate leaders to field a slate for the next presidential season, I think it's the Democrats who are in trouble.

Wonderboy will either be a crippled, one-term failure, or have his heels nipped at by various second-rate contenders. But I think it's unlikely Hillary will be one of them.

She lost once. She joined the hated opposition's team. And she took a portfolio that effectively removed her from having any sort of domestic issues voice. I doubt she could rev up a funding and grassroots machine now.

I don't happen to have made a thorough study of the phenomenon, but I think second acts like Hillary's would have to be in presidential campaigns are rare. Especially with her relative lack of governmental experience, having only been a Senator, and from a broadly recognized carpetbagging state.

To my knowledge, even Nixon and Reagan had to skip an election, and were more experienced. No Democrat has lost, then won, in half a century.

I think Noonan is simply off her rocker on this one.

What Goes Around....Comes Around

Seems to me that last year, Hillary Clinton blasted then-President George W. Bush for asking the Arabs to moderate oil prices and pump sufficient quantities to alleviate our supply issues. No doubt Wonderboy did much the same to criticize Bush's administration.

How the worm turns!

Now, as Wonderboy's minion, tax-cheat Geithner is imploring the Chinese to keep buying Treasuries.

Sound familiar?

Now, this administration, after debauching the dollar in just three months, is out begging other countries to continue to support our unsustainable spending habits.

Guess it's different now, huh, Hill?

New York's Newest Carpet-Bagger: Caroline Kennedy

This is just unbelievable, isn't it?

It's not enough that her uncle was New York's first carpetbagger Senator. Or that the state is just getting rid of its next one.

Now, a person with nothing to recommend her but her last name is desiring not to run, but simply be appointed as the US Senator from New York for the seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.

With a biography devoid of any significant accomplishments, aside from those accorded her because of her maiden name, it's a sad commentary on the US political landscape, and the Democratic party, in particular, that Kennedy is even seriously being considered for this seat.

As a commentator on Fox News noted, it sends a signal to the rest of the world that US politics is a plutocracy, more than a meritocracy.

Of course, in a country where 'Bo' Biden is expected to inherit his hapless father's Delaware Senate seat, after having been given prior political offices along the way, it's hard to argue that the perception is true.

At least among Democrats.

I suppose the only silver lining in the Caroline Kennedy Senate seat quest is that it clearly demonstrates, once again, how hopelessly corrupt and bereft of new ideas the Democratic party is, that it must bow to the unaccomplished daughter of a dead President, rather than consider candidates for the seat on merit.

The End of Hillary's Political Career

I wrote recently concerning the President-elect's failure to 'change' anything with his cabinet selections.

As I write this, Fox News has been covering Hillary's likely assumption of the State position. They mused, and I had already discussed this with friends, that doing so will conveniently, for the Illinois rookie, take her out of politics for good.

First, giving up a totally safe Senate seat, which she bought, carpetbagger style, will leave her with no base. As Secretary of State, she'll be worse off than those perennially-defeated chairmen of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. Instead of ever addressing any domestic issues, she will have a virtual gag order on any topic within the confines of the 50 states.

Next, she'll have to take orders from the Illinois rookie. Besides being tough, temperamentally, it will make it harder for her, psychologically, to challenge him. It's even debatable if she can make it through the entire single term of the Senate freshman.

Third, this is good for the New Messiah. With Hillary shorn of a power base and media-oriented perch, handling difficult-to-understand foreign affairs issues, it will be tough for Hillary to run for the Democratic party's Presidential nomination in 2012, as the new President founders.

If she resigned early in the term of the about-to-fail Obama administration, she'll be viewed as stabbing him in the back and bailing. Damaging party unity. If she doesn't, she's strapped in on a one-way ride to political Palookaville. Waiting another four years, or more, will likely do for Hillary what it did for John McCain, and that's not a good thing.

Either way, Hillary taking the job at State pretty much ends her political career.

Maybe it is a good thing, after all!

What Does "Hard Working" Really Mean?

Has it really been three weeks or more since I last posted? My apologies. Work and other summer events have intervened.

But, I'm on the road now, and actually better able to focus on a backlog of post topics. Election topics, of course, will be prominent.

Today, I want to have a little rant on one of the rookie Senator from Illinois' favorite phrases, 'hard working families,' or 'hard working Americans,' etc. Hilary used to bang on this one a lot, too.

Actually, every Democratic Presidential candidate does- perennially and quadrennially.

So, just what is a 'hard working' American?

Am I one? I worked last night, and this morning before breakfast. I work for myself, with a partner. From my home office.

Are you a 'hard working' American?

See, whenever I hear the freshman Senator from Illinois use the term, my mind conjures up grungy, grimy-looking, non-college-educated poor people in small towns throughout America. And they must have at least two jobs.

Preferably divorced, with about three children, and no health care.

If you aren't a personal wreck, you just aren't 'hard working.'

Is the graduate-school educated hedge fund manager who makes 40% returns annually for institutional investors such as blue-collar union pension funds a 'hard working' American?

Or the CEO of a large-cap firm which employs tens of thousands of Americans? Is he 'hard working?' Or does his seven-figure compensation disqualify him, even though he's probably divorced from a wife who tired of his career focus. And his health is probably marginal, because his lifestyle actually sucks from constant stress and travel on behalf of his shareholders.

Why isn't 'hard working' associated with Americans who have sensible plans, personal lives with limits on boneheaded behavior, and a desire to become educated and make more money?

Why must they always be painted as having children they can't afford, uneducated and, thus, requiring two low-paying jobs to pay too little for the life they lead, and always seeming to have at least one relative with a serious health issue?

This kind of black crepe paper-hanging notion of Americans who are 'hard working' really burns me.

Hopefully, as I'll write about in an upcoming posts, this portrait resonates with sufficiently few Americans that it will cause the Black Adder to lose in November.

Obama's The Appeaser

Last week's delightful statements regarding appeasement seem to have smoked out the real, appeasing Obama.

It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'

The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.

Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.

As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,

'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'

It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?

By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.

McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.

Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.

Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.

It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.

Hillary's Misguided Oil Solutions On The O'Reilly Factor

In this recent post, I wondered what Hillary would do as President to address the current high price of oil. As I quoted the Wall Street Journal, quoting Hillary's husband, Slick Willie, he alleged, referring to the oil situation,

"That's why we need Hillary."

Now, thanks to Bill O'Reilly's interview with Hillary this week on Fox News, we know just what Hillary plans to do. And, believe it or not, I correctly anticipated three of them.

First, she will levy a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Nevermind that these firms are investor-owned. And, being large, are held widely by Americans of all stripes, via pension funds, mutual funds or just simple index funds like the S&P500.

So not only does Hillary plan to punish the average American who holds these equities in a 401K or retirement fund, but she will also disincent the companies to produce, because they will only have to hand over more money to the spendthrift Federal Government.

Next, Hillary plans to lecture, cajole and otherwise make a pest of herself with OPEC.

Nevermind that these countries have legitimate financial needs and plans of their own for their petroleum assets. Nor that they do not 'set' prices- that's done by the interaction of supply and demand for oil.

Hillary will just go over to the Gulf and make everyone see that they must do as she says.

Uh huh.

Then there's a lawyer's favorite weapon- lawsuits!

In order to curry even more favor with those countries which supply oil to us, Hillary plans to sue them for anti-trust violations, after having Congress pass legislation to make that legal. Then she plans to go to the WTO to pursue them there, as well.

Of course, this is the same Hillary who blames our current President for what she feels is an unacceptably low level of regard in which various foreign nations hold America.

So, that's it. Those are our wonk-who-would-be-President's proposed solutions for the current price of oil.

She's going to penalize American companies for finding, pumping and refining the black stuff. Then she's going to go overseas and punish the countries who supply us.

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

Does Hillary understand economics, or what?

What Will Hillary Do?

"The economy is in the tank," he told a crowd who waited for two hours in the heat and a rain shower.

"Yeah, in the gas tank!" yells one voter.

"You got that right," Mr. Clinton says, appearing delighted to riff with fellow Southerners.

"That's why we need Hillary."

So ended an article in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal discussing Sick Willie's now-heavier involvement in his wife's campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

So, I am moved to ask the obvious,

"And just what, Bubba, would/will Hillary do about gasoline prices and supply?"

Will she encourage legislation to control price and allocate supply? Our great yellow-stain of a President, Carter, failed with those 'solutions.'

Would Hillary nationalize our oil industry, the better to manage it? That's a laugh- the Federal Government managing anything that is critical better than private enterprise.

Perhaps Hillary plans to simply levy new taxes on US oil companies. Great. That will cause them to lessen their efforts to procure, refine and sell petroleum products, since each gallon of refined oil will net them less money.

Or maybe Hillary plans to retaliate against anyone she feels is involved in runup of energy prices by passing anti-trade legislation and engaging in other actions calculated to 'punish' whom she sees as guilty countries or other parties.

Fine. She rails against how George Bush has allegedly been responsible for other countries holding the US in low regard, but she'll count among her first acts meting out retribution for imagined slights and anti-American energy-related behaviors.

Unfortunately, Bubba Clinton and his wife don't really 'get' economics. As I just wrote in this post on this blog, the recent behavior of energy prices, particularly oil and gasoline, are a direct result of simple inabilities of business people to have perfect crystal balls when forecasting how newly-wealthy Asians would spend their money.

There are no villains. Nobody is directly and singly responsible for oil prices rising as they have.

If anything, liberal Congressmen have contributed to the mess by restricting the search for energy off America's shores by our own oil and gas companies. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg is running ads this very month touting his role in stopping energy exploration off of the state.

The truth is, Hillary should and can do nothing that will bring oil prices down, unless she plans to change parties and fight for lower taxes, a more hospitable climate for energy companies, and the chance to let higher oil prices signal the need for more onshore and offshore exploration and onshore refining.

About the only thing Government can do now is to try not to screw the situation up any worse than it is, and hope that private enterprises across the world will respond to the $100+/bbl oil prices by finding and bringing onstream, as soon as possible, new energy supplies.

In the meantime, Bubba, his wife, and all Americans would be better served by the couple keeping quiet about the energy situation.

Lanny Davis Fans the Flames

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried an explosive, devastating editorial by Lanny Davis, one time counsel to Bill Clinton, regarding Obama's minister problem.


Davis is an explicit Hillary acolyte and campaign supporter.


Rather than let the Obama minister issue go, and potentially allow the Democratic party to get it behind for the general elections, Davis is signaling that Hillary will go to the mat now and until the final bell for the nomination.


Here are the key passages from Davis' editorial,


"Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?


As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.

In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.

But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.

Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?

If he did not want to withdraw from the church – and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so – then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No – this is unacceptable."

Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?


Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."

This is great stuff, and especially coming from a liberal Democrat like Davis. If a Republican continued to make these points, he'd be accused of race-baiting and simply trying to prolong the coverage of a campaign non-issue for Obama.

But Davis makes the point that Democrats haven't really taken the time to consider just how weak this example of appalling bad judgment may make Obama in the general election.

And how implausible Obama's 'explanation' is, even to other Democrats.

Further, Davis carefully separates Obama's views on race, etc., from his ministers', so that he, Davis, can zero in on the real issue- Obama's bad judgment. And questionable choice of advisers, lieutenants and would-be appointments.

It is, in my opinion, a masterstroke.

Of course, Davis' editorial is, in some sense, a measure of how desperate Hillary's campaign is to derail Obama. To have an unofficial campaigner, a Clinton veteran at that, carry this water for Hillary would really seem to raise the stakes on this issue, and the Democratic nomination fight, in general.

When all is said and done, Hillary's 'take no prisoners' quest for the Oval Office is tearing her party apart, and she and Bill obviously could not care less.

For conservatives, this is free entertainment with a special kick.

Cashing In- The Clintons' Tax Returns

This past Friday's publication of the Clinton tax returns for 2000-06 pretty much completes the picture of the former First Couple as a pair of hypocrites. But of the two, I think it's fair and timely to paint Hillary as the worse of the two.

For someone who keeps referring on the campaign trail to 'poor working families,' 'hard working families,' and, alternatively, 'the rich,' she has a lot of gall.

She and Bill earned over $100MM in the time period covered by the published returns. Most of it- some $80MM- came from his speaking fees and books. Talk about 'unearned' income.

In Hillary's new world of the working poor and a gloomy America, what possible 'value' could she and Bill have created with all of his hot air and their joint scribblings? Neither of them ever did anything material in the private sector, and Bill made a mockery of the Presidency.

Coming from the Midwest, I have to wonder how many of the centrist, Reagan Democrats now on the fence regarding voting for John McCain, will lean harder in his direction as they learn that the woman who rails against Wall Street has a husband who was paid $15MM by venture capitalist Ron Burkle for 'investment advice.'

What advice? Buy the blue dress- it has investment potential?

And how about when those voters learn that Bill essentially monetized the Presidency in his afterlife to the tune of some $80MM. Would anyone have cared what Bill thought or said if he hadn't become President? Doubtful.

Then there are two other interesting tidbits. The woman who is running on a platform to soak the rich- paid $33MM in taxes for the period of the tax returns!

That's substantially more paid in taxes in six years than most voters will earn in a lifetime.

Then there's the typical Clinton self-dealing in the form of 'charity.' By 'charity,' the Clintons mean lining their own tax-free pockets by contributing to their own charitable foundation.

This foundation then becomes a sinkhole to which their 'friends' can also contribute, and/or the Clintons can use, as they did in South Carolina, to make donations which become quid pro quos for non-economic favors in the political arena.

Pretty nice deal, if you can get it, eh? Of course, you have to come up with the $10MM to fund the personal charitable foundation, first.

It doesn't get much better for a conservative than to watch a grasping, ambitious liberal like Hillary rail against the very thing she then demonstrates herself- and her husband- to be. That is, white-collar rich folks making money with their connections and wits, rather than stocking shelves, fixing cars or welding metal out on 'the line.'

You'd like to think that Hillary might write a big check to the US Treasury, in order to demonstrate her common cause with the poor on whose behalf she alleges to campaign. Fat chance.

If these tax returns don't make middle Americans think twice about the hypocritical witch from New York, I guess nothing will.

The Second "Super Tuesday" Results

It's been a while since I've commented on the Presidential campaigns. This morning, in the wake of last night's significant election results, seems a propitious time to revisit them.

If you are a conservative and/or notionally Republican-leaning, all is right with the world today.

McCain won convincingly, Hickabee has finally faced reality and conceded, and the Democrats will remain at each other's throats until Labor Day.

Hallelujah!

Truly, it can't get any better than this. Confusion to the liberals, while the conservative-to-moderates can coalesce and see the clear differences between the ever-more-left-moving Hillary and Obama and the centrist-conservative McCain.

If Obama had managed to win Texas and Ohio, or either one, he might have driven Hillary out and begun to swing into general election mode. As it is, both will push each other further left to try to cinch their party's nomination.

In the meantime, the fights over the Florida and Michigan delegations, plus the now-important, secretive 'superdelegates,' will put the Democratic Party on display before the American electorate as pandering, inwardly-divided and craven. Both candidates will be trying to out-grovel the other as they pander to the extreme left of their party.

Meanwhile, McCain can finally be recognized by the sitting President as his party's candidate. Party-level fundraising, with the assistance of President Bush, can begin. McCain has seven months to prepare for the final month of the general campaign.

Hard as it is to believe, the Democrats may actually be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, again, this year. You'd have thought, last summer, that it was a cinch that a Democrat would be sitting in the Oval Office at this time next year. Heck, most of Wall Street thought so, judging by their rush to back Hillary and Obama.

Not now.

Instead, many financial service firm leaders are watching in dismay as their pet liberal candidates now turn on American business, the better to garner extremely liberal votes.

As one Fox News Network guest pundit opined a month ago,

"If the Democrats can't win the White House this time, they should fold up their tent and close down their party."

Well said.

Hillary, Bill and The Puerto Rican "Terror Pardons"

The Wall Street Journal published a superb editorial on Tuesday of this week. Penned by Debra Burlingame, sister of "Chic" Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flt77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, it is entitled "The Clintons' Terror Pardons."

For any voter in this year's Presidential election, it's eye-opening, "must" reading.

Because of the length of the piece- nearly a full page in the WSJ- I won't attempt to quote extensively from it. Tempting though that is.

Instead, I'll just provide a very brief summary.

As Hillary began her run for a New York Senate seat, her husband, Bill, arranged unrequested pardons for several participants in the Puerto Rican terrorist bombings of several building in NYC on New Year's Eve, 1982.

Ms. Burlingame's editorial details how Slick Willie evaded various Constitutional checks and balanaces by doing a favor for his wife's election campaign. He wasn't guilty of directly benefiting from the pardons. His wife was. She even admitted to several enraged Puerto Rican politicians, who were angry that some special arrangements which embarrassed the FALN terrorists had to be made, because the terrorists did not intend to comply with the usual conditions of their pardons.

The bottom line is that Slick Willie pardoned 16 FALN terrorists in order to get his wife elected to her Senate seat. So badly was this handled that, according to Burlingame, even the NY Times disclosed it in a piece entitled "Bill's Little Gift." Hillary had to backpedal from supporting the pardons when the whole mess became public and drew the ire of the general populace, because both civilians and law enforcement officers had been killed and/or seriously injured in the attacks.

As Burlingame points out, as Bill was talking tough against the Middle East terrorists, he gave unrequested pardons to the FALN in order to secure the New York Hispanic vote for his wife.

How despicable is that? Sadly, how typical of the Billary? He commits a smarmy, sleazy act. She initially accepts it. Then, upon being confronted with it publicly, feigns horror and shock. But, in the end, it has its desired effect and Hillary accepts the gift.

Remember this as you watch the home stretch of the Democratic Presidential primary race. The Clintons will do whatever it takes to win, no matter what principles are shredded, who is maligned, or, probably, what damage it does to their own party.

Democrats Lawyer Up

No, I'm not referring to the looming court battles between Hillary and Obama over the Floridian delegates.

Instead, I'm noting that all three original front-running Democratic Presidential candidates were lawyers- Obama, Hillary and John Edwards.

In this respect, the Democrats are quite distinct from the Republicans in the nature of the vocations of their Presidential aspirants.


Romney was a consultant, governor and Olympic troubleshooter/manager.


Giuliani was a lawyer, but not for the plaintiff's bar. Rather, he was a Federal prosecutor, then NYC mayor, and now a consultant.



Fred Thompson, too, was originally a lawyer. And a Senator. But he was, and probably will again be, an actor.

Isn't it interesting that for a job that involves leading the country forward to solve both known and potential problems, the Democrats fielded sophists. That is, those whose calling is to argue either side of any issue.

This alone should tell you how prepared the Democrats are to apply relevant skills that will actually lead the country and solve problems. You can't give what you don't have, and Hillary and Obama only have legal training to guide them.

Come to think of it, Bill (Clinton) was a lawyer, too. And look at the mess he left George Bush (non-lawyer, business school graduate) to clean up.

Hillary's Mortgage Default Moratorium Becomes Moot AND Unwanted!

Friday's Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating editorial by Nicole Gelinas entitled "The Rise of the Mortgage 'Walkers.'"

Essentially, Ms. Gelinas reports that mortgages have an embedded "put," allowing borrowers to simply mail the keys back to the lender, and default. She writes,

"The apparent willingness of borrowers to 'walk away' from mortgage debt," the analysts noted, "has contributed to extraordinary high levels of early default" on loans issued during the 18 months before the mortgage bubble burst. It expects losses to reach 21% of initial loan balances for subprime mortgages issued in 2006 and 26% for those issued in early 2007.

Such behavior, where not precipitated by willful fraud, shows that American homebuyers supposedly duped by their lenders aren't so dumb. They're perfectly capable of acting rationally without political interference.

While mortgage fraud has abounded in recent years, voluntary foreclosures are not by themselves evidence of a newfound irresponsibility on Americans' part. To be sure, until recently, mass-scale voluntary foreclosures were unthinkable. But markets have changed, and people are changing their behavior in response."

Ms. Gelinas notes that, as banks allowed home purchases with as little as no, or 5% down, at the housing market's peak, it was not surprising that, at some point, price declines would trigger this behavior. Note that these borrowers want to have foreclosure proceedings begun.

She further observes,

"In most cases, once a homebuyer splits, the mortgage-securities investors are stuck with the loss. In some states, including California and Arizona, this provision is the letter of the law. In others, the bank forgives the balance of the loan -- a common practice that's unlikely to change now, given the criminal and civil investigations banks are already sweating through.

Essentially, mortgage-bond investors, seemingly unwittingly, sold homebuyers a put option, without properly pricing it, and now homeowners are exercising that option. Moreover, prime borrowers in many markets face the same incentives.

Borrowers acted rationally in response to market forces and incentives during the bubble: Buy a house because prices always go up; you can't lose. Many are acting rationally now: Mail the keys back and un-borrow the money, because prices are sinking fast while the debt isn't. When the house was purchased not as a first home but as a rental investment, the decision is even easier. Politicians keep saying that Americans need protection from their big, bad lenders -- but that protection is already there.

Of course, there's a price. Mortgage "walkers" will take a hit to their personal credit rating. Yet this once-forbidding punishment may be discounted. That's because, just as when markets change their behavior, people change, when people change their behavior, markets change also.

If hundreds of thousands of people with decent work histories are going to have less-than-stellar credit because of foreclosures this year and next, they won't suffer so much as in the past. Many walkers are going to want to buy houses again some day; and when they do, lenders are going to want to make money lending them money to do so (hopefully requiring a good down payment). Investors searching for yield likely won't bypass what could be a large pool of borrowers."

Note the belief that, when markets turn around and lenders want to lend for housing, they'll overlook or adjust their credit processes for these borrowers who behaved rationally.

Ms. Gelinas sums up the situation thusly,

"Nobody is going to debtors' prison. Nobody is going to have to toil for 30 years and sacrifice their kids' future to pay off burdensome loans that they're stuck with forever because they overreached. (Even if banks and mortgage administrators pursue judgments for post-foreclosure loan balances, there's always bankruptcy as a last resort.)

As for Sen. Hillary Clinton and her proposed "moratorium on foreclosures": She may soon find that borrowers, not just lenders, are screaming to let them act within their contractual rights."

Sorry, Hill'. Guess that moratorium could get you into more trouble than just keeping your mouth shut on this issue. The specter of families in jail due to mortgage foreclosures isn't even remotely true.

I guess this goes to show what happens when a political poobah gets into her/his head to begin preaching on "solutions" to issues about which they clearly know very little. Creating more problems when a new solution isn't even necessary.

And you say you want this woman to be our next President?

Equal Time: Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal just before Super Tuesday. The core of her article was, in my opinion, these passages in italics. Let's consider her contentions, one at a time.

"My measure of economic success will never be a single, dry statistic. Rather, success means an economy that allows those at the bottom to work their way into the middle class, without pushing anyone out. It means leaving people better off when I finish than when I start. In short, success means an economy that shares its prosperity with all.

Yes, a laudable goal. And one already attained, per this recent post . If the American economy wasn't offering great income mobility, both up and down, in response to effort and education, then we wouldn't have an immigration problem. We'd have an emigration problem.

In the 1990s we saw how smart economic plans could help spur the economy to create 22 million new jobs and income growth across the board. For the past seven years we've seen the opposite. Corporate earnings have been impressive, but the average income of workers has declined. The typical household is paying $2,000 more in energy costs. Health care is nearly twice as expensive, with the number of uninsured rising to 47 million. Five million Americans have fallen into poverty.

Is Hillary's contention that, somehow, health care and energy costs are the responsibility of government, and they magically would have been lower under her husband's regime, had it continued for eight more years?

Here, Romney's criticism of Hillary's lack of value-creating, private sector employment is on target. She clearly misunderstands the nature of our economy. Energy prices rose because of market forces. Our government really doesn't control or, for the most part, affect these forces. When it has tried, it has usually failed to have its intended effect, e.g., gasoline rationing.

It's the same with health care. If anything, health care costs, particularly insurance, have risen because of government regulations and failure to control lawsuit costs. If insurance were not mandated to be available to all at the same price, and were, instead, risk-priced, many of us would see our health care costs fall.

Lastly, an average wage number, if it were correct, which I doubt, would still not capture the mobility factor. How many lower-paid citizens were better off eight years later? Hillary doesn't go there.

Because of the Bush administration's neglect, the forces of globalization and technological change -- which should represent opportunities for economic growth -- have weakened America's great middle class.

This is simply incomprehensible? Exactly which 'forces of globalization and technological change...have weakened America's great middle class?' Aren't responses to these forces, in our economy, the province of private sector companies, not the federal government?

This post discusses a specific rebuttal to Hillary's allegation that our middle class has been weakened.

Once more, Hillary the facsist comes to the fore as social planner extraordinaire.

Simply put, since 2001, our economy has failed the shared prosperity test, and we need decisive, experienced leadership to get us back on the right track."

No, it hasn't. Economic mobility is alive and well. And if anyone is not experienced in leading anything, Hillary is one of them.

By the way, in her Super Tuesday speech last night, midway through the election returns, Hillary again stumped for adding 'green collar' jobs to America, as well as well-paying auto making jobs.

Where'd this come from? Is Hillary now VP of Human Resources for America? How does Hillary know which jobs we need? What is a 'green collar' job? How would Hillary know that employers want to hire people for these jobs?

Or is she just going to tax you and me, in order to offer generous subsidies for modern-day equivalents of FDR's make-work programs?

If this is leadership and progress, Hillary, you have miles to go before you're ready to run anything.

What The People Want

I happened to see some clips last night from the recent Democratic debate in which Hillary and Obama savaged each other.

It was great television. The two sparred like alley cats. Obama tossed out barbs about not knowing which Clinton he's running against. As well as reminding everyone that Hillary was, for the most part, just a lawyer in Arkansas who happened to be on the Wal-Mart board.

Hillary, for her part, shown a spotlight on Obama's many 'present' votes in the Illinois Senate, as well as his involvement with a Chicago slumlord now under indictment.

What was really entertaining, though, was watching two Democrats, a self-styled female 'strategist' whose name I can't recall, and NPR/Fox News pundit Juan Williams, go at it on Bill O'Reilly's program about the clips and catfight.

The woman called it mudslinging, and said that Obama won, because he got Hillary down in the mud, where only Bill, her husband, is supposed to be.

Juan Williams claimed that Obama lost, because he got dirty, when his overall message is supposed to be about positive, sparkly-white change.

Williams inadvertently tipped his loyalties when he used a word like 'unfortunately' or 'regrettably,' to describe Obama's mistake. O'Reilly pounced on this immediately, but Williams was backtracking at warp speed. Not credibly, mind you, but he tried to gracefully extricate himself from the very partisan gaffe.

That said, the woman decried this 'mudslinging,' saying that voters don't want this.

Actually, I think we do. We love it. It's the very bone and sinew of American politics, and, Goddammit, it's our right to see it on display every four years.

In fact, it's gotten better during this election cycle. With these overly-ambitious egotists out running for President a full year earlier than last time, voters get a thorough look at them for much longer than we've been able to in the past.

With the internet, blogs, and YouTube, no gaffe goes away. No errant, honest admission dies silently. It's available on YouTube forever.

I think we all want to know about Hillary's taking Wal-Mart money then, and now trying to crucify corporate America.

Or that Obama smoked pot as a kid, and maybe sold it. Defended slumlords in the Chicago ghettos, and essentially skipped taking positions on an awfully lot of Illinois Senate votes.

The politicos- candidates, their handlers, the party operatives- all want voters to think they want to know only about 'the issues.'

But we know it's about character as much as, if not more than, issues. What did these candidates do for the past decade or two? How did they make their living? Who do they owe? Who have they taken into their confidences, their lives, and their campaigns?

How do they behave under stress? The stress of a heated exchange with a rival candidate?

That's what is most interesting. Watching Hillary and Obama fence directly with each other in that debate earlier this week. Trading blows in front of a catcalling crowd, while Edwards watched from an ever-more distant perspective.

I think this is what American voters want to see. Counterpunching up close between candidates, where we know they will unveil what they believe their opponents' worst secrets and greatest weaknesses are.

How better to know these things, than to let an opponent expose them for us? For free? We want total information. We don't want any more Jack Kennedy secret administrations, in which the press failed to print what it new about his affairs, mob contacts and health issues. Or the hidden secret of FDR's near-total immobility.

The political class don't want this, because it's easier to control campaigns that only focus on 'the issues.'

But, being America, in an era of unbridled, unmatched communications and access to information, that hope is long gone now. I'm not even sure Bill Clinton could have backed, filled and covered up sufficiently in this modern era to win the Presidency, if it were him running in 2008, instead of his wife.

Long live the mudslinging and investigative efforts of the rival candidates. It's the only chance we voters have to learn the total truth about him, or her, to whom we would entrust our most powerful office for the next four years.

Hillary, Obama, the Race Card & the November Election

It occurred to me this weekend that a very interesting and not yet discussed situation could easily develop by the November elections.

Suppose that Hillary, through sheer firepower, organizational depth and grit, outlasts Obama Bim Baden to become the Democratic standard-bearer in the general Presidential election this coming November.

Whether by alleging Obama played the race card, or playing 'too' rough, Hillary may trump her very junior opponent to win the Democratic nomination.

If she does, could the black voters of Democratic persuasion hand whichever Republican faces Hillary in November by simply staying home?

What if many of the blacks now moving to support the first 'real' black Democratic Presidential candidate become angry at the Clintons for playing 'hardball' a little too hard? Or just become disenchanted that the Clintons don't think one President in a married couple is sufficient, and have to ace out the black candidate running against Hillary?

Could it be that an unforeseen consequence of Hillary beating her black opponent won't be to unite black voters behind her, but, rather, see them move either to the middle, uninvolved, or even, in extreme cases, actually vote for her Republican opponent?

It would be a rich price to pay, indeed, for Hillary's and Bill's relentless, no-holds-barred style of campaigning.

To my knowledge, nobody's considered this effect. Sure, pundits constantly opine on whether the presumed ultra-right Christian vote will turn out for Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. But what about the other side? What about blacks who feel similarly disenfranchised and ignored?

Couldn't that group easily account for the margin of victory for a Republican in a close-fought Presidential election?

What If? Bill Clinton's Impeachment Conviction

Last week I was discussing the current Presidential campaign with a friend. Remarking on Hillary's trust problems among the electorate, I mused about something I had never really explicitly considered before.

Both Al Gore, Bill Clinton's VP, and Clinton's wife, Hillary, have had uphill struggles when trying to leverage their connection with the two-term President into their own stint in the Oval Office.

Let me be clear. While I don't like BIll Clinton, and disagreed with most of his policies, and his perspectives on what was and is good for America, I respect his rare accomplishment of winning two terms as President of the United States. That's more than many accord our current President, George W. Bush, also a man of uncommonly high achievement.

How is it that Clinton's own VP failed to win the White House? And prospects for his wife are similarly clouded as I write this piece.

How would the fortunes of Gore and Hillary, and US and world history have changed, had:

Hillary divorced Bill over Monica's blue dress and his own obstruction of justice and the trail of victimized, openly confessed women with whom Bill had sex over the years as governor and President; and

Gore resigned as VP upon viewing the wealth of evidence that Bill Clinton obstructed justice, using the vast machinery of the Executive branch, to impeded his impeachment and threat of criminal trial?

It's my contention that those two events, especially if they occurred within about six months of each other, would have damaged Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid conviction in his Senate impeachment trial.
If Gore had resigned, perhaps the Republicans, in concert with the Democrats, could have arranged for a Nelson Rockefeller-type VP to be confirmed, who would agree not to run again in 1996. Then both parties' Senators could have safely convicted Bill and ousted him.

I believe that Gore's defeat in 2000 was at least in part due to his defense of an obviously deceitful sitting President. Much in the manner in which voters held Ford's pardon of Nixon against him, and elected Carter in 1976, it's reasonable to assume that a fair number of voters in America's heartland never forgave Gore for defending Clinton.

Had Gore resigned as Clinton's VP for ethical reasons, he could have probably won the 1996 election with ease, had he faced Dole. A convicted Clinton would be out of the running.

Had Clinton still evaded conviction for obstruction of justice, Gore might have given Democrats a better hope of winning the White House than a damaged President abandoned by both his VP and his wife.

The 1996 election would probably have been too early for the current President Bush to have entered, especially with his father having only vacated the White House four years earlier. And it's not certain that Bush could have defeated a sitting President Gore in 2000, unless the bursting of the stock market's tech bubble contributed to a Gore defeat.

Turning to Hillary, her divorce from Bill would have garnered the emotional sympathy of women everywhere, as well as potentially smoothed some of the rougher edges off of her public persona.

Next to the sympathy she'd generate, though, such a move would have helped her answer the constant suspicion that she is purely calculating, including her seemingly unemotional, unloving marriage to her husband.

A Hillary thus softened and playing victim could have more easily followed Gore to the White House.

Would any of this have happened? Who knows. But I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that Gore could have at least followed Bill Clinton, should the latter have managed to evade conviction in his impeachment, and hung onto the Oval Office for another four years.

To me, the moral of this hypothetical scenario would be that both Gore and Hillary might have achieved their ultimate objective, the Presidency, had they 'done the right thing,' rather than sticking by a President so obviously involved with obstructing justice in the case of the probe into his lies regarding his affair and sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky.

By supporting a President who became a laughingstock for attempting to redefine the word "is," I believe both Hillary and Al Gore damaged their own plans to become President as well.

The voting public would almost certainly have trusted both associates of Bill Clinton more had they done the ethical thing and voted with their feet when evidence clearly pointed to his sexual activity with his intern, while he continued to deny it and attempted to obstruct the inquiry about his misuse of power to protect himself.

They are interesting questions to ponder.

By doing the "right thing," both Gore and Hillary may each well have been able to capture the prize that eluded the former, and may still prove unreachable for the latter.