Hillary’s Case for Hillary?

I forced myself to watch the Democrat Convention last night just to see what Hillary would have to say, and because I believe if I don’t listen to what they're saying, I can’t dispute the rhetoric.

I was a little confused at first. I thought the convention was to rally support for Obama, but Hillary’s part in the convention began with a video presentation narrated by her daughter which outlined her rise to power. Is she the nominee or is Obama?

Then the woman of the hour, the woman who was supposed to raise us all to higher levels by becoming the first woman President, the woman of all women came out on stage to rousing applause, accolades and thousands of “Hillary” signs. If I didn’t know better I would have thought she was the nominee.

She started out by trying to do her job as the attack dog against Bush and McCain with statements like, “I haven't spent the past 35 years in the trenches, advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women's rights here at home and around the world to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise of a country that really fulfills the hopes of our people. And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership.”

She…or her speech writers…even came up with a catching little slogan that will probably be on bumper stickers, signs and the lips of Democrats all over the country, “No way, no how, no McCain.”

She continued her attack by saying, “We have a lot of work ahead of us: jobs lost;…"

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that over 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998. 59%, or 1.78 million, of these jobs were lost due to the explosion in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit.

In addition, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that between 1993 and 2000, our lopsided trade policies, reflected in the explosive increase in the U.S. trade deficit, cost Americans a net 3 million jobs and job opportunities. The growth in the NAFTA trade deficit alone is associated with nearly 900,000 lost jobs and job opportunities through 2002. Hmmmm...who signed the NAFTA trade agreement? One clue...it wasn't President Bush. Wasn't Clinton the President between 1993 and 2000?

"houses gone;…"

The housing collapse is a result of people purchasing homes they couldn’t afford, borrowing too much money to pay for those homes and signing loan agreements with ridiculous flexible interest rates. The banks and lending agencies irresponsibly gave loans to people who should have never been given loans in the first place. Now Congress, with the blessing of President Bush, is forcing those of us who bought homes we could afford to bail these people out of their self imposed misery.

"falling wages; rising prices;…"

Food prices are rising all over the world...not just in the U.S. This rise is being attributed to increased bio-fel production...that's right...one of the alternative fuel sources the Democrats are trying to force us to use. With global concerns over rising oil prices, energy security and climate change, many countries have increased their bio-fuel production as an alternative energy source. Bio-fuel production uses raw materials that are usually used as a food source for humans and live stock, especially in the poorer countries. The rise is also being attributed to higher energy and fertilizer prices, a weak dollar and export bans. This problem far exceeds the power of any U.S. President.

"the Supreme Court in a right-wing headlock;…"

Huh? If I'm not mistaken, there are nine Supreme Court Justices. Of the nine, there are four liberals and four conservatives. The ninth justice is a fence sitter who votes with the liberals on more issues than the conservatives. What's she worried about?

"and our government in partisan gridlock;…"

Our government being in partisan gridlock is nothing new. Whenever we have had one party controlling the White House and one party controlling Congress, we have partisan gridlock. If I’m not mistaken the Republicans control the White House, while the Democrats control both houses of Congress. And, if I’m not mistaken, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made it perfectly clear that they cherish partisan gridlock. They've even gone so far as to say that they won't do anything until Obama is President. Seems like they're putting the cart before the horse. Our government may not be doing anything for a very long time.

"the biggest deficit in our nation's history;…"

Yes, currently the national deficit is somewhere between $389 billion and $400 billion. Last year, the budget deficit was only $162 billion.

News Daily states, "But with the U.S. economy struggling, largely due to a housing slowdown and credit crunch that is rippling through the economy, Congress and Bush agreed on an economic stimulus program in February. That is costing the government $152 billion this year, largely due to tax rebates aimed at stimulating consumer spending.

That unexpected spending, along with revenues that were running below last year's and added funding for the Iraq war, have contributed to the larger deficit this year."

Did you catch that? The highest deficit in our nation's history is due to Congress and Bush...not just Bush. Isn't Hillary and Obama part of the Democrat controlled Congress? Until the "stimulus package", the nation's deficit was just about what it was when Bush took office almost eight years ago...and that's with the high cost of waging a war.

"money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis;…"

This is not exactly true. Yes, the government is borrowing money to fund the war in Iraq. But they are doing it by selling U.S. Treasury Bonds, which are essentially IOUs that guarantee payment with interest. Many U.S. citizens buy these U.S. Treasury Bonds, as do many foreign countries, because they are a safe and stable investment.

The number one holder of U.S. Treasury Bonds, after U.S. citizens, is Japan, not China. China is number two, the United Kingdom is number three and a group of oil-producing countries (which includes Saudi Arabia) is number four.

There is no direct relationship between the holder of bonds and any particular expense of the U.S. government, so Clinton only mentions China as a way to alarm voters. Let's not be fooled.

"Putin and Georgia;…"

Huh? Now we're responsible for Putin, the ex-KJB thug, who has gotten bored with just being little Russia and wants to rebuild the "Old Mother Russia" to her glory days of old? Putin's aggressions toward the smaller Democratic country of Georgia is his way of testing the resolve of the rest of the world. We all know what that resolve is...to do nothing....so come on Hillary. BACK OFF!!!

"Iran and Iraq.”

Don't forget, Hillary Clinton was among many Democrat senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2002, Illinois State Senator Obama gave a speech on the Illinois Senate Floor in which he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He said, "He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

He then stated that he opposed going to war in Iraq because it is, "...the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, and to distract us from corporate scandals."

Today, Obama says that he opposed the Iraq war because, "I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

Which is it Obama?

Hillary continued her speech, by making a case for why she should be President. Wait...isn't Barack Obama the candidate? I don't think Hillary has gotten over her spanking yet.

“I ran for president to renew the promise of America, to rebuild the middle class and sustain the American dream, to provide opportunity to those who are willing to work hard for it and have that work rewarded, so they could save for college, a home, and retirement, afford gas and groceries, and have a little left over each month."

Then why does she and her Liberal colleagues insist on punishing the wealthy. Isn't that part of the American dream?

"To promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green-collar jobs, to create a health care system that is universal, high-quality, and affordable, so that every single parent knows their children will be taken care of."

Hasn't she paid attention to what is happening in Canada and Europe with regard to nationalized health care? It...is...failing. In order to save money, governments that control health care are rationing drugs and the care their citizens need. Americans are healthier and live longer than their European counterparts. So why do we want to sacrifice that?

If the U.S. succeeds in nationalizing health care, only the poorest citizens...the ones Hillary and the Liberals want to help the most...will be hurt. Those who can afford it will still find the medical care they need because they will be able to pay for it.

"We want to create a world-class education system and make college affordable again, to fight for an America that is defined by deep and meaningful equality, from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization, to providing help for the most important job there is, caring for our families, and to help every child live up to his or her God-given potential, to make America once again a nation of immigrants and of laws, to restore fiscal sanity to Washington, and make our government an institution of the public good, not of private plunder."

Now this one is laughable. The education system has been declining for a couple of decades now. Clinton couldn't fix it and Bush couldn't fix. What makes her think she could fix it?

How would she make college affordable? Lay-off professors and cut courses?

Have I missed something? Have we gone back to the 1920's? We already have civil rights, labor rights, women's right, and gay rights. We've been fighting discrimination. Unless she's referring to the discrimination against the white, straight male. He seems to be the only one without any rights.

She wants to promote more unionization? Please say it isn't so. Unions are breaking the back of this country.

America already is a nation of immigrants. But is rapidly becoming a nation of illegal immigrants. If she wants to make America a land of laws then she and her Liberal counterparts on both sides of the aisle need to fix the illegal immigration problem and stop pandering to the illegals.

A Democrat claiming that she wants to restore fiscal sanity to Washington is a joke. How can you restore fiscal sanity while promoting larger government spending on more social programs?

“To restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home with honor, care for our veterans, and give them the services they have earned.”

Who really cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? The only way we will ever be liked by the rest of the world is to become as miserable as they are. Hmmm....nationalized health care, a diminished military and a decreased national defense should do the trick. We won't have the health care we need. We won't be able to protect ourselves, let alone anyone else and we'll be susceptible to terrorists attacks on our city streets like everyone else.

“We will work for an America again that will join with our allies in confronting our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.”

In other words, she'd sell our souls to the U.N.

“Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president…”

Finally, she remembered she wasn't really the candidate.

“…Now, this will not be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat back into the White House.

We need to elect Barack Obama, because we need a president who understands that America can't compete in the global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas.

We need a president who understands we can't solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in the new technologies that will build a green economy.

We need a president who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class.

Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down.

And he knows that government must be about 'we the people,' not 'we the favored few.'

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he'll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our times."

How? So far neither she nor Obama has told us how he is going to do all this. As Obama said, "words...just words."

She ends the minor part of her speech dedicated to Obama by saying, "Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats.”

Oh…really? I don’t recall living in a utopian society when William Jefferson Clinton was in office.

Yes, l will agree that the economy was very good during Clinton’s years. Investments were high and the stock market was booming…due in part to the .com businesses that eventually peaked and went under. But corporations like Enron found sanctuary during his administration and when the Bush administration caught them and prosecuted them, their employees lost everything.

Yes, the unemployment rate decreased each year he was in office from 6.0% in 1993…his first full year in office to 4.0% in 2000…his last full year in office. However, as the Economic Policy Institute states, over 3 million jobs and job opportunities disappeared between 1993 and 2000…due in part to an explosive increase in the U.S. trade deficit and NAFTA.

Clinton did nothing to insure that the American people became energy independent. He only insured that we would stay energy dependent on foreign oil. He refused to allow drilling in the ANWR province of Alaska and didn't invest in any alternative energy exploration.

Clinton did nothing to show the world we were strong on national defense or that we wouldn't be bullied by terrorists. Every time one of our American interests was attacked he did nothing. When he was offered Bin Laden, not once but twice, he refused to take him into custody for fear it might tarnish his reputation around the world. His inaction only served to emboldened the terrorists. With his inaction and the slashing of funding for our intelligence agencies, he in essence paved the way for the 911 attacks.

Finally, Clinton claims that he not only balanced the budget, but he had a surplus. Wrong! On September 30, 1994, which was the end of Clinton's first budget proposal, the national debt was $4.7 trillion and the deficit was $281.26 billion. He almost had a balanced budget on September 29, 2000 with a national debt of $5.67 trillion and a deficit of only $17.91 billion, but that's a far cry from zero, and it's definitely not even close to a surplus. On September 28, 2001, which was the end of his final budget proposal (which ended during Bush's first year in office), the national debt was $5.8 trillion and the deficit was $133.29 billion. So the growing deficit started in the year of Clinton's last budget, not the first year of Bush's administration. So, Clinton did not leave a budget surplus and Bush did not convert recorded surpluses into record deficits as many leading Democrats would have us believe.

If, as Hillary Clinton believes, this is the kind of President Obama is going to be, then we better fight against him even harder. We better do all we can to make sure we don't have four years of that kind of leadership. Our lives and our children's lives depend upon it.